[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 130 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5882-H5891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 411, FINDING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
 HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH SECTION 2 OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REVIEW 
  ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3461, APPROVAL OF 
JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 H.R. 3460, SUSPENSION OF AUTHORITY TO WAIVE, SUSPEND, REDUCE, PROVIDE 
 RELIEF FROM, OR OTHERWISE LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS PURSUANT 
         TO AN AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF IRAN

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 412

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to 
     consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 411) finding 
     that the President has not complied with section 2 of the 
     Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except two hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
     and the Minority Leader or their respective designees.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3461) to 
     approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at 
     Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of 
     Iran. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair of the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs and the Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3460) to 
     suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the 
     President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or 
     otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an 
     agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) two hours of debate, with 30 minutes controlled 
     by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his 
     designee, 30 minutes controlled by the chair of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means or his designee, and one hour controlled by 
     the Minority Leader or her designee; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman and my friend from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Texas delegation, I want to say to the 
Speaker pro tempore, ``Happy birthday.'' We were celebrating your 
birthday at the Texas lunch. We are sorry you were unable to attend.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this rule would empower the U.S. House of 
Representatives with the opportunity to block this administration's 
devastating nuclear deal with the country of Iran. It is my belief that 
this deal needs to be ripped up word by word, line by line, and it is 
this body that needs to help do that. The process is going on today and 
tomorrow, and it needs to continue until we kill this deal.
  This rule includes three legislative items and is designed to give 
the U.S. House of Representatives multiple opportunities to block this 
disastrous Iran deal.
  I want to make one thing perfectly clear from the beginning: There is 
nothing unprecedented about this rule. What is unprecedented is that 
the administration, an administration of the United States, has 
negotiated a deal that pardons a state that supports terrorism and 
turns it into a legitimate nuclear state in a matter of time.
  There is nothing to hide in this rule; whereas, a significant part of 
this so-called deal with Iran is still hidden, not just by side 
agreements, but in facts of the case that it was up to the United 
States Congress to openly understand, to debate, and then to make 
decisions on.
  First, H. Res. 411 would find that the President has not complied 
with the requirements of section 2 of the Nuclear Agreement Review Act 
of 2015, which passed Congress and became law of the United States of 
America in May of 2015. This resolution simply says that the President 
should follow the law--the law he signed only 4 months ago--and give 
Congress access to all parts of the deal as they pertain to this 
nuclear opportunity and deal that is being cut, including the IAEA and 
Iran.
  Second, H.R. 3460 would stop the administration from lifting 
sanctions placed currently on Iran.
  Third, H.R. 3461 would allow for a vote to approve the deal that the 
administration made with Iran regarding its nuclear program. While 
previous legislation would have allowed Congress to disapprove this 
deal, this legislation would not allow the deal to go

[[Page H5883]]

forward without congressional approval.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what does the administration deal do? Well, first, 
the deal guarantees permanent sanctions relief, but only temporarily 
blocks Iran from building a nuclear bomb. In other words, this deal 
would inject--I assume really as a signing bonus--$150 billion into the 
Iranian economy with almost completely no rules or regulations related 
to the use of the money, and it would allow Iran to build and possess a 
nuclear bomb in just a matter of a few, short, 15 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not encourage the leading funder of terrorism 
in the world to have immediate access to billions of dollars now and 
billions of dollars later. Let there be no doubt, this money will go to 
Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, groups that are 
dedicated to wiping out not only the United States but our friends and 
allies around the world, including their number one target, Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, when I visited the Middle East in May of this year, we 
met with our partners all around the region, and they were furious that 
this administration was negotiating with Iran. Presidents from both 
parties have spent decades in the United States persuading countries 
around the region not to build a nuclear bomb, yet now this 
administration wants to allow Iran to have access to that, that which 
we have been protecting and holding away from even our closest of 
friends. We will give that to this country that calls us the ``evil 
empire.''
  Under this administration, for 6 years, America has led from behind. 
We have led from behind when it should have been chosen to lead from 
the front. Now this administration has decided to engage with a nation 
that jails Americans and where ``death to America'' and ``death to 
Israel'' is chanted every single day all over the streets of Iran and 
by its chosen leaders. Even worse, when the administration chose to 
engage with Iran, it chose to negotiate from a position of weakness. 
This negotiation ended with a deal that gives Iran literally everything 
it wants and, as I see it, delivers nothing for the American people.
  So what does this deal exactly do? Instead of allowing international 
inspectors into sites within 24 hours, the administration agreed to 
give Iran 24 days' notice. The plan also ends restrictions on the 
Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, program in just over 
8 years, which means, within a decade, Iran can go back to developing 
warheads that could reach the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, they cheat on every single deal they make. Why would you 
negotiate with someone you don't trust? Why would you give someone you 
don't trust and who had a track record, give them everything they 
wanted?
  Well, even worse, reports have indicated that there is also a side 
deal, a side deal between Iran and the IAEA, that allows Iranians to 
inspect their own nuclear sites. Mr. Speaker, this will be like a 
person in college or any school being allowed to grade their own test. 
That is not the right way you handle international affairs. When the 
Republicans say you negotiate with weakness, this is exactly what we 
are talking about.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is not clear what the American people would get 
from this deal. What is clear is that this deal will empower a stronger 
Iran to be the strongest country in that region, to be competitive 
against the United States, and to have everything they want to pursue 
nuclear weapons in their future.
  So what is at stake here? Congress is being asked to join in this 
deal. They are being asked to endorse a plan that would eventually 
legitimatize the Iranian nuclear state and fund its terrorism 
activities and to support our President in doing this.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. We are going to debate 
it. We are going to pass this legislation, and we are going to put this 
House on record of where we would be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the vote on the Iran nuclear agreement has been touted 
by the majority as the most consequential of our careers, maybe even 
our lifetimes. We have had months of consideration, hearings, 
questions, open debate following rules and customs of the House, more 
or less, surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, 
an agreement carefully negotiated by the United States, the United 
Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany to curb Iran's nuclear 
activities.
  As you listen this morning, you would think this was a negotiation 
between Barack Obama and the Ayatollah. Apparently, that is all that 
they want to think. The other countries played major roles here, and 
they are the most important economies in the world. This agreement is 
the best available option for peacefully and verifiably cutting off 
Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon.
  On Tuesday evening, the Committee on Rules had a hearing on the third 
floor of the Capitol that lasted over 3 hours, and there was testimony 
from chairs and the ranking members of the relevant committees. We had 
a robust discussion and a healthy back-and-forth. We prepared for the 
rule debate.
  We had our statements written, but 12 hours later, the dissident wing 
of the majority's party emerged from a neighborhood bar, the Tortilla 
Coast, with a different path in mind. They rendered all our work moot, 
and the House was forced into a holding pattern all day yesterday while 
Republican dissidents brought their party to its knees.
  Once again, instead of regular order, in a perversion of our 
legislative process, we are thrown into chaos by a majority chasing its 
tail in a last-minute ploy, throwing together three bills that might as 
well have been scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin.
  These bills trivialize our institution. They have been whipped up in 
an afternoon to mollify the disgruntled wing of the majority's party 
that shows no interest in governing. Their only goal with this trio of 
bills--which are contradictory, let me add, and I will say more about 
that later--is to feed the monster seething within their own ranks.
  There has been no committee action on these bills. There has been no 
debate. There has been no time even to consider them.
  Now, why didn't we do them in our regularly scheduled Tuesday night 
meeting? It is because we didn't even know they existed. Instead of 
addressing an issue of international global importance, we are occupied 
with the Republican Conference's internal politics, and it is an 
embarrassment to this country.
  This dog-and-pony show has turned Congress into a stage to play out 
the internal drama that diminishes our constitutional role. If the 
majority cannot devise a process for a measure on which they agree, on 
which they have their vote unanimously, if they can't devise a process 
for a measure like that, I shudder to think what is coming with act 
two, which we are hurtling toward, because we are days away from a 
government shutdown.
  We have no budget; our troops would not get paid; flights would be 
canceled, and what is more, the last time we had a Republican-inflicted 
shutdown, $24 billion was lost to our economy at a time when we were 
struggling even more than now to regain it.
  Even so, here we are, forced to join in yet another pointless 
exercise, and the Senate has said they will not take up these bills, 
and so this nuclear agreement will be implemented, which leaves the 
Republican Party with the majority in both houses, which they control, 
with no consensus.
  What is more, keeping Iran from building a nuclear weapon is a once-
in-a-lifetime opportunity to silence the drumbeats of war. There is no 
opportunity to renegotiate this. With all you have heard this morning 
about ``this won't do'' and ``we can't have it'' and ``it is awful,'' 
have you heard a single alternative? There is not one. The possibility 
of peace in a powder keg region of the world should be considered 
carefully.
  Mr. Speaker, in May of 1946, shortly after World War II ended, when 
the horrors of global violence were fresh in our collective memory, 
Albert Einstein asserted that: ``The unleashed power of the atom has 
changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus, we drift 
toward unparalleled catastrophe.''

[[Page H5884]]

  Very rarely do we have an opportunity to stop that so-called drift 
toward catastrophe, but we do with this measure, and all of our allies 
have agreed to it. Only we are trying to hold it up.
  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action provides for unparalleled 
access to Iran's nuclear facilities. The agreement blocks all four 
possible pathways to a bomb. Contrary to falsehoods reported by the 
media, Iran will not be self-monitoring.
  The inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have 
unprecedented and continuous daily monitoring authority, and it is so 
easy, they tell me, to detect the radioactive material if they were to 
break this agreement.
  Only certain sanctions will be lifted. Many will be kept in place, 
for example, what they do with terrorist organizations and supplying 
arms to other people. We are continuing those sanctions. If Iran fails 
to comply, all the nations involved in the negotiation have said they 
will be reinstituted by using a snapback provision which is in the 
bill.
  Let me repeat that. We have heard from ambassadors of almost all 
those nations yesterday saying that their countries would absolutely 
comply with reintroducing the sanctions.
  Now, let me remind people that should the Iranians attempt to conceal 
their work, even a nanogram--a billionth of a gram--of dust of nuclear 
work is detected.
  Retired American military leaders, former Secretaries of State from 
both parties, the Israeli security professionals, and even faith 
leaders have come out in full support of this accord. The former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State 
under President George W. Bush, retired four-star General Colin Powell, 
called this agreement ``remarkable.''
  The former head of Israel's intelligence and special operations 
agency, the Mossad, Efraim Halevy, supports the agreement as well. He 
said recently to PBS' Judy Woodruff: ``I believe this agreement closes 
the roads and blocks the road to Iranian nuclear military capabilities 
for at least a decade.'' That is not a trivial thing.
  Domestic faith leaders have implored this Congress to follow the Old 
Testament creed to ``seek peace and pursue it.''
  The agreement was painstakingly negotiated by Secretary of State John 
Kerry, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Secretary of Energy 
Ernest Moniz representing the United States. When hailing this 
agreement, Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to both 
Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said of this team: ``There 
is no more credible expert on nuclear weapons than Energy Secretary 
Moniz . . . when he asserts that the JCPOA blocks each of Iran's 
pathways to a fissile material . . . responsible people listen.''
  It is now clear, based on the declared supporters in the Senate, that 
the effort to kill this agreement will end in the upper Chamber, and 
the accord will survive and be implemented.

  Regardless of that certainty, the House majority has nonetheless 
thrown us into disarray. We will vote today on two bills, another one 
tomorrow. It was decided that, first, there will be a bill to say that 
the President cannot lift the sanctions and a bill on side agreements 
that they think are out there that nobody else knows about, and then 
the most interesting one is the bill tomorrow will be to approve it.
  You have already had all this discussion on ``we won't have it, we 
can't have it, the bill will not survive.'' They are going to approve 
it; but just in case, because the Senate won't take up an approval 
message, they kept another rule last night.
  First, they did away with it, then they put it back so that, next 
week, we can come up with a disapproval rule; but by next Thursday, it 
is all over, the 60 days are up, and the President may go ahead with 
the agreement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and support this 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Harding Township, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule before 
us and in strong opposition to the Iranian nuclear agreement.
  While there may be many reasons to stand against this deal, it comes 
down to a fundamental reality. The Iranian nuclear agreement fails to 
achieve its critical objective, blocking all of Iran's pathways to a 
nuclear weapon. In fact, this deal provides Iran with an international 
endorsement of an industrial scale nuclear weapons program.
  My colleagues, we must not forget where it started, with the 
President declaring Iran must never be allowed to achieve a nuclear 
weapons capability, but to get from that point to where we are today, 
our negotiators have made some inexcusable and dangerous concessions on 
inspections and verification and on Iran's missile defense program and 
their access to conventional weapons.
  Worse than that, Iran will economically be strengthened by early 
relief from sanctions, providing the Ayatollah with fresh resources 
with which to fund the Quds Force and its global terrorism network.
  Supporters of this agreement have proclaimed loudly that the only 
alternative to this agreement is war. I reject that notion and predict 
this deal will lead to more Iranian aggression in the Middle East.
  For our own part, the agreement talks about the normalization of 
economic relations with Iran and states that the parties shall 
implement the agreement in good faith based on mutual respect; but how 
can there be respect for a regime that actively promotes regional 
instability, publicly and constantly advocates for the destruction of 
the State of Israel, and uses the phrase ``death to America'' as a 
mission statement?
  Mr. Speaker, our first responsibility as Members of Congress is to 
provide for our national defense. This deal is bad for our national 
defense. I sincerely regret that this vote has been characterized as a 
partisan measure. It is not.
  It is a vote of conscience far and above politics, and that is why I 
will vote ``no'' on the motion to approve this disastrous agreement and 
``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rule before us and in 
opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.
  While there are many reasons to stand against this deal, it comes 
down to a fundamental reality: the Iranian nuclear deal fails to 
achieve its critical objective: blocking all of Iran's pathways to a 
nuclear weapon. In fact, this deal provides Iran with international 
endorsement of an industrial-scale nuclear weapons program.
  My Colleagues, we must not forget where we started: with the 
President declaring that Iran must never be allowed to achieve a 
nuclear weapons capability. But to get from that point to where we are 
today, our negotiators had to make numerous and serious concessions:
  They dropped snap ``anywhere, anytime inspections'';
  We will not receive credible information about the potential military 
dimensions of Iran's previous nuclear research efforts;
  Existing restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program will cease;
  International sanctions targeting Iran's support for global terrorism 
and human rights violations have been eased.
  Each and every one of these important elements was discarded as the 
Obama Administration worked to achieve its landmark deal with Iran.
  The reality is that this agreement will provide a legal path to a 
nuclear weapons capability to a country that remains a rogue state and 
has violated a whole series of international obligations and U.N. 
Security Council resolutions. Simply put, the Iranians have cheated 
before. We would be fools to assume they will not cheat again.
  While the President insists ``this deal is not built on trust,'' key 
verification provisions are buried in confidential side agreements that 
allow Iran to conduct its own inspections of nuclear weapons research 
facilities. This brings me to the conclusion that we would be better 
off with no deal, rather than this deal.
  Worse than that, Iran will be economically strengthened by early 
relief from sanctions--providing the Ayatollah with fresh resources 
with which to fund the Quds Forces and its global terrorism network. If 
Iran violates the agreement, building international support for new 
sanctions would take too long to be effective. And furthermore, our 
allies appear to be more interested in their own trade and commercial 
interests than in halting Iran's nuclear aspirations.

[[Page H5885]]

  Supporters of this agreement have proclaimed loudly that the only 
alternative to this agreement is war. I reject that notion and predict 
that this deal will lead to even more Iranian aggression in the Middle 
East.
  For our part, the agreement talks about normalization of economic 
relations with Iran and states that the parties shall implement the 
agreement ``in good faith . . . based on mutual respect.''
  But how can there be respect for a regime that actively instigates 
regional instability, publicly and constantly advocates for the 
destruction of the State of Israel, and uses the phrase ``Death to 
America'' as a mission statement?
  Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of each Member of this House is 
to provide for our national defense--and that includes confronting the 
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism everywhere. If we fail to 
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon this year, next year or in 
the next decade, we will have allowed the weakening of that defense. 
And we will have failed our children and future generations.
  I sincerely regret that this vote has been characterized as a 
partisan measure. It is not. It is a vote of conscience far above and 
beyond politics. And that's why I will vote ``yes'' on the resolution 
of disapproval.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want 
to thank my colleagues. Mr. Frelinghuysen, I agree with many of the 
points that you made. This is a vote of conscience for all of us.
  The question is not whether we trust Iran. We don't. The question is 
not whether we want Iran to have any pathway to a nuclear weapon. 
Proponents of this agreement--I am one--and opponents of this 
agreement--there are many, my friend, Mr. Stewart--don't want Iran to 
have a nuclear weapon. This question about trust, we have got to step 
back a minute.
  One of the fundamental challenges that a strong and confident country 
faces is to secure its national security. That requires the Commander 
in Chief, whose fundamental responsibility is to exercise his judgment 
about what will work to increase our security, to enter into 
negotiations with adversaries; and there may be no greater adversary to 
the United States, to our allies, particularly Israel, than Iran.
  Keep in mind, President Kennedy negotiated with the Soviet Union 
after one of their leaders said they will bury this country, and he did 
that, and it turned out that he was right to limit nuclear 
proliferation. President Nixon went to China when it was Red China, an 
absolute adversary of this country and our way of life, and it has 
worked to the benefit of the national security of this country, and 
President Reagan did the same.
  The fundamental question here is not at all about whether we trust 
Iran. We don't trust Iran. It is not about whether you negotiate with 
people you trust. You have to negotiate with people that are your 
adversaries.
  The question is whether the terms and conditions of this agreement 
that the President is recommending, along with our very close allies--
Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia and China--will improve our 
national security and that of our allies, particularly Israel. My 
judgment is it will.
  Number one, there is no pathway for Iran to have a nuclear weapon 
under this agreement.
  Number two, this is not based on trust. It is based on distrust and 
strong verification provisions that will give us a heads-up if there is 
any effort of Iran not to comply.
  Third, we have the opportunity to snap back the sanctions all of us 
supported that brought Iran to the table. We don't have to get a 
majority vote; we can do that unilaterally.

                              {time}  1300

  Then, finally, we do have to ask the question of not whether this is 
the perfect agreement--undoubtedly, there could be a better agreement 
that might give more satisfaction and security and peace of mind to all 
of us--it is a question of this agreement or no agreement. That is the 
question that we face.
  The weight of the opinion and judgment is that, if we repudiate this 
agreement, the sanction regime that we constructed on the leadership of 
President George Bush and President Barack Obama would dissolve. What 
happens then? Iran gets the money and they have no restraint on their 
ability to get the bomb.
  I urge us to support this agreement in the national security interest 
of the United States of America, Israel, and our allies.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today not 
to speak for Republicans, but to speak for America.
  When 80 percent of the American people say ``no'' to this deal, how 
can America's House, how can we who have been elected by the American 
people, come here and say, ``You are wrong, and we are right''?
  A vote for this deal is a vote against the American people. History 
tells us that in 1938, Chamberlain came home from meeting with Hitler 
and said, ``Peace in our time.'' Judas went to the Last Supper, pointed 
to the Lord, and they gave him 30 pieces of silver. We are not even 
getting 30 pieces of silver.
  President Obama says this is the best deal we could get. In my 
lifetime, anytime anybody comes back from a negotiation and says, 
``This is the best we could do,'' it means they lost. They did not get 
what they wanted. They got the best they could. In this case, it is the 
losing hand.
  This deal endangers the safety, security, and stability of not only 
America, but the entire world. This deal comes with absolutely no 
accountability, no verification, and no enforceability.
  I ask you, how can you sit in America's House, when the President's 
number one responsibility is to protect the American people, and say, 
``This is the best we could get.'' This gives the American people 
nothing. This gives Iran everything.
  Now, in just 24 hours, we are going to commemorate the 14th 
anniversary of a terrorist attack on the United States, and we are 
going to grant the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world $150 
billion to show how much we have turned a deaf ear to the cries of the 
dead and a blind eye to the destruction of America that day.
  To sit here and even begin to think that somehow this is good for 
America is false. To try and sell this to the American people is a lie. 
We are sacrificing the safety of 330 million Americans for the legacy 
of one man. That is not what America wants. That is not who America is. 
That is not who America should ever allow itself to be.
  And to sit here and listen to somehow we have not done our job; 
ladies and gentlemen, our main job is to protect the American people. 
It always was. It always is. This has morphed into something greater 
than that; I understand that. But at the base of the day, it is to 
protect the American people.
  And let me tell you, as tomorrow we have dawn and the sun comes up, 
all you have to do is turn your ears to the east and our enemies will 
be shouting, ``death to the Great Satan,'' ``death to America,'' 
``death to Israel.'' And the Supreme Leader, himself, says that, within 
25 years, there will be no Israel.
  The hypocrisy to stand before this House today, America's House, and 
sell the American people down the river because of one man's legacy is 
a travesty of who we are. And it is more than that. It flies in the 
face of the 1.4 million Americans in uniform who have given their life 
to give us this opportunity to defend this great Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Almost every observer, even the host of candidates 
seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, recognize that 
President Bush's invasion of Iraq was a foreign policy disaster for 
which so many military families are continuing to pay a high price. And 
American taxpayers will ultimately pay over a trillion dollars for that 
failure, spurred on by some of the speeches like the one we just heard.
  So we look next door to Baghdad, at Tehran, and we see a despicable 
government there, just as there was one in Baghdad. We have ample 
intelligence evidence that that despicable government was pursuing a 
nuclear weapon program that is unacceptable to us. And we try to learn: 
Is there a way for America to use its other power, its diplomatic 
power, to stop that? Because

[[Page H5886]]

we know our use of military power did not accomplish positive foreign 
policy objectives by itself in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.
  We found an approach that, in fact, had strong bipartisan support--
imposing strong economic sanctions on the Iranians. It didn't work so 
well originally, the first time that I and almost everyone else in this 
House voted for it, because America couldn't go-it-alone any more than 
it could be successful in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.
  But when we brought the rest of the world along, including some 
people that have been our adversaries, like Russia and China, to join 
in this sanctions regime, it finally forced Iran to the table to begin 
to deal with the critical elements of this nuclear weapon program.
  Step by step, through very hard negotiations, by bringing the rest of 
the world along to force those economic sanctions on Iran--all of which 
I supported--they began to move forward on trying to resolve this issue 
through diplomacy, through acting that way, rather than bombing first 
and asking questions later, as some of these folks have advocated. At 
every step in that process, as we approached an interim agreement, we 
had an ``object first, read later'' approach from those who are pushing 
this rule.
  The interim agreement was announced. They rejected it that night 
before they had even read it. It proved that their objections were 
totally unfounded: We gained more in terms of intelligence; we came to 
understand better the Iranian program; and we put a stop to it in that 
interim agreement. Our families are safer today because that agreement 
was adopted.
  And we come along to about March of this year, and the same folks 
that are advocating this rule were out here telling us there was one 
thing this Congress had to do: It had to have the power to disapprove 
this agreement if it did not feel the final agreement met the 
objectives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. That is how we began this week with the resolution of 
disapproval. But yesterday, they brought their self-styled foreign 
policy experts to Washington--Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Donald Trump--
and they said a resolution of disapproval is not enough.
  So today, Republicans have abandoned the only tool they had to stop 
this agreement--a resolution of disapproval; that is not even in this 
resolution--and they are off on a three-pronged approach to satisfy the 
most extreme views that prefer to use war as the first instrument 
instead of the last instrument.
  We have a choice in this Congress, and it is the choice of using the 
strong power of America, with verification, to prevent this program 
rather than calling on more military families to sacrifice for an 
unnecessary endeavor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything in our power to try 
and stop this bad deal; you are darn right we will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Farmington, Utah 
(Mr. Stewart), a member of the Intelligence Committee, the 
Appropriations Committee, and a member of the United States Air Force 
for years and years, a veteran of this great Nation.
  Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that gracious introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement is deeply, deeply flawed; and when you 
talk to our friends across the aisle, in moments of honesty, they will 
admit that it is deeply flawed.
  This is the most important national security question of our 
generation. We have got to get this right, and we simply haven't done 
that yet.
  If I could elaborate on my background that leads me to this 
conclusion, as the chairman said, I sit on the House Intelligence 
Committee. For 14 years, I was an Air Force pilot. I flew aircraft that 
carried nuclear weapons. I worked for the implementation of various 
nuclear treaties. I understand that for any treaty to work, there has 
to be a modicum of trust. There has to be a kernel of trust between the 
two parties.
  Let me ask you this: Do you think we can trust the Iranians?
  I asked Secretary Kerry on two occasions to give me a single example 
of where the Iranians have worked with us or our allies in any positive 
fashion, and he could not do that. But I can give you a long list of 
where they have worked against us, where they have created death and 
chaos: Hezbollah, Hamas, assassinations in Central America. Hundreds of 
Americans have been killed and maimed because of the Iranian-backed 
Shia militia. This is what they do. And we are supposed to trust them?
  And by the way, I believe they are going to cheat, because they are 
cheating even now. In the last few months, they tried to buy prohibited 
equipment from Germany. They refuse to answer questions from the IAEA 
even now.
  Which brings me to my second question: Do you think we can trust this 
President?
  I would ask you to give me a single example of what you consider a 
foreign policy success of this administration--give me a single 
example--and then let me give you a long list of foreign policy 
failures, beginning with China claiming much of the South China Sea; 
with Russia, after the reset, going into Crimea, controlling much of 
eastern Ukraine now, even now building military posts in Syria.
  We went into Libya and created chaos and walked away. We snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. We are doing the same thing in 
Yemen, the same thing in Afghanistan. Why should we trust this 
President?
  I believe that most people think this agreement is doomed to fail; 
and I believe that when it does, we now have to turn towards the 
question of: What do we do when we have an entirely nuclearized Middle 
East? When we have four or five countries in the next few years that 
have nuclear weapons there, how are we going to deal with that, coming 
from a President who declared it was his goal to see the elimination of 
all nuclear weapons across the globe? It is a terrible irony that he is 
going to preside over the greatest and most dramatic expansion of 
nuclear capabilities in the most chaotic part of the world, that he 
will preside over that, and that will be his foreign policy legacy.
  We need to defeat this agreement while we still can.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this extremely 
convoluted rule as well as the underlying legislation.
  When I was a child in the 1980s, I remember my mother taking me to 
Mothers Embracing Nuclear Disarmament rallies. I recall wondering why 
America possesses enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world at 
least seven times over. As an adult, I have never succeeded in finding 
a satisfactory answer to why we want to be able to blow up the world 
seven times.
  Now, we are all here because the potential for nuclear war is one of 
the greatest threats to the future of humanity and perhaps to the 
future of life on the planet itself. That is why this agreement to make 
sure that Iran, a country that supports terrorism, does not acquire 
nuclear weapons is so important.
  Let's be clear about what this deal is and what it isn't.
  It is not a peace deal. It is not a deal that calls on us to trust 
Iran or like Iran. In fact, the very reason we want to make sure that 
Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons is we see how much damage they 
caused through their mischief-making through support of Hezbollah and 
others on the conventional front. If that were compounded by nuclear 
capabilities, it would significantly increase the chance of global 
destruction.
  This agreement is based on verification and enforceability. It is 
built on extensive electronic monitoring and unprecedented access for 
international investigators at known or suspected Iranian nuclear 
sites.
  Of course, there are things in this deal that I would change or you 
would change. No deal is perfect. But perfection can't be our standard 
or we would never be able to support anything around here. Our job is 
to consider if this deal is better than the alternatives.

[[Page H5887]]

  


                              {time}  1315

  If Congress rejects this agreement and it leads to a nuclear Iran, 
what then?
  It was multilateral sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating 
table, not American sanctions alone; and it is clear that Russia and 
China will likely grant Iran sanctions relief, regardless of what the 
U.S. decides to do. We also worry about the dedication of our European 
allies in this regard.
  With sanctions disappearing and Iran's money being unfrozen, the deal 
is moving forward. Shouldn't we want this agreement to proceed with the 
oversight of the United States of America, to make sure that Iran 
abides by the very letter of this agreement not to develop nuclear 
weapons?
  Instead of standing in its way, we, in Congress, should play a 
leading role in the implementation and rigid enforcement of this deal 
to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  This agreement is an unprecedented opportunity to stop Iran's nuclear 
weapons program cold and make the world a safer place. Of all our 
options, it is the one most likely to succeed in preventing Iran from 
obtaining nuclear weapons.
  I urge my colleagues not to stand in the way of this important deal, 
to make sure that Iran, a country that supports terrorism, has a 
terrible record of human rights violations at home, and even just 2 
days ago said that the State of Israel wouldn't last 25 years.
  It is important that we ensure that they don't have access to the 
nuclear weapons that will allow them to carry through with their 
terrorist goals.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Windsor, Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, President Obama negotiated with a band of 
villains. The President believed Iran would change their ways because 
of his kind and forgiving nature, but we have seen Iranian hypocrisy 
far too long to believe they can change. It is time to face reality and 
prevent them, at all costs, from acquiring nuclear capability.
  Iran's leaders promised to wipe Israel off the map. They deny the 
Holocaust and refer to our country as the Great Satan. The Ayatollah 
even takes to Twitter to call for Israel's annihilation.
  Iran's actions are as dishonorable as their rhetoric. The 
administration has negotiated with Iran on nuclear nonproliferation as 
if they were an honorable country with honorable intentions, but it is 
certainly not honorable when our Department of State lists Iran as a 
state sponsor of terrorism, and no honorable country would occupy that 
unworthy distinction for the past 30 years, nor would an honorable 
country supply terrorists around the world with weapons to kill 
Americans and Israeli. In fact, Iran supplied IEDs that killed and 
maimed American soldiers and marines in the Iraq war.
  On the day we remember the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we 
are going to vote on whether or not to allow billions of dollars of 
funding to the world's largest state sponsor of terror. This deal is, 
at best, delusional and, at worst, despicable.
  Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and their intention for the 
United States is death.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote in favor of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the agreement reached by 
Secretary Kerry and the international community because I believe there 
is no better alternative for preventing Iran from immediately 
developing a nuclear weapon.
  Since the first sanctions were imposed on Iran a decade ago, I have 
supported tough economic measures as a means to bring Iran to the 
negotiating table. In that respect, the sanctions worked, but sanctions 
alone will not stop Iran from moving toward nuclear weapons.
  After strenuous review of the July 14 agreement and all its annexes, 
I have reached the conclusion that the agreement is the best option 
available today for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. Under 
the agreement, Iran is bound ``under no circumstances ever to seek, 
develop or acquire nuclear weapons.''
  Among other things, Iran must reduce its active centrifuges by two-
thirds, give up 97 percent of its uranium stockpile, and reconfigure 
the Arak reactor so it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.
  The number of inspectors in Iran will triple. They will gain full 
access to nuclear facilities, including the entire uranium supply 
chain, at any time. This is indeed the most intrusive inspection regime 
of any nonproliferation agreement in U.S. history.
  That is important because it will give the United States and the 
international community far greater insight into the regime's behavior 
and enable us to monitor them closely.
  It is true that Iran may try to cheat, but that is exactly why we 
need this agreement. With severe restrictions and an aggressive 
inspections regime in place, we will be much more likely to discover 
any violations.
  In that event, the United States will be authorized to reimpose 
sanctions on Iran immediately, and that applies not just to the U.S. 
sanctions, but to U.N. sanctions as well.
  In summary, this agreement comprises harsh restrictions on Iran's 
nuclear activities, a strong monitoring system, and tough penalties for 
violation.
  A group of 29 leading American scientists, including Nobel laureates, 
has called it ``a technically sound, stringent, and innovative deal 
that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decades and 
more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.''
  If we walk away from this agreement, the only remaining alternative 
is military action. We have been down that path for 15 years, and we 
have seen the grave consequences of not allowing diplomatic efforts to 
move forward.
  Ronald Reagan said of the Soviet Union: ``Trust, but verify.''
  This agreement is not rooted in trust but in our ability to verify 
compliance and to deal with enforcement. I believe it meets the goals 
of our negotiations to deny a dangerous Iranian regime access to a 
nuclear weapon.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Sugar Land, Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the worst parts of President Obama's agreement 
with Iran is that it opens the door to nuclear bombs blowing up right 
here in America.
  This man is a terrorist from Iran. His name is Manssor Arbabsiar. He 
comes from a family of hate.
  In 2011, he approached the notorious Los Zetas drug cartel with a 
scheme to kill the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia right here in this 
city. He offered them $1.5 million for that hit. Luckily, we caught 
him.
  President Obama's agreement gives Iran at least $100 billion to hire 
Los Zetas and others to unleash nuclear material and death on innocent 
Americans. We caught them once. Will we catch them again?
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule today and tomorrow. Vote to 
reject President Obama's agreement with Iran.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank our ranking member for yielding me time and 
also for your leadership on this vital global peace and national 
security issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 412, the rule 
providing for consideration of three bills surrounding the nuclear 
agreement negotiated by this administration and the P5+1.
  Make no mistake, these bills are nothing more than yet another 
attempt to purposefully and deliberately thwart the Iran deal.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us have the same goal, to prevent Iran from 
developing a nuclear weapon. Now, as one who has been involved in many 
nuclear nonproliferation efforts since the 1970s, I am convinced that 
this deal brings us much closer to a nuclear-weapons-free Iran.
  I believe that the President negotiated with our P5+1 partners--while 
not perfect, this deal achieves that goal. The Joint Comprehensive Plan 
of Action cuts off all pathways to a bomb and ensures robust oversight 
and inspection. It is the best way to promote

[[Page H5888]]

regional security and global peace, and the majority of Americans 
agreed.
  According to a recent University of Maryland poll, 55 percent said 
that Congress should get behind this agreement. That is why we need to 
be clear on the ramifications of rejecting the deal.
  If the United States walks away, we will be walking away alone. As 
United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power stated in her recent Politico 
op-ed: ``If we walk away, there is no diplomatic door number two. No do 
over. No rewrite of the deal on the table.''
  Rejecting the Iran deal will isolate the United States from our 
international partners and will not make us any safer, and it certainly 
won't result in a better deal with Iran.
  Instead, it would allow Iran to accelerate their weapons programs 
with no oversight, and it will significantly undermine our ability to 
engage with our partners on critical issues like addressing 
international terrorism.
  Simply put, rejecting this deal would isolate the United States and 
would put us back on the path to war.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. The Scriptures do say let us study war no more, so that is 
why it is critical for us to support the President and our diplomats 
and give this deal a chance to succeed.
  This is a defining moment for our country and for the world. Let us 
continue to work for peace because the military option, that is always 
there. Let us work for a world worthy of our children and future 
generations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Fairhope, Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Chairman Sessions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in strong 
opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama has created a false choice by claiming 
the only alternative to this deal is war.
  First of all, this deal itself can most definitely lead to war. By 
giving one of our biggest enemies access to nuclear weapons, 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, and billions of dollars in 
sanctions relief, we are effectively giving Iran the tools they need to 
live out their dream of bringing ``death to America.''
  The other flaw in the President's logic is that there are actually 
other alternatives than war. What about a better deal that includes 
anytime, anywhere inspections? What about increasing the sanctions 
which were clearly working to begin with? What about requiring the 
release of Americans held as political prisoners in Iran? These are 
clear alternatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House, so I think it is critically 
important that we actually listen to the people. Last month, I held 
over 15 townhall meetings all across my district. At each and every 
stop, someone asked me what Congress is going to do to stop the Iran 
nuclear deal.
  Just look at the public opinion polls. Only 21 percent of those 
surveyed in a recent poll said they approve of this agreement. That is 
less than one in four Americans who believe this is a good deal.
  I implore my colleagues to put the opinion of the American people 
over loyalty to some political party. I ask my colleagues to listen to 
our Nation's military leaders, who have made clear the serious 
consequences of giving Iran access to ICBMs, instead of party bosses.
  I plead with my colleagues to look past the short-term legacy of our 
President and, instead, look at the long-term ramifications this deal 
will have on the safety and security of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater responsibility of this House than to 
do everything we can to keep the American people safe.
  With that in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to stand strong and 
oppose this deal.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Iran 
nuclear agreement and in strong opposition to this convoluted rule and 
process.
  Today, the House should have already completed several hours of 
debate on the Iran deal. Instead, we have before us a convoluted 
process with three measures that won't go anywhere in the Senate and 
will never reach the President's desk.
  The fact is that the President has the votes to move this historic 
agreement forward. We should be having a serious debate and moving 
toward a vote in a timely fashion.

                              {time}  1330

  Instead, House Republicans have cooked up a series of votes to 
needlessly drag this process out and appeal to their extremist base.
  We all know how serious the Iran nuclear agreement is for the 
security of the Middle East, the United States, and the world.
  After reading and listening to many diverse views, I believe it is 
the strongest available option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear 
weapon and prevent yet another war.
  These negotiations were never meant to solve all of the problems that 
we have with Iran. Their purpose was clear from the beginning: to shut 
down the pathways available to Iran to develop and produce a nuclear 
bomb, period.
  Quite simply, is it better to have an Iran capable of producing a 
nuclear weapon by early next year or is it better to shut down that 
capability for the next 10 to 15 years and even longer?
  And let me be clear. The agreement is set up to ensure that Iran 
remains a nuclear weapon-free state with mechanisms for inspections and 
verifications that remain permanently in place.
  Now I know that some hoped that a ``better deal'' might somehow be 
renegotiated if we just keep increasing sanctions and threaten--or even 
use--military force against Iran.
  But we already know that 10 years of sanctions and military threats 
only gave us a significant increase in Iran's nuclear capacity and that 
the number of centrifuges needed to produce weapons-grade enriched 
uranium also increased.
  Only when serious negotiations began 2 years ago did we see Iran's 
program stopped and then rolled back. The final agreement degrades even 
further Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, blocks all pathways 
for Iran to acquire the materials needed to develop a bomb, and imposes 
the most comprehensive inspections regime of any nuclear arms control 
agreement to date.
  In return, Iran will receive sanctions relief that is phased in over 
the next decade, dependent on Iran's compliance.
  Do I trust Iran? Certainly not. Iran doesn't trust us either. But, 
again, that is the whole point of negotiations: for nations that don't 
trust one another to sit down and to hammer out a deal that all parties 
can live with and abide by.
  Nelson Mandela is credited with saying, ``The best weapon is to sit 
down and talk.'' This means compromise, for all parties to get 
something out of the final agreement.
  For Iran, that is sanctions relief. For the world, that means an Iran 
without a nuclear weapon. It is not based on trust. It is based on 
tough inspections and verification.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an accord between just the U.S. and Iran. 
Six of the world's major powers--Russia, China, France, Germany, the 
U.K., and the U.S.--hammered out this deal with Iran.
  If the U.S. walks away now, we will never be able to put the pieces 
back together or get these nations to take a risk with us again. 
Without this agreement, Iran could simply return to developing a 
nuclear weapon.
  After 2 years of arduous negotiations, why would the U.S. insult the 
very nations whose cooperation and commitment we need to ensure Iran's 
compliance?
  Why would we undermine our international standing as a good-faith 
negotiating partner not just on this agreement, but on every other 
negotiation we are engaged in now and in the future?
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the IAEA inquiry into Iran's past 
nuclear

[[Page H5889]]

activities is a side deal. It is its own separate bilateral agreement. 
It neither affects nor delays the P5+1 agreement's rigorous inspections 
and verification process or Iran's obligation to significantly degrade 
and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure before getting any sanctions 
relief.
  But, quite frankly, the U.S. long ago reached its own conclusions 
about Iran's nuclear activities. We believe that, if left unchecked, 
Iran would soon acquire enough weapons-grade plutonium and highly 
enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.
  It is why we approved U.S. nuclear-related sanctions and supported 
similar international sanctions, and it is why the White House began 
serious multilateral negotiations with Iran to cut off every pathway 
Iran might have to make a nuclear weapon. And we were successful. We 
were successful.
  Mr. Speaker, my support for the comprehensive agreement is not 
something I give reluctantly or grudgingly. I am proud to support this 
deal and to cast my vote in support of the resolution of approval.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
opposing this rule, in supporting the resolution approving this 
historic agreement, and in rejecting both the Roskam and the Pompeo 
bills that seek to delay its implementation.
  This is a good deal. It deserves our support.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who serves on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Nonproliferation, and Trade.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was home during the August break, I talked to a 
lot of folks. Many of them were fearful. They were fearful about 
national security. And it focused on the on deal, the Iranian deal that 
we are here for today.
  The Iranian deal, Mr. Speaker, is bad for America. It is bad for 
Israel. It is bad for the Middle East. But, oh, what a deal for Iran.
  If we approve this deal, there will be singing and dancing in the 
streets in Iran, especially with the High Ayatollah leading the 
dancing. Why? Because it is wonderful for Iran.
  The deal certifies a nuclear Iran, eventually. We can argue over 
when, but they are going to get nuclear weapons. How lovely is that. Is 
the world going to be safer because of that? No.
  We need to see the world for what it is. Iran is a wolf in wolf's 
clothing. They make absolutely no secret about they want us dead.
  They want Israel dead first. They were preaching this while we are 
working on this peace, peace, peace at any price deal, talking about 
how they want to destroy us.
  So why don't we just look at the law right now. We have heard a 
little bit about a side deal. Secretary Kerry was before our Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  I asked him about a side deal that came up about the IAEA deal with 
Iran. He said he hadn't read it, he has been briefed on it.
  Congress needs to read the side deals before we ever vote to approve 
this deal. We have to read the fine print, like all of us are supposed 
to do when we sign a contract.
  Now let's read what the law says. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. The President is obligated by law--the 
law he signed--to provide Congress ``the agreement itself and any 
additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, 
codicils, side agreements, implementing materials documents, and 
guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related 
agreements.''
  That is in the law. I haven't seen the side deal. I haven't seen 
anybody in Congress that has seen the side deal.
  The law the President signed says we are to see all these side deals, 
agreements, before we even vote on whether or not to approve this deal; 
otherwise, the clock doesn't start ticking for the 60-day approval 
requirement.
  So show us the side deal. Let us read it. I think Congress maybe has 
had enough embarrassment over the years voting on laws where we haven't 
seen all of the information before we voted on it. Show us the side 
agreement. Let us go from there.
  Of course the deal in itself is a bad deal for all of us. I don't 
understand why we are giving $150 billion to Iran while we have got $47 
billion in claims by Americans against Iran for terrorist activities. 
Why don't we give them the money first?
  And I know I am out of time. But let's not approve the deal. Let's 
vote for the rule and make sure, before we ever see any vote on the 
agreement, we see the side deal.
  And that's just the way it is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the Members that the 
gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from 
New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has 
further speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman, I have 
three or four more speakers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss what I 
believe will be one of the most consequential votes in the history of 
this body.
  A fundamental duty of the Federal Government--so much that it is 
enshrined in the preamble to our Constitution--is to provide for the 
common defense.
  We must ask ourselves: Will this deal enhance the safety and security 
of the American people? The answer is clearly no. On the contrary, it 
imperils the United States and our allies around the world.
  Look only to those who know Iran best, its neighbors, who universally 
oppose the deal. Why? Because it is built on trusting a regime that has 
cheated on international agreements time and again and because it will 
launch a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world.
  So today we have a choice. To me, the choice is clear. We can support 
this deal and stand with a regime that spreads terror around the world, 
leads its people in chants of ``Death to America,'' and whose leaders 
refer to our country as the ``Great Satan,'' or we reject the deal and 
stand strong as a country, resolute in our pursuit of freedom and 
justice, stand with our allies, like Israel, and stand with the 
American people, who overwhelmingly opposed this deal.
  I know where I stand. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting 
this deal and sending a clear signal to the world that we will not 
accept a nuclear Iran.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a gentleman with compassion and healing, a 
gentleman who is a physician, a gentleman on from the Education and the 
Workforce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
legislation expressing disapproval of this proposed nuclear deal with 
Iran.
  Forty years ago I was a young soldier just south of the militarized 
zone in Korea when they did not have a nuclear weapon. Now that they 
have joined the nuclear community, does the world feel safer with a 
rogue nation having a nuclear weapon?
  I pose the question: What is in this agreement for America? Does it 
make us safer?
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is an 
American issue. This affects all of us. It affects the Middle East, 
where our closest ally feels endangered, and I agree that they are.
  And I pose the narrative question: What is it about ``death to 
America'' this administration does not understand?
  The President presents a false narrative: war or this agreement. I 
could not disagree more. The sanctions brought the Iranians to the 
negotiating table.
  What kind of an agreement did we negotiate? What happened to 
``anytime, anyplace'' inspections? What happened to Americans actually 
being on the inspection team?
  I think everyone, every thoughtful person, realizes this just slows 
the process down. But, ultimately, the Iranians will develop a nuclear 
weapon.
  I support the rule and the underlying bills.

[[Page H5890]]

  

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Miami, Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the former chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves if this 
nuclear deal with Iran makes the United States safer. Does it make 
Israel safer? Does it make the world safer?
  As a result of this deal, Iran will be nuclear-capable, and its 
neighbors will not be complacent knowing that Iran can't produce a 
nuclear weapon.
  The billions of dollars that the regime is set to receive will 
undoubtedly go towards building its military capabilities, not to 
mention its support for terror and other illicit activities.
  Because this deal jeopardizes Iran's neighbors, the administration is 
promising Gulf countries military arms sales to defend against the 
increased Iranian threat.
  We then will be the major proliferator of nuclear and conventional 
arms in the Middle East. Do we really believe that arming an extremely 
unstable and violent Middle East region to the teeth and having 
nuclear-capable Iran right there in the middle will make us or the 
world safer?
  The answer is clear, Mr. Speaker. This deal is dangerous. It is bad 
public policy. We must oppose it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wheaton, Illinois, (Mr. Roskam), the distinguished gentleman who spent 
several hours, 4 or 5 hours, with us in the Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Sessions.
  Mr. Speaker, Secretary Kerry came and gave a briefing to a closed 
session of Congress. Part of it was open for discussion. He said 
something provocative at the end. He said, ``Folks, what is the 
alternative?''
  And I said to him in a question and answer session, ``You know, Mr. 
Secretary, for 2 years, the administration has been telling us that no 
deal is better than a bad deal. And if no deal is better than a bad 
deal, that means that there was an alternative.''
  Secretary Kerry, during that same briefing, said that he walked away 
from the deal three times with the Iranians. And I said, ``Secretary, 
when you walked away from the deal, that means that there was an 
alternative.
  So the administration does not get to argue today, Mr. Speaker, to 
this Congress or to the American people that there is no alternative. 
There is an alternative. And this House is prepared to offer 
alternatives.
  I appreciate Chairman Sessions. I appreciate the Rules Committee 
bringing forth this package of bills that we can begin to discuss 
getting us out from underneath a disastrous deal.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule and against the Iran nuclear deal.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot in good conscience accept a deal that is laden 
with secretive side agreements brokered by this administration, nor can 
we possibly grant $150 billion to the world's foremost sponsor of 
terror and, in the process, turn our back on Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because of this bad deal that the Supreme Leader 
of Iran now is publicly emboldened to say that Israel will not exist in 
25 years and that terror will continue to plague the Middle East, 
Israel, and the entire world.
  Mr. Speaker, as we approach September 11, I would ask my colleagues 
to please join me in rejecting this bad deal, and let's defeat 
terrorism rather than advance it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the deal 
with Iran. Iran is one of the world's largest state sponsors of 
terrorism.
  It provides military and financial support to groups responsible for 
the deaths of Americans and our allies. In addition, the regime is 
working to undermine governments across the Middle East, including 
Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
  As Iranians rally behind ``death to America,'' I am left to wonder 
what other options we have but stopping them from obtaining the most 
dangerous weapons on Earth. Unfortunately, I believe this deal falls 
way short of that goal.
  I pledge and will be working with my colleagues to make sure that we 
oppose this deal and that we find other alternatives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, the weight of this decision falls heavily on this 
Chamber. Instead of following regular order, the majority's insistence 
on governing by crisis has once more taken over, and we are thrown into 
disarray.
  The Iran agreement is the best option that we have to curbing Iran's 
nuclear ambitions. People who know--nuclear scientists, ambassadors, 
people of the military--have all said, including Colin Powell, I may 
add, that this is a good bill, this is a good negotiation that will 
help to keep us safe.
  The work ahead will be arduous, and it is going to take coordination 
with our international partners who also negotiated this agreement with 
us, but peace is always preferable to war.
  I urge my colleagues to support the agreement and vote ``no'' on this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank my distinguished colleagues, my friends on the Rules 
Committee, both Mr. McGovern, Judge Hastings, and Ms. Slaughter, for 
their participation today. I thank you very much, Ms. Slaughter, for 
your professional attributes in this very, very difficult debate in the 
last few days that have taken many, many hours.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the deal that the administration 
negotiated is a disaster. We have talked about that all morning. 
Speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker spoke about the lack 
of benefit to the American people. It undermines American leadership 
abroad; it empowers the Iranian regime, and ignores what has been 
decades of policy where Americans would not deal with terrorists.
  By overturning the decades of this bipartisan national defense 
policy, the administration is telling the world the United States is 
willing to negotiate with rogue states, those people that say ``death 
to America,'' and give them exactly what they want. This will embolden 
future actors. It will limit the United States' ability to aggressively 
pursue sanctions against other countries.
  The rest of the world will take note of our weakness. This is not 
leading; this is weakness. If the United States is willing to lift 
sanctions against Iran, we will unilaterally limit our ability to 
resolve issues through democracy, diplomacy, and through peace.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stop this deal, which is why 
Republicans are on the floor today. We invite all of our colleagues to 
vote with us because it is the right thing, the adoption of this rule. 
Obviously, the lengthy debate we are going to have today is going to 
lead us to the conclusion that the underlying piece of legislation must 
be properly voted on.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has sold our nation's 
security for some magic beans. This Iran deal is a bad deal for our 
national security. It is a bad deal for our allies--particularly 
Israel.
  Removing sanctions against ballistic missiles and conventional arms, 
would happen before Iran halts its nuclear activity. If we try to re-
impose sanctions, Iran gets to walk away from the deal free of 
sanctions all together and keep its money and nuclear weapons.
  The way I see it, Iran is the only one benefitting from this deal. 
President Obama wants people to believe this is the best deal possible. 
I say, if this is the best deal, then I don't want any deal at all.
  I am voting NO on this deal because I made a promise to my children 
and grandchildren that I would fight to make this nation safer and 
stronger for the next generation. I cannot break that promise to my 
grandchildren. This is a bad deal.
  I urge my colleagues to vote YES on the rule and NO on passage of 
this agreement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

[[Page H5891]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 186, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 491]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman
       Schultz
     Waters,
       Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cuellar
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Neugebauer
     Walberg

                              {time}  1416

  Messrs. FATTAH, NOLAN, BRADY of Pennsylvania, JEFFRIES, and CARSON of 
Indiana changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________