[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13986-14011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             APPROVAL OF JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 412, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page 13987]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 412, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3461

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION.

       Congress does favor the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 
     signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear 
     program of Iran.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 3 hours 
equally divided and controlled by the chair of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and the minority leader or their designees.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) will control 90 minutes. 
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous materials on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have held 30 
hearings and briefings on Iran since these negotiations began. We have 
reviewed this agreement in depth; but, Mr. Speaker, I can come to no 
other conclusion than not only does it come up short, it is fatally 
flawed and, indeed, dangerous. I will oppose the measure before us. We 
should have gotten a better deal.
  Indeed, when the House passed stiff Iran sanctions legislation--now, 
this was in 2013--in the prior Congress, we passed this legislation, 
authored by myself and Mr. Engel, by a vote, a bipartisan vote in this 
body, of 400-20.
  The intention of that legislation was to put that additional leverage 
on Iran and force the Ayatollah to make a choice between real 
compromise--real compromise--on his nuclear program and economic 
collapse if he did not.

                              {time}  1730

  Unfortunately, the Secretary of State and the administration worked 
to ensure that the other body never took that measure up.
  This legislation would have put more pressure, as I say, on Iran and 
might have led to an acceptable deal; but instead of an ironclad 
agreement that is verifiable and holds Iran to account, we are 
considering an agreement that leaves Iran, in a few short years, only 
steps away from a nuclear weapons program, one that would be on an 
industrial scale.
  Under the agreement, Iran is not required to dismantle key bomb-
making technology. Instead, it is permitted a vast enrichment capacity, 
reversing decades of bipartisan nonproliferation policy that never 
imagined endorsing this type of nuclear infrastructure for any country, 
never mind a country that lives by the motto ``death to America.''
  While Members of Congress insisted on anywhere, anytime inspections, 
U.S. negotiators settled for something called managed access. So, 
instead of allowing international inspectors into those suspicious 
sites within 24 hours, it will take 24 days, and that is to commence 
the process.
  Worse, there have been revelations in recent days about an agreement 
between Iran and the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. This agreement 
sets the conditions in which a key Iranian military site that is 
suspected of nuclear bomb work--suspected in the sense that we have 
1,000 pages of evidence of that bomb work--will be explored.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, those details have been kept from 
Congress. We don't have those details in our hands; but it is reported 
that, instead of international inspectors doing the inspecting, the 
Iranians, themselves, will take the inspection lead. Iran has cheated 
on every agreement they have signed, so why do we trust them now to 
self-police?
  The deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on 
Iran. Billions will be made available to Iran to pursue its terrorism. 
Indeed, Iran's elite Quds Force has transferred funds--and this should 
bother all of us--to Hamas. It has committed to rebuild the network of 
tunnels from Gaza to attack Israel.
  Mr. Engel and I were in one of those tunnels last year. They have 
agreed in Iran to replenish the medium-range missile arsenal of Hamas, 
and they are working right now, they claim, to give precision-guided 
missiles to Hezbollah. I can tell you I was in Haifa in 2006 when it 
was under constant bombardment by those types of rockets, but they 
weren't precision-guided. Every day, they slammed into the city, and 
there were 600 victims in the trauma hospital. Now Iran has transferred 
eightfold the number of missiles, and they want to give them the 
guidance systems. They need money to pay for those guidance systems.
  Iran won late concessions to remove international restrictions on its 
ballistic missile program and on its conventional arms, and that 
imperils the security of the region and, frankly, the security of our 
homeland.
  For some, the risks in this agreement are worth it as they see an 
Iran that is changing for the better. As one supporter of this 
agreement told our committee, President Obama is betting that, in 10 or 
15 years, we will have a kinder, gentler Iran.
  But that is a bet against everything we have seen out of the regime 
since the 1979 revolution. Already, Iranian leaders insist that 
international inspectors won't see the inside of Iran's military bases 
and that Iran can advance its missiles and weapons without breaking the 
agreement. It is guaranteed that Iran will game the agreement to its 
advantage.
  So we must ask ourselves: Will international bureaucrats call out 
Iran, knowing that doing so will put this international agreement at 
risk? We are not calling them out now as they are transferring weapons.
  Will this administration, which didn't even insist that four American 
hostages come home as part of this agreement, be any tougher on Iran in 
implementing this deal?
  Does this serve the long-term national security interests of the 
United States? Does it make the world and, frankly, the region more 
safe? more stable? more secure?
  Is there any other reason Iran--an energy rich country--is advancing 
its nuclear technology other than to make a nuclear weapon?
  And why do its leaders chant ``death to America'' and ``death to 
Israel''?
  The New York Times ran a story on Quds Day, which is the national 
parade. It was some weeks ago. There was President Rouhani--the so-
called moderate--marching in that parade. Behind him, the crowd was 
chanting. It was chanting ``death to America.'' In front of them, they 
carried placards on either side of him that read, ``Death to Israel.'' 
Why does their leader march in the Quds parade, and why does that 
refrain constantly come from the clerics?
  I hope that all Members will consider these questions as they 
consider this vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the past 2 years, I have supported our negotiating team in the 
P5+1. I have favored giving time and space to achieve a diplomatic 
breakthrough to foreclose Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. I am 
grateful for the tireless efforts by President Obama, Secretary Kerry, 
Secretary Moniz, Secretary Lew, and Undersecretary Sherman. I 
appreciate the work of our P5+1 partners in concluding an agreement 
with Iran.
  But, unfortunately, I cannot support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action, and I plan to oppose this resolution.
  Let me say at the outset, I was troubled that Iran was not asked to 
stop enriching, while we were talking, despite several U.N. Security 
Council resolutions calling for a pause; and after

[[Page 13988]]

using this review period to assess the details of the agreement, I am 
not convinced that this deal does enough to keep a nuclear weapon out 
of Iran's hands.
  I have raised questions and concerns throughout the negotiating phase 
and review period. The answers I have received simply don't convince me 
that this deal will keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran's hands. It may, 
in fact, strengthen Iran's position as a destabilizing and destructive 
influence across the Middle East.
  First of all, I don't believe that this deal gives international 
inspectors adequate access to undeclared sites--24 days is far, far too 
long a time. Iran can stall, and, in 24 days, they can cover up 
whatever they have. I am especially troubled by reports about how the 
Iranian military base at Parchin will be inspected. With these 
potential roadblocks, the IAEA inspectors may be unable to finish their 
investigation into the potential military dimensions of Iran's nuclear 
program. I don't think it is essential that Iran provide a full mea 
culpa of its past activities, but we should have a clear picture of how 
far Iran has gotten in developing a nuclear weapon.
  I also view as a dangerous concession the sunset of the international 
sanctions on advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. I 
was told that these issues were not on the table during the talks; so 
it is unacceptable to me that, after 5 years, Iran can begin buying 
advanced conventional weapons and, after 8 years, ballistic missiles. 
Worse, if Iran were to violate the weakened provisions in this 
agreement, such an action wouldn't violate the JCPOA and wouldn't be 
subject to snapback sanctions.
  In my view, Iran is a grave threat to international stability. It is 
the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It continues to 
hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges, and our prisoners 
still languish there. We have an agreement. Their release was not part 
of the agreement. Iran's actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic 
region worse.
  Even under the weight of international sanctions these past few 
years--when Iran had no money, when its currency was worthless, when 
its economy was in the toilet--Iran found money to support 
international terror. Iran has been able to support terrorist groups, 
such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and other violent extremists. Awash in new 
cash provided by sanctions relief, Iran will be poised to inflict even 
greater damage in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and our Gulf 
partners. Iran's leadership has every interest in shoring up support 
from hard-liners. After all, if a deal goes through, hard-liners will 
need to be placated.
  I can tell you that, within the next few years--in the next Lebanon 
war with Israel--Hezbollah will have missiles raining down on Israel, 
and some of those missiles will be paid for by the windfall that Iran 
is going to get as a result of sanctions being lifted. I think that is 
unacceptable.
  We can have no illusions about what Iran will do with its newfound 
wealth. We can have no doubt about the malevolent intent of a country's 
leader who chants ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel'' just 
days after concluding a deal. The ink was not even dry on the deal, and 
4 days later, the Supreme Leader led a chant of ``death to America.'' 
After negotiating with us and agreeing to this agreement, he could not 
even wait more than 4 days--back to the same old ``death to America.''
  Finally and very importantly, I have a fundamental concern that, 15 
years from now, under this agreement, Iran will be free to produce 
weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium without any limitation. What 
does that mean? It means Iran will be a legitimized nuclear threshold 
state after the year 2030, with advanced centrifuges and the ability to 
stockpile enriched uranium. So, in reality, this agreement does not 
prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon; it only postpones it.
  If Iran pursues that course, I fear it could spark a nuclear arms 
race across the region. After years of intransigence, I am simply not 
confident that Iran will be a more responsible partner.
  Before I finish, I would also like to say a few words about the 
debate surrounding this issue so far.
  We can disagree on the issues. We should debate the details of any 
important policy, such as this one, and we must rely on our democratic 
institutions to carry us forward as they have for so long; but we 
cannot question the motives of any Member of Congress no matter where 
he or she stands on this issue.
  So, instead of using this time to grind a political ax, let's, 
instead, look down the road. After all, we know that this deal is going 
forward, and when that happens, we need to ask how we can make this 
agreement stronger.
  How do we ensure the security of Israel and our other friends and 
allies in the region? How do we keep resources out of the hands of 
terrorists as sanctions are lifted? What support does Congress need to 
provide so that the United States and our partners can hold Iran to its 
word and ultimately keep it from getting a bomb?
  The time to start answering these questions is now.
  That is why, in the days and weeks ahead, I will reach out to 
colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to chart a path forward. I 
will be working with Chairman Royce and others on both sides of the 
aisle. I will develop new legislation to counter Iran as it dumps its 
soon-to-be-acquired billions of dollars into terrorist groups and 
weapons programs. I will work with other lawmakers toward new 
initiatives that support Israel and our Middle East allies so that they 
can stand up to an unleashed Iran; and I will work here in Congress and 
with the administration to make sure the deal is fully implemented to 
the letter.
  We need to focus on strengthening our deterrence in the region; and, 
most importantly, we have to work hard to continue to enhance the U.S.-
Israel relationship. We must reinvigorate the bipartisan consensus 
which has been the foundation of America's relationship with Israel; 
and we must ensure that Israel is able to maintain its qualitative 
military edge and its ability to defend itself.
  The world is watching us this week. The United States is being looked 
to, not for rhetoric and outrage, but for leadership and resolve. So 
let's present our arguments and cast our votes. Then let's work 
together to move forward in a productive way. I appreciate how we have 
worked together on the Foreign Affairs Committee with Chairman Royce.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisan relationship that 
all of the Members on the Foreign Affairs Committee have, but 
especially today, the words of Mr. Engel that every Member of this 
House should be mindful that impugning motives, questioning the motives 
of those who disagree with us, is not conducive to an honest and fair 
debate over these issues. I thank him for making that point on the 
floor today.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise), the majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, when the President started these 
negotiations with Iran, I think, when you look at the fatal flaw in the 
beginning of those negotiations, they should have started with one 
basic premise. That premise, Mr. Speaker, ought to have been to finally 
force Iran to dismantle their nuclear weapons program.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that was not the objective of these 
negotiations. In fact, if you look, it seemed there was more interest 
on making sure that a deal could be reached that China and Russia and 
Iran could finally agree to.
  And the problem is, when you look at the fatal flaw of that 
negotiation, what has it yielded? And why is there such strong 
opposition across the country from members of both parties to this 
agreement?
  I think most Americans recognize that Iran cannot be trusted with a 
nuclear weapon. Just look at their own rhetoric. Just this week the 
Ayatollah himself led the chant ``death to America.''

[[Page 13989]]

  These are the people that the President is negotiating with to 
ultimately end up at the end of this deal with the ability to develop 
not just a nuclear bomb, but a nuclear arsenal, Mr. Speaker.
  Just look at the tenets of the deal itself. One of the conditions in 
the deal actually allows Iran to have more than 5,000 centrifuges. If 
they comply with the deal, they can keep more than 5,000 centrifuges to 
enrich uranium.
  It took Pakistan about 3,000 centrifuges to develop their bomb, and 
Iran will have over 5,000 centrifuges if they comply with the deal, let 
alone if they cheat. And we know the history there.
  Let's look at other components of the deal, Mr. Speaker. In this 
deal, if there is a site that is undeclared and our intelligence along 
the way over these next few years exposes the fact that there is 
something there that we want to go look at, that we question whether or 
not they are cheating, Mr. Speaker, we have to get permission under 
this deal and wait over 24 days.
  Imagine all of the things that can be hidden in 24 days if we have 
the intelligence that they are cheating. How could this be part of a 
deal that we would agree to that is in the American best interest?
  Ultimately, what we have to come to an agreement on is what is in the 
best interest of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, we also ought to be concerned about our allies, Israel, 
and the other Arab states in the region that have deep, grave concerns 
about this, others that are indicating that this will start a nuclear 
arms race in the Middle East.
  Within 10 years, you could have nearly a half a dozen states in the 
Middle East with nuclear arms. This isn't the way we ought to go.
  Then, of course, there are the secret side deals. We have seen 
evidence now that there are secret side deals that the President won't 
disclose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, under the law that President Obama himself 
signed, the law actually says the President has to disclose to Congress 
and the American people all information related to this deal, including 
``side agreements.''
  And now we are hearing at least two secret side agreements exist, one 
that allows Iran to actually do their own inspections.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the people that this deal is going to allow to 
inspect their own nuclear facilities. The President ought to release to 
the American people the details of these secret side agreements right 
now or withdraw this entire proposal.
  President Reagan said, ``Trust, but verify.'' Under this agreement, 
President Obama is saying trust Iran to verify. You cannot allow this 
to go through.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject this deal. The President lays 
out a false premise that it is this deal or war.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there is a much different approach, a 
much better approach, and that is to go get a better deal that protects 
the interest of the United States of America for today and for decades 
to come.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), a very valued member of our committee and one 
of the subcommittee ranking members.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House in 1997, a few 
months after I started serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I said 
back then that the Iran nuclear program was the greatest single threat 
to the security of Americans. It was true then. It is true now.
  On July 14, a few hours after the deal was published, I came to this 
floor and said that what this House ought to do is consider a 
Resolution of Approval of the nuclear deal and to vote it down by a 
large vote. That is exactly what we will do tomorrow morning.
  Let me go through a number of points that proponents and opponents of 
this deal can both agree on. The first is this resolution is quite a 
bit different than the one we have been thinking about for the last 
month.
  This is a Resolution of Approval. And even if we vote it down, the 
President can and will carry out this agreement.
  That is very different from the Resolution of Disapproval that we 
have all talked about and made commitments about.
  We don't have any commitments on this resolution. It is a totally new 
resolution. This resolution will express the feelings of Congress, but 
will not prevent the President from carrying out the deal.
  Second, we can agree this deal is better during the next year and a 
half than it is the next decade. The controls on Iran's nuclear program 
are much stronger for the first 10 years than they are thereafter.
  Whether you like the deal or hate the deal, you have got to agree 
that it is better up front than it is in the out-years.
  The third thing we can agree on is that the President only promised 
Iran that he would sign the deal and that he would carry out the deal 
and that he would use his veto, as he has threatened to do and has 
successfully done, in effect--that he would carry out the deal using 
his powers to do so. That is already settled.
  Mr. Speaker, the President never told Iran that Congress would 
approve this deal. Why should we give Iran more than they bargained 
for? They bargained for the President's signature together with his 
freedom to carry out the deal. That is already settled. Why should we 
give Iran something extra in return for nothing?
  We should not vote to approve this deal.
  The next thing we can all agree on is that this deal is not a binding 
agreement as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law or international law.
  The Constitution defines a treaty. This is not a treaty and certainly 
wouldn't get a two-thirds vote confirmation in the Senate.
  If you look at the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, this is 
not a ratified treaty, it is not an unratified treaty, it is not a 
legislative executive agreement. It is simply an agreement between the 
executives of the respective governments.
  Mr. Speaker, the next thing we can agree on is that we don't know 
what the best policy for America is in the next decade. Let's keep our 
options open. Iran is not legally bound by this agreement. Even if they 
were, they would conveniently ignore that any day of the week.
  We cannot feel that we are legally bound. Now, as a legal matter, we 
are not. But appearances matter. And if this agreement that has been 
signed by the President gets a positive vote of approval in this House, 
there will be those around the world who believe that it is binding on 
the United States, even while, as a legal matter, it is not binding on 
Iran and, oh, by the way, their legislature hasn't voted to approve it.
  So we need freedom of action. What form will that action take? Will 
we demand that Iran continue to limit its nuclear program beyond year 
10, beyond year 15?
  After all, we are continuing the sanctions relief all through the 
next decade. I don't know if that will be the right policy or not.
  Mr. Speaker, the current President's hands are untied. He gets to 
carry out his policy for the remainder of the term. Vote no on this 
resolution. Because if we vote yes, we are tying the hands of future 
Presidents in a decade to come.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen), chairman emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
who currently chairs our Subcommittee on the Middle East and North 
Africa.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the hard work of 
our esteemed chairman, Mr. Royce of California, and our ranking member, 
Mr. Engel, who have done an incredible job throughout--I don't know how 
many hearings we have had in our Foreign Affairs Committee--
highlighting the many flaws of this deal and giving the other side the 
opportunity to present what is good about this deal.

[[Page 13990]]

  Mr. Speaker, after all of those hearings in our Foreign Affairs 
Committee led by Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, it is simple to realize what 
is before us today. This deal paves the way for a nuclear-armed Iran in 
as little as 15 years.
  This deal lifts the arms embargo. This deal lifts the sanctions on 
Iran's ballistic missile program. This deal releases billions of 
dollars that will allow the regime to increase funding to support 
terror, as it has been doing, to support its regional hegemonic 
ambitions.
  If all of that were not bad enough, with this deal, the P5+1 
countries will actually be obligated to help Iran modernize and advance 
its nuclear program. Yes. You heard that right. This is important 
because this modernization requirement gets lost with all of the other 
many flaws of this deal.
  We actually have an agreement before us to help Iran strengthen its 
ability to protect against nuclear security threats, to protect it 
against sabotage, to protect all the physical sites.
  Incredibly enough, we will be helping Iran with its nuclear program. 
So now, not only do we have to allow Iran to enrich, not only do we 
have to allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, but, yes, we 
must actually protect Iran's nuclear program from sabotage and outside 
threats.
  Mr. Speaker, how does a rogue regime that has been in violation of 
its nonproliferation treaty obligations for decades, a rogue regime 
that has been in violation of--one, two, three, four, five--six United 
Nations Security Council resolutions and a regime that violates other 
international obligations get to be the beneficiary of such protections 
from the U.S. and other P5+1 countries?
  This is madness, Mr. Speaker. It simply defies logic. We must oppose 
this deal. Let's vote that way.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch), a very important member of the committee, the 
ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I 
thank the chairman for his leadership in the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of points made during this debate. 
I would like to set some context for the rest of the evening.
  Iran's regime is anti-American. They are anti-Israel. They are 
homophobic. They are misogynistic. They violate the human rights of 
their people.
  Iran's support for terrorists has led directly to the deaths of 
American citizens. It actively works to destabilize the Middle East. It 
vows to destroy Israel.
  It is responsible for the death of civilians and members of the 
military from Beirut to Buenos Aires. It has assisted in Assad's 
slaughter of 300,000 of his own people.
  As we gather here today, four Americans--Jason Rezaian, Amir Hekmati, 
Saeed Abedini, my constituent Bob Levinson--are in Iran, held by the 
regime and unable to return home to their families.
  Mr. Speaker, it is well known that I oppose this deal. On the nuclear 
issue, it does not dismantle Iran's nuclear program. It pauses it.
  Now, inspections in Nantanz and Fordow are very positive, as is the 
monitoring of the fuel cycle and the reduction in enriched uranium. But 
we cannot access other suspected nuclear sites in less than 24 days.
  If we find Iran in violation of this agreement, we cannot restore 
sanctions to the punishing level of today and, if we snap back 
sanctions, Mr. Speaker, Iran has the right to cease performing its 
obligations under the agreement altogether.

                              {time}  1800

  While there has been a lot of speculation about what could happen in 
the absence of a deal, we know that, under this deal, the regime will 
get billions of dollars to support terrorism; we know the arms embargo 
will be lifted, meaning that the most advanced weapons will be 
available to the regime; and we know that the ban on the development of 
ballistic missiles will be lifted.
  Now, I have heard a lot of criticism of those of us who oppose the 
deal. I don't want war, Mr. Speaker. To the contrary, I want to prevent 
Iran from using billions of dollars to cause more violence and its 
surrogates to cause more bloodshed.
  I don't want the start of an arms race. To the contrary, I want to 
prevent Iran from developing advanced centrifuges and an industrial 
nuclear program with an unlimited number of centrifuges so that other 
nations will not seek nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't oppose this deal because of politics or my 
religion or the people who live in my district. I have simply concluded 
that the risks are too great.
  Now, these past few weeks have been challenging for all of us. 
Reasonable people can disagree, and I am saddened by the often 
vitriolic comments hurled at those of us with different views on both 
sides. I also disagree with the decision by the Republican leadership 
to make up new rules, ignoring our ability to have an impact right now 
through the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that passed 400-25.
  The consequences of this deal, Mr. Speaker, present us with some 
harsh realities, but rather than denying them, it is now time for 
Congress to begin the work of defying them, and it will require 
bipartisan support to do it.
  That means ramping up intelligence sharing and counterterrorism 
cooperation with Israel and our Gulf partners and making clear to our 
allies that Iran's violent activities in the region will not be 
tolerated. It means enhancing Israel's qualitative military edge and 
making Iran know that the penalties should it cheat and break out to a 
bomb will be punishing.
  It means intensifying sanctions already enshrined in U.S. law for 
Iranian support for terrorism and violation of human rights. President 
Obama rightly made this point last week: nothing in this deal prevents 
the United States from sanctioning people, banks, and businesses that 
support terrorism, and we must do so together.
  What happens next? I will vote against the deal. Mr. Speaker, there 
will be a day after the final resolution of this nuclear deal, and on 
that day, this House must work together to ensure that Iran's terrorism 
is checked and that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. On that, we 
all agree.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and a 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, for the last decade, Congress has passed 
bipartisan sanctions to get to the point where we are today, and the 
purpose of these sanctions was to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons 
program.
  This agreement does not achieve that goal. In fact, this agreement 
puts Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, on a glidepath 
to a nuclear bomb. Proponents say it is the only alternative to war, 
but I believe that is a false choice.
  I recently met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he agreed that our 
goal should be a good deal, but that we cannot put our security at risk 
for a bad deal. Make no mistake, this is a bad deal for America and for 
our allies.
  It will not stop Iran's nuclear program. It will leave Iran with the 
ingredients for a bomb and infrastructure to build it, and it will 
spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It will give Iran a cash 
windfall, freeing up over $100 billion to fuel the regime's global 
campaign of Islamist terror.
  Incredibly, this agreement lifts restrictions on Iran's ballistic 
missiles, which the Ayatollah himself said that they will mass-produce. 
There is only one reason to develop an ICBM, Mr. Speaker, and that is 
to deliver a nuclear warhead across continents, which means the United 
States.
  A top Iranian general bragged recently that his country will have ``a 
new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in 
the eyes of our enemies.''
  President Reagan's famous negotiating advice was to ``trust, but 
verify.'' We can't trust a regime that has cheated on every deal. 
President Rouhani

[[Page 13991]]

says his country's centrifuges will never stop spinning and that they 
will ``buy, sell, and develop any weapons we need and will not ask for 
permission or abide by any resolution.''
  Now, the White House is counting on verification measures spelled out 
in secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA, which Secretary Kerry 
testified to me that even he has not seen. Astoundingly, the AP reports 
that the side deal allows Iran to self-inspect its nuclear sites.
  Now, the American people, through their representatives in Congress, 
are expected to vote on this measure without seeing these secret deals, 
which goes to the heart of verification. This, in my judgment, is 
nothing short of reckless.
  Let's be clear-eyed about what we are debating. This was not a 
negotiation with an honest government; it was a negotiation with 
terrorists who chant ``death to America'' and are responsible for more 
than a thousand American casualties in Iraq alone. If we allow this 
deal to go forward, we are putting the security of the world at grave 
risk.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our Nation's security and in 
defense of the free world, I cannot in good conscience support this 
agreement.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion 
to approve this agreement. After a thorough review process, I believe 
it is in the best national security interests of the United States and 
our allies for Congress to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action.
  I have been a public official for nearly 23 years. This is the most 
consequential vote I have taken and the most difficult decision I have 
ever faced. I have spent the review period methodically going through 
the agreement, raising concerns with the administration, and speaking 
with independent sources, including nuclear nonproliferation experts, 
economists, and foreign ambassadors.
  I also held a series of meetings and spoke with many constituents who 
fervently hold very strong and differing positions. My goal was to 
determine whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the most 
likely path to prevent Iran from achieving their nuclear weapons goals.
  This agreement is clearly not perfect. It is one tool that we have to 
combat Iran's nuclear ambitions. Ultimately, my support is based on 
substance. Importantly, my Jewish identity and Jewish heart weighed 
heavily in my decisionmaking process.
  As we listen to Iran's leaders call for the destruction of the Jewish 
people in Israel, history offers a brutal reminder of what happens when 
we do not listen.
  Iran continues to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism, but an 
Iran with a nuclear weapon or Hezbollah or Hamas with a nuclear shield 
is far more dangerous. With the JCPOA in place, we will have Iran's 
nuclear program under the most intrusive monitoring and inspection 
mechanisms in place, while we continue to combat Iran's terrorist 
reach.
  I have personally spoken with the President and my colleagues about 
steps that we must and will take to continue strengthening Israel's and 
our other allies' intelligence and military capabilities. Opponents say 
we must press for a better deal, but after thoroughly investigating 
this prospect, I am left with no evidence that one is likely or even 
possible.
  I heard directly from our allies, top diplomats, and analysts from 
across the political spectrum that the sanctions regime that we have in 
place now will erode, if not completely fall apart. Moreover, our 
partners will not come back to the negotiating table, and neither will 
Iran, and no one opposed to this deal has produced any evidence to the 
contrary.
  I cannot comprehend why we would walk away from the safeguards in 
this agreement, leaving Iran speeding toward a nuclear weapon. 
Safeguards like 24/7/365 access, monitoring all of Iran's previously 
declared nuclear sites, eliminating 98 percent of Iran's highly 
enriched uranium stockpile, and the unprecedented standard of 
monitoring every stage of the nuclear supply chain.
  Even if Iran cheats, we will know much more about their nuclear 
program, allowing us to more effectively eliminate it if that ever 
becomes necessary.
  As a Jewish mother and as a Member of Congress, nothing is more 
important to me than ensuring the safety and security of the United 
States and Israel. I am confident that supporting this agreement is the 
best opportunity that we have to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an expression in Judaism, may the United States 
go from strength to strength, and as we say in synagogue, the people of 
Israel live--am Yisrael chai.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to President 
Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Now, the President says it is a good 
deal; and you know what, he is right. It is a very good deal for Iran; 
but it is a very bad deal for America.
  I fear, in his rush to try to build a legacy, the President has 
clearly given up far too much for far too little. He has done this at 
the expense of our security, as well as the security of our friend 
Israel and other U.S. allies.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a deadly serious matter. The first thing the 
President does in his agreement with Iran is to give them some startup 
capital. An estimated $120 billion held abroad will now be repatriated 
back to Iran's central bank, $120 billion to a regime whose Supreme 
Leader, to this day, calls for the annihilation of Israel, a regime 
that still chants ``death to America,'' a regime that has put bounties 
on the heads of American soldiers and has the blood of American 
citizens on its hands, a regime whose sponsorship of Hezbollah has left 
our closest ally in the region, Israel, with 80,000 rockets trained on 
it.
  In sum, it is a regime that simply represents the world's largest and 
most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism.
  Now, President Obama would have us believe that waiving sanctions 
against this regime would make the world safer, but this is the very 
same President that dismissed the Islamic State as the JV team, and we 
see what that has gotten us.
  This is simply not an administration whose assessment of national 
security threats is credible, and the stakes involved with a nuclear 
Iran leave zero room for error.
  In truth, Mr. Speaker, I fear it is we who sent the JV team to 
negotiate with Iran. Sadly, they were outplayed, outmaneuvered, and 
outwitted; and the result of their failure is the dangerous agreement 
we have before us today.
  It is such a flawed agreement that the President, yet again, tells 
Congress we have to pass something to actually find out what is in it. 
In other words, the President has utterly failed to provide the secret 
side agreements.
  President Obama once told us we cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear 
weapon, but under his deal, Iran's nuclear program will not be 
dismantled, only temporarily slowed, and that is if the Iranians don't 
cheat; but the President's team has failed to achieve anytime, anywhere 
inspections. Thus, it will be impossible to ensure the Iranians aren't 
cheating.
  Ah, but don't worry, Mr. Speaker, we are told the Iranians will turn 
themselves in if they cheat--really? In short, the President's 
agreement rewards Iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime with billions of 
dollars in relief without any guarantee of compliance.
  When you look at the record, Mr. Speaker, I don't trust this 
administration. I don't trust the Iranians. Why would we ever trust the 
two together? For the sake of our national security, I urge all of my 
colleagues to reject this flawed, dangerous agreement.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of this historic nuclear agreement reached by the United States 
and our

[[Page 13992]]

negotiating partners with Iran. For the sake of our national security 
and that of our allies, we must seize this unique opportunity.
  In the midst of all these wild charges, let's just try to get some 
perspective. In fact, this agreement goes far beyond any negotiated 
nuclear deal in history.

                              {time}  1815

  It will reduce Iran's stockpiled uranium by nearly 98 percent; it 
will permanently prevent the plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon at 
Arak; it will disable and mothball two-thirds of Iran's enrichment 
centrifuges, including more advanced models; it will terminate all 
enrichment at Fordow; and it will provide for intrusive inspections of 
nuclear sites in perpetuity.
  This is an unprecedented degrading--not just a freezing, a massive 
degrading--of Iran's nuclear program. No military strike or strikes 
could achieve as much.
  I challenge any of the agreement's detractors to present a viable 
alternative that achieves the same result and will verifiably prevent a 
nuclear-armed Iran for the foreseeable future. They won't--and they 
haven't--because they can't. There simply isn't a viable diplomatic or 
military alternative for preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon.
  The notion that we could somehow unilaterally reject the agreement 
and still compel the P5+1 to resume negotiations is pure fantasy. Our 
international partners have made clear that reinstating the effective 
sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table would be 
impossible. For Congress to scuttle the deal would destroy our 
credibility as a negotiating party and would very likely put Iran right 
back on the path to developing a weapon.
  The stakes couldn't be higher. The nuclear issue should transcend 
political opportunism and partisan rancor. We should be working 
together across party lines to ensure the swift and effective 
implementation of the JCPOA. We should be exploring ways that we can 
enhance cooperative efforts with Israel and the international community 
to address Iran's support for Hezbollah and its gross abuse of human 
rights as well as other critical challenges in the Middle East.
  Today, we can start down that path by supporting the agreement. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution of approval.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from the Foreign Affairs 
Committee for his leadership on this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to this 
legislation that would clear the way for the President's misguided deal 
with Iran.
  The United States must continue to stand between Iran and nuclear 
weapons capability, but instead, the deal legitimizes Iran's nuclear 
achievements and strengthens its extremist regime.
  The agreement gradually removes the key barriers that prevent Iran 
from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities, from growing its economic 
influence in the Middle East, and from continuing its state funding of 
terrorist organizations that threaten the security of the country and 
the well-being of our allies.
  This deal lifts critical economic sanctions that have limited Iran's 
scope of influence in the region, removes the arms embargo, and lifts 
missile program restrictions.
  For these reasons, I oppose the President's deal and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the Iran nuclear agreement should be 
judged on what is best for our national security and what is more 
likely to produce peace. I believe that peace has a better chance if we 
reject this deal, keep sanctions on, and go back to the negotiating 
table to get a better agreement.
  This agreement was supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear 
weapon, but, at best, Iran will be a nuclear threshold state in 15 
years. By practically guaranteeing and legitimizing this access, there 
will be a rush by others in the region to gain their own nuclear 
weapons, creating an enormously dangerous arms race in the most 
volatile part of the world.
  The inspections protocols in the agreement are troubling because they 
give Iran 24 days to delay inspection requests at suspected nuclear 
sites, a far cry from ``anytime, anywhere.'' And the agreement contains 
deeply concerning sanctions relief on Iran's acquisition of 
conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology in 5 and 8 years, 
respectively.
  These are just some of my concerns that lead me, after careful 
consideration, to oppose this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, we should and we can do better. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Trott).
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking 
Member Engel for all of their hard work.
  The fact that we are even debating whether to enter into this 
agreement is very troubling.
  Let's be clear what we are talking about. The United States of 
America is going to enter into a deal with a rogue nation who refuses 
to release the four Americans they are holding, who has cheated on 
every deal they have been party to over the past 30 years, who is a 
party to secret deals we cannot see, who calls all of us the Great 
Satan, who calls for death to our citizens and wants to wipe Israel off 
the face of the Earth. And we are told the deal is necessary because 
the United States of America has no other option.
  Has it really come to this? We have options. One option is a better 
deal, and a better deal looks like this: release the four Americans, no 
sunset clause, and inspections just like we were promised--anytime, 
anywhere. And if these terms are unacceptable to Iran, then the United 
States of America will use all of its economic might to put tough 
sanctions back in place.
  If we do this deal, let's look at what the next 25 years looks like.
  Immediately, in the next 12 months, Iran will get their hands on $50 
billion to $150 billion. The money will not be used for their citizens. 
It will be used to perpetuate terror around the world. Iran will get 
its money; we won't get our four Americans.
  Over the next 12 months, they will start to cheat and they will get a 
bomb or two. Over the next 12 months, we are going to start an arms 
race in the Middle East. Over the next 1 to 5 years, we will try and 
snap back sanctions, but that will be ineffective because all the long-
term contracts will be grandfathered in.
  In 5 years, Iran will be buying conventional weapons. In 8 years, 
they will have a ballistic missile. In 10 years, because of their 
cheating, they will have a ballistic missile with a nuclear bomb 
pointed at the United States of America. And in 25 years, our friend 
and ally Israel may not exist.
  I was in business for 30 years before I got here, and the one thing I 
knew is you cannot do a good deal with a bad guy.
  We cannot do this deal with Iran.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution of 
approval of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  Throughout this debate, there have been accusations questioning the 
motives and loyalties of Members in making this decision. It is 
precisely because I believe this agreement is in the interest of the 
United States and because I have been a strong supporter of Israel my 
entire life that I am supporting the Iran nuclear agreement.
  This must not be a vote of politics but of conscience. I, for one, 
could not live with myself if I voted in a way that I believe would put 
the lives of Americans and Israelis at greater risk of an Iranian 
nuclear bomb.
  My priority and overriding objective in assessing this agreement has 
been to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear

[[Page 13993]]

bomb. The interests of the United States and of Israel in this respect 
are identical. In addition to constituting an existential threat to 
Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran would make Iran's conventional threats 
more dangerous and difficult to counter and pose a greater danger to 
the United States, to the region, and to the world.
  The question before us is not whether this is a good deal. The 
question is which of the two options available to us--supporting or 
rejecting the deal--is more likely to avert a nuclear-armed Iran. I 
have concluded, after examining all the arguments, that supporting the 
Iran nuclear agreement gives us the better chance of preventing Iran 
from developing a nuclear weapon.
  The agreement will shut Iran's pathways to developing the necessary 
fissionable material for a nuclear bomb for at least 15 years. The 
inspection and verification procedures against illicit plutonium 
production or uranium enrichment are airtight.
  The questions that have been raised about inspection procedures--the 
so-called side deals, the alleged self-inspection--do not relate to the 
central issue of production of fissionable material. And without 
fissionable material, you cannot make a bomb.
  Even after 15 years, when some of the restrictions will be eased, we 
would still know instantly about any attempt to make bomb materials 
because the inspectors and the electronic and photographic surveillance 
will still be there. The options available to a future President for 
stopping Iran then would be better than the options available now if 
the deal is rejected because we would have more access, instant 
intelligence, and more knowledge of the Iranian program.
  The argument that if we reject the deal, we can force Iran back to 
the negotiating table and obtain a better deal is a fantasy. It is not 
a viable alternative. The other countries that have joined us in 
multilateral sanctions against Iran have made it clear that they will 
drop their sanctions if we reject the deal; and American sanctions, by 
themselves, have been proven ineffective in coercing Iran.
  We must be very clear that, if necessary, the United States will use 
military force to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; but the odds of that 
being necessary are significantly less with approval of this deal than 
with rejection of the agreement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NADLER. Going forward, it remains vital that we continue to 
pursue ways to further guarantee the security of the United States, of 
Israel, and of our other allies in the Middle East. This will require 
strict and diligent oversight of the implementation of the agreement, 
maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, and countering Iran's 
support for terrorism and other destabilizing conduct.
  We must be ready to take action against Iran's nefarious behavior, 
and Iran must know that the United States will never allow it to pose a 
nuclear threat to the region and the world.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent), chairman of the Committee on Ethics.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and the 
underlying Iran nuclear agreement.
  Despite entering into these negotiations from a position of 
strength--that would be the United States--the deal before us fails to 
achieve the goal of preventing Iran's capacity to develop a nuclear 
weapon. It simply contains or manages Iran's nuclear program.
  By agreeing to a lax enforcement and inspections regime and fanciful, 
unrealistic snapback sanctions, the administration has accepted that 
Iran should remain 1 year away from a nuclear bomb. I am not prepared 
to accept that. The sanctions relief will provide Iran with billions of 
dollars of funds that will bolster the Revolutionary Guard and nonstate 
militant groups. The deal ends the conventional arms embargo and the 
prohibition on ballistic missile technology. Not only will this result 
in conventional arms flowing to groups like Hezbollah, it concedes the 
delivery system for a nuclear bomb.
  This agreement will provide Iran with nuclear infrastructure, a 
missile delivery system, and the funds to pay for it all. And, by the 
way, the I in ICBM means ``intercontinental.'' I don't believe that New 
Zealand and Mexico are the intended targets. That would be us.
  This deal cripples and shatters the current notion of nuclear 
nonproliferation. If Iran can enrich uranium, which they can under this 
agreement, their Gulf Arab neighbors will likely want to do the same.
  I do not want a nuclear arms race, a nuclearized Middle East, a 
region of state instability in irrational nonstate actors. Someone 
explain to me how deterrence works under that scenario. We should not 
reward the ayatollahs with billions of dollars and sophisticated 
weapons in exchange for temporary and unenforceable nuclear 
restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have always supported a diplomatic resolution to the 
Iran nuclear issue, but this is a dangerously weak agreement. I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Vargas).
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran. The deal fails to dismantle 
Iran's nuclear program. It fails to guarantee intrusive enough 
inspections to ensure that Iran does not cheat, it fails to keep Iran 
from achieving nuclear threshold status, and it rewards Iran's horrific 
behavior.
  In the initial phase of this agreement, Iran would quickly receive a 
whopping sanctions relief package potentially totaling $150 billion. We 
all know that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism 
and that this money will embolden a regime openly committed to 
confronting the United States and destabilizing the Middle East.
  In 8 years, Iran legally begins expanding its ballistic missile 
program and continues expanding its intercontinental ballistic missile 
program under the guise of satellite testing.
  And who do we think these missiles are aimed at?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. VARGAS. As recently as yesterday, Ayatollah Khamenei declared: 
``I am saying to Israel that they would not live to see the end of 
these 25 years. There will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 
years.''
  This is a bad deal, and we should reject it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank Chairman Royce for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the approval process that 
is going on and the underlying deal with Iran. It is one of the most 
consequential foreign policy issues that we will confront, certainly 
since I have been here and, I expect, for the next several decades.
  This is a terrible deal. I can't state it any more forcefully.
  We have seen this movie before. In 1994, President Bill Clinton made 
a deal with North Korea. His deal with North Korea would rid the Korean 
Peninsula of nuclear weapons and would usher North Korea onto the stage 
as a responsible citizen of the world's nations. That didn't happen. 
This is the exact same verbiage we heard on this floor then that is 
being said tonight, and this is the exact same outcome we will get with 
Iran and their nuclear program.
  Look at their current record. Chief sponsor of state terrorism around 
the world. As their economy improves with the dropping of the sanctions 
and the resources they will get, do you realistically think that this 
ayatollah will, in fact, become a moderate voice within his country?

[[Page 13994]]

  Do you not think he will take those resources and expand the mischief 
and terror that he has conducted around the world already under the 
sanctions that were in place?
  The other side has already given up on the snapback provisions. They 
have argued very eloquently that those won't happen because we can't 
reinforce the sanctions that were the heart of what got Iran at the 
table today.
  Mr. Speaker, this deal ushers in a world that is less safe, less 
stable, and less secure.
  Trust must be earned. I trust Iran's word when they say that Israel 
must go away. I trust Iran when they say ``death to America.'' I do not 
trust Iran when they say they will abide by this agreement.
  I wouldn't play golf with these people because golf is one of those 
events where you have to self-assess your penalties. They will not do 
that in playing golf, and they are not about to do it with respect to 
this nuclear program that is going on.
  We have no way of knowing what their covert activities might be over 
the next several years. They will cheat. They have cheated, and they 
will continue to cheat. We cannot trust these people with a deal.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion of approval and 
reject this deal. Tell the world where we stand. Whether our partners 
around the world can see the clear-eyed threat that these folks 
represent to the world for the next several decades, we can see it, and 
we must vote ``no.''
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 
64, which disapproves of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 
negotiated by the P5+1.
  I reviewed the agreement thoroughly, participated in classified 
briefings, and listened to the many details and intricacies present by 
the nuclear and security experts on all sides. This agreement may not 
be perfect, but it is the most viable option we have in reducing Iran's 
capability of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  The JCPOA prolongs Iran's nuclear weapon breakout time, reduces their 
number of operating centrifuges, and decreases Iran's current stockpile 
of low enriched uranium.
  More importantly, the agreement allows the International Atomic 
Energy Agency the ability to access and inspect Iran to verify and 
ensure compliance.
  Should Iran cheat, the international community will come together and 
once again reimpose the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating 
table.
  In every situation that involves the possibility of using military 
force to overcome a threat, I will always side with exploring and 
exhausting every possible avenue towards a diplomatic resolution first.
  I support the JCPOA because it provides a reasonable, balanced, and 
diplomatic solution rather than a worst-case scenario.
  In closing, with the support of 36 retired generals and admirals and 
29 of the Nation's top scientists, I am confident we are on the right 
track with this plan. All of these highly distinguished and experienced 
leaders agree that this agreement is the most effective means currently 
available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer), the chair of the Republican Policy Committee.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation and 
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear 
deal. A chief reason for this opposition is important, yet simple: The 
Iran nuclear deal doesn't make America safer, it doesn't make Israel 
safer, and it doesn't make the rest of the world safer either.
  Whatever your thoughts on this Iran nuclear deal, we should all be 
able to agree, the world will be a much more dangerous and unstable 
place if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the deal 
the President negotiated won't stop that from happening.
  Instead, under this deal, Iran gets to keep its nuclear facilities. 
Amazingly, it will be allowed to self-police those facilities and 
report directly to the IAEA, an idea that would be laughable if it were 
not so crazy.
  Iran will get to enrich uranium, all while receiving sanctions relief 
to the tune of $150 billion--$150 billion pumped into a $400 billion a 
year national economy; $150 billion that will no doubt be used by Iran 
to bankroll terrorist organizations, further destabilize the Middle 
East, and continue their work to wipe Israel off the map.
  It was Ronald Reagan who said ``trust but verify'' during arms 
control negotiations with Communist Russia more than a generation ago, 
but it seems the Obama administration is asking us to trust Iran and 
then trust some more. Well, I'm not willing to do that, and the 
American people aren't willing to do that either.
  We need to stop this bad deal before it is too late and negotiate a 
better deal, a deal that stops Iran's nuclear program and ensures the 
safety of America, Israel, and the rest of the world now and into the 
future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) has expired.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and 
against the resolution--well, actually, in favor of the resolution of 
approval.
  I must say, in starting, we are at a paradoxical moment. The fears, 
the haunting specter, a terrible thing, the existential threats posed 
by a nuclear Iran are all legitimate fears and legitimate haunting 
specters, regional hegemony to be avoided.
  But ironically, those concerns and those fears and those outcomes 
raised by my friends on the other side of the aisle and the opponents 
of this agreement actually come true and are realized if we do what 
they want us to do, which is to reject this agreement.
  The alternative to this agreement is an opaque, unconstrained Iranian 
nuclear program, Mr. Speaker, hanging like the sword of Damocles over 
all of our heads. And the security of the United States and Israel and 
regional partners, who knows?
  The false hope offered by the critics is let's return to the 
negotiating table to seek a better deal. A man that I respect, at one 
of our hearings that Chairman Ed Royce chaired on the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, former Senator Joe Lieberman, said just that.
  I said: How did that work? He said: Well, let's just go back to the 
partners and Iran and say, we just couldn't sell it; let's start over.
  The proposition that we would renounce our own agreement that we 
negotiated, wrought by more than a year of tough negotiations, and 
expect that our negotiating partners, including Russia and China and, 
of course, Iran itself, would sit back down at the table and start all 
over again under our leadership is specious, if not delusional, as an 
argument.
  We cannot be naive about the scenario in which Congress rejects this 
agreement brokered by our own country. Among our allies, we divest 
ourselves of the goodwill that undergirded these negotiations; and 
among our adversaries, we would confirm their suspicion we cannot be 
trusted.
  The international sanctions regime that drove Iran to the negotiating 
table would collapse, and our diplomatic leverage would be diminished 
in all future U.S.-led negotiations.
  Most concerning of all, we would return, once again, to the situation 
we are at, one of deep anxiety and uncertainty regarding Iran's nuclear 
ambitions.
  Critics of the agreement have offered no alternative and have tried 
to define that agreement by what it is not. It is not a perfect deal 
that dismantles every nut and bolt of the Iranian nuclear development 
program, peaceful or otherwise.
  It is not a comprehensive resolution of the entire relationship and 
the myriad issues the U.S. and our allies have with the repressive 
regime in Tehran and its reprehensible support for terrorist 
insurgencies in the region. No one ever said it would be.

[[Page 13995]]

  What arms control agreement in the history of our country has ever 
attempted to circumscribe every aspect of a relationship with an 
adversary?
  And certainly not this one. In other words, this agreement is the 
diplomatic alternative we sought to attain when we entered into these 
very negotiations.
  The deal adheres to the high standards of verification, transparency, 
and compliance on which any acceptable agreement with Iran must be 
founded. That isn't just my word. That is what former Republican 
Secretary of State Colin Powell says. That is what Republican former 
NSC Adviser Brent Scowcroft says. That is what former Republican 
Senator John Warner from my State says.
  The agreement erects an unprecedented and intrusive inspection regime 
that provides the IAEA with access to declared nuclear facilities and 
suspected covert nuclear development sites.
  Additionally, they will be able to monitor Iran's entire nuclear 
program supply chain, including uranium mines, mills, centrifuges, 
rotors, bellows production, storage facilities, and dedicated 
procurement for nuclear-related or dual-use materials technology.
  The agreement also rolls back major components and places strict 
restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program. If these restrictions are 
not adhered to, the United States can, at any time, unilaterally revive 
the sanctions currently in place.
  Congress should immediately begin to conduct close oversight to 
ensure those terms are implemented and that Iran is living up to its 
obligations.
  This isn't about trust. It was Ronald Reagan who said ``trust, but 
verify.'' Former Secretary of State Clinton today kind of echoed those 
words, saying ``distrust and verify,'' and that is why she supports the 
agreement. It does just that.
  More broadly, the United States must signal to Iran that its 
condemnable record on human rights, terrorism, and regional subversion 
will not be tolerated; nor will we hide, with this agreement, that 
action and our response to it. In fact, quite the opposite. We will 
redouble our efforts to stop them in that egregious behavior.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, article I, section 8, clause 11, of the 
Constitution vests Congress with the duty to authorize war.
  Implicit in that text is Congress' additional responsibility to 
exhaust all reasonable alternatives before committing the American 
people and our men and women in uniform to such a fateful path.
  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action represents our best endeavor 
to provide just that alternative. It is the product of earnest 
diplomacy. Congress should put aside partisanship and support it for 
the sake of our country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, several Members spoke of Iran's commitments under this 
agreement. While it is true that Iran has committed to taking certain 
steps under the agreement, it is 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 is in this agreement?
  Well, President Rouhani--the supposed moderate here--has argued 
repeatedly that the only restrictions on Iran's missile developments 
are in the U.N. Security Council resolution.
  Endorsing the deal, he says, it is not in the agreement itself. They 
don't recognize the Security Council resolution. So he says: We are not 
restricted by this agreement. So what the gentleman is quoting, they 
say they are not restricted by that.
  Mr. Speaker, Iranian leaders say that Iran can violate the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions without violating the agreement. Sanctions 
do not, therefore, snap back if Iran violates the U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, according to Iran, and that Iran intends to violate the 
U.N. Security Council restrictions on weapons sales and on imports.
  This is President Rouhani again:

       We will sell and buy weapons whenever and wherever we deem 
     it necessary. We will not wait for permission from anyone or 
     any resolution.

  So Iran's defense minister has said that Iran is negotiating right 
now to purchase Russian fighter jets. We know they are negotiating in 
terms of ballistic missiles right now. They are in violation of the 
agreement, yet we don't see any intention to enforce that.
  So we have got to ask ourselves: Just what kind of agreement is this? 
Who is this agreement with?
  As the committee heard yesterday, it is an agreement with a regime 
whose world view was founded in large part on a fiery theological anti-
Americanism and a view of Americanism as Satanism.
  I don't have to tell the Members here. I mean, they hear it every 
week, those of you that are watching what is coming out of Iran ``death 
to America'' every week.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement gives up too much too fast with not 
enough in return, and we have to judge it on the long-term national 
security interests of the United States.
  Does it make the region and the world more safe, secure, stable? In 
my mind, clearly it does not. So I don't feel this is worthy of the 
House's support.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the so-called 
Iran nuclear accord. I do so for all the reasons that have been well-
articulated over the last couple of hours.
  But I also do so based simply on the reason of history. And it is a 
history that is actually shared with the chairman, in that we were here 
together in the 1990s.
  Then-President Clinton at that time met with North Korea. They formed 
an accord that basically said: We will give you benefits now for the 
promise of becoming a responsible member of the world community going 
forward. The benefits went and accrued to North Korea. The responsible 
membership in the world community never came.
  In that regard, though, the President is certainly well-intended in 
his efforts. This promise will prove as real as this notion of, if you 
like your health insurance, you can keep it.
  His intentions were good in that regard, with regard to providing 
health insurance, but it just didn't pan out. I don't think it will be 
any different in this particular deal.
  In that regard, I think it is important to think about what neighbors 
think of neighbors. In this case, it is important to look at what the 
Prime Minister of Israel has said in that he believes this is a mistake 
of ``historic proportions.''
  I think in many ways it mirrors what we saw in 1938. At that point, 
Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and gave away Czechoslovakia 
in the process.
  But there in the Munich accords there was this promise of peace, 
lasting peace in our time. The peace lasted less than a year, and it 
did not materialize.
  I think that the saying is that those who don't learn from history 
are destined to repeat it.
  I think we would be very well-advised to look at the recent history 
of the 1990s in the North Korea deal, the history of the 1930s, and a 
whole lot of history across the last 1,000 years that say trading off 
peace for security is never something that works so well.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from New 
York, I would simply say I think that last analogy is invidious.
  The history of World War II is the fact that people ignored warnings 
for so long that, by the time Munich happened, it most certainly was 
appeasement.
  What should have happened was active engagement to preclude that ever 
happening. That is precisely what this administration has done.
  It will prevent a Munich. It will prevent appeasement. It will 
provide the

[[Page 13996]]

dynamic engagement we need to prevent a nuclear Iran.
  I now proudly yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. King once said, ``On some positions, Cowardice asks 
the question, `Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, `Is it 
politic?' Vanity asks the question, `Is it popular?' But Conscience 
asks the question, `Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must 
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one 
must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.''
  I have often reflected on those words when faced with tough 
decisions.
  Today's vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is one of the 
most consequential votes we will take as Members of Congress.
  My support for the Iran agreement is about doing what is right for 
America, our allies, and the world. It is, indeed, a matter of 
conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, since the conclusion of the agreement, I have traveled 
to 10 nations and vetted this deal from every angle I could think of so 
that, at this moment of decision, I could act without reservation and 
with full understanding.
  As I listen to this debate, I am deeply disheartened that we are not 
adequately weighing the realities of our globalized world.
  After years of effort toward a more unified approach to addressing 
Iran's nuclear ambitions, key partners in the Middle East region and 
most of our allies consider the Iran agreement as an important next 
step in diplomatic efforts.
  Former U.S. ambassadors; former Israeli military; former U.S. 
Secretaries of State, including Colin Powell; and so many others from 
an array of vantage points have expressed support for this landmark 
deal, as have over 100 nations.
  We should not ignore the considered judgment of scientists, security 
experts, renowned diplomats, and our allies. The consensus is that this 
is a good deal.
  Now, some of my colleagues believe that, despite the risk, rejecting 
this deal can lead to a better deal down the road. Others oppose the 
deal out of reckless political gamesmanship.
  But what has become clear to me in my assessment of the risks 
involved in supporting or rejecting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action is that, if Congress derails this deal, history will record such 
act as a monumental mistake and the alternatives would not change 
Iranian nuclear and weaponization pursuits.
  Mr. Speaker, rejecting the plan and resorting to unilateral sanctions 
would prove futile, as it has in the past, while relying on military 
action would not curb Iran's ambitions or erase its technical 
knowledge.
  Critics also assert that this deal does not address concerns about 
issues with Iran that are outside the scope of the plan. We know from 
past experience that reaching an agreement on one critical issue does 
not preclude us from working on other serious concerns by other means.
  We negotiated with the Soviet Union during Strategic Arms Limitation 
Talks, which took place in the midst of the Vietnam war that was waged 
against us with Soviet-made arms, yet those agreements lessened the 
danger of nuclear confrontation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has shown tremendous 
leadership on the world stage by choosing diplomacy first. Leadership 
is never easy. By definition, it is a lonely and sometimes an unpopular 
exercise.
  Today we must show leadership, we must display fortitude, and do what 
is right. And what is right in this scenario is that we support the 
Iran agreement.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, this deal is a capitulation by the greatest 
nation in the world to the most rogue nation in the world.
  What makes the deal so bad is that Iran doesn't even have to cheat to 
emerge in 10 or 15 years with an industrial-sized nuclear program and 
with little or no breakout time to achieve nuclear weapons 
capabilities.
  By lifting the financial sanctions, we are literally financing the 
very weapons and terror that will be directed at us and our allies by 
the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today.
  Amazingly, we are abandoning the arms embargo and the ballistic 
missile embargo against Iran for good measure.
  Not only is our national security threatened, but our close ally, 
Israel, fears for its very existence under this deal. We simply cannot 
abandon Israel.
  Let history record that I stand against this weak and dangerous deal 
with a regime that hates the U.S. and hates Israel.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution approving the 
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the nuclear program of 
Iran negotiated by the Obama administration in concert with five other 
nations, the P5+1.
  I want to commend President Obama's Secretary Kerry, Under Secretary 
Sherman, Secretary Moniz, and their teams for their leadership and 
continued, persistent engagement with our international partners and 
Members of Congress to make this moment possible.
  None of us comes to this decision lightly. It is perhaps the most 
important decision of our public life, no matter what decision we come 
to.
  But after reading the agreement and the classified and unclassified 
underlying documents, taking part in numerous briefings at the White 
House and here on Capitol Hill, meeting with constituents, and studying 
the analyses of experts, I am confident that this strong diplomatic 
achievement provides the only option that prevents Iran from obtaining 
a nuclear weapon and, by some estimates, in as few as 2 to 3 months. 
This is not achieved by trust, Mr. Speaker, but through verification.
  Mr. Speaker, after 14 years of continuous military engagement for our 
armed services, this agreement cuts off all pathways to an Iranian 
nuclear weapon and does so without unnecessarily risking American lives 
in yet another military action, even as the agreement preserves that 
ultimate option, should it become necessary in the event of Iran's 
default.
  This agreement sends a clear message to Iran that the global 
community stands united today and well into the future in ensuring that 
Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.
  Much has been said of Iran's capacity after 10 to 15 years. And even 
there, the agreement places Iran in the confines of a nuclear non-
proliferation treaty, just as the rest of us are.
  If Iran violates the agreement, they will, without question, face 
complete isolation, even more severe repercussions, and the U.S. 
retains our ability to engage unilateral sanctions and our military 
option.
  It is true that this agreement is not perfect. But if this agreement 
does not go forward, there is no better deal, Mr. Speaker. In fact, 
there is no deal. No sanctions, no international partners, no 
inspections, no deal. This is a negotiation which is, by definition, 
not perfect.

                              {time}  1900

  It is my hope that we will divorce ourselves from the hyperbole and 
the rhetoric in favor of the seriousness this issue deserves. I have 
concluded that the agreement is the best path forward.
  This is not just my considered judgment; it is the judgment of the 
highest levels of the military, nonproliferation experts, nuclear 
scientists, and our diplomatic partners who join in their overwhelming 
support of the agreement.
  As a Congress, we can only do our best and our part to move forward 
to provide the necessary resources for proper oversight to ensure 
effective

[[Page 13997]]

monitoring and aggressive verification. If Iran cheats, we will know 
it; we will know it quickly, and we will act decisively.
  Once again, the world turned to the United States for our leadership 
on dealing with Iran and its nuclear program. This agreement, reached 
through rigorous diplomacy, in conjunction with our partners, provides 
the tools we need to ensure a pathway to peace and security for the 
United States, for Israel, the region, and the world.
  I will vote to approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note that over 200 retired generals, flag officers, and 
admirals signed a letter in opposition; and we have heard continuously, 
including this week, from retired generals, officers, and admirals 
about their concerns about this agreement.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers), the Republican Conference chair.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, the votes this week on the 
President's nuclear deal with Iran are some of the most important we 
have taken in years. As the world's largest sponsor of terror, Iran 
continues to play an enormously destructive and destabilizing role in 
the world.
  Iran's actions are destroying the lives of millions of vulnerable 
innocents. The current refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe is 
only the most recent example.
  Iran has been propping up Assad's regime in Syria for the past 4 
years, sending weapons and thousands of fighters there to brutalize the 
Syrian people. ISIS has exploited these conditions, and now, millions 
of Syrians have been displaced, many of them going to unimaginable 
lengths to seek refuge in Europe. Iran bears responsibility for this.
  This deal is not reform. This deal is incentivizing bad behavior. A 
vote in favor of this deal is a vote that favors party politics over 
the will of the American people and global security. It is a terrible 
way to do business.
  The American people deserve full transparency from the White House on 
this deal, as required by the law and even basic respect for American 
voters.
  The President is required to turn over all the agreements--even the 
side deals made with third parties--and he has yet to do that.
  While I was home the last few weeks in my district in eastern 
Washington, not a day passed that I didn't hear grave concerns about 
this deal. It wasn't Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus 
conservatives; it wasn't anti-President Obama. People are sincerely 
worried about what this deal means for our safety and security.
  We were told by the administration early on that no deal was better 
than a bad deal. Now, the President claims it is either this deal or 
war.
  Mr. Speaker, we aren't asking the President to stop his efforts to 
reach an agreement with Iran. We need a better deal. We are asking the 
President to continue and strengthen his efforts so that we get a deal 
that, first, truly denies Iran a path to a nuclear weapon by 
dismantling its extensive infrastructure; second, includes a robust 
inspections process, not one that is conducted by Iran itself; and, 
third, compels Iran to cease its support of terrorist organizations and 
brutal dictators like Assad, whose actions are destabilizing the entire 
region, as well as Europe.
  Until this deal includes, at a minimum, these three components and 
the President has made his obligations under the law, I will continue 
to oppose it, and I will urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to do the same.
  Let's send the President back to the negotiating table.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Maybe the President could get some advice from the leadership of the 
Republican Conference in how to figure out what resolution to bring to 
the floor.
  I now proudly yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline), my friend.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is whether 
or not this body will approve the negotiated agreement to prevent Iran 
from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It is one of the most consequential 
issues of our time and requires serious and sober consideration by 
every single Member of this body.
  You would think, Mr. Speaker, that in a matter of such gravity 
involving the foreign affairs of our Nation and the safety and security 
of our allies, particularly Israel, we could set aside urges to score 
political points and avoid dangerous hyperbole and instead debate the 
merits of this agreement.
  I regret that the process for considering this agreement has 
sometimes devolved into a sad show of partisanship. Our Nation is 
better than this.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of President Kennedy's inaugural 
address, which he delivered from the east front of the Capitol, just a 
few hundred feet from this Chamber. Addressing the threat from the 
Soviet Union, President Kennedy said: ``Let us begin anew--remembering 
on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.''
  He went on to say: ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us 
never fear to negotiate.''
  Those words still ring true today. This agreement shows the power of 
diplomacy to advance our national security interests and ensures that, 
before being required to send our brave men and women into a dangerous 
military conflict, that we have had the courage to exhaust every 
possible alternative.
  Like all of my colleagues, I have spent the last 2 months carefully 
studying the terms of this agreement that the United States and our 
negotiating partners reached to prevent a nuclear Iran; meeting with 
military, scientific, and nonproliferation experts; participating in 
dozens of classified briefings and committee hearings; meeting with the 
President and members of his administration, as well as meeting with my 
constituents.
  After a great deal of serious deliberation, I believe that the United 
States and the world are safer with this deal in place than without it.
  I fully recognize that this agreement is not perfect--far from it--
but like any decision in life, we have to confront the choices we face, 
not the one we would rather have before us or like to imagine.
  I believe approval of this agreement is the most responsible and 
effective way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. By its 
very terms, it affirms that under no circumstance will Iran ever seek, 
develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider what we 
will be giving up if we reject this deal. This agreement requires Iran 
to submit to the most intrusive and rigorous inspections regimen ever 
negotiated. This is in stark contrast to the complete lack of access 
currently available to the international community to monitor Iran's 
nuclear program.
  If Congress rejects the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will 
mean zero restrictions on Iran's nuclear ambitions, no limitations on 
their enrichment activities or centrifuge production, and no ability 
for international inspectors to monitor Iran's nuclear program.
  Many experts agree that rejection of this agreement would mean Iran 
could develop a nuclear weapon in just a matter of months, the worst 
possible outcome.
  Approval of this agreement does not end our responsibility, Mr. 
Speaker. Congress must work closely with the administration to ensure 
that we take additional steps to mitigate the risks reflected in the 
agreement, to discourage Iran from escalating its destabilizing 
activities in the region, and to enhance the likelihood that Iran 
complies with all the terms of the agreement.
  Additional resources have to be devoted to supporting, monitoring, 
verification, and intelligence gathering activities.
  Above all else, we must make it absolutely clear to Iran that any 
violation of the agreement will be met with swift and decisive action 
by the United States and the international community.

[[Page 13998]]

  I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to make certain that all of this happens.
  In the end, this was not an easy decision or one I arrived at 
quickly. There is risk in accepting this agreement, and it contains 
real tradeoffs. No responsible person should claim otherwise.
  I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that rejecting this agreement would 
present even greater and more dangerous risks to our national security 
and our allies than the risks associated with going forward. Because of 
this, I intend to support the resolution of approval and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce for his 
outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers included in the preamble of the 
United States Constitution the intention of our government to provide 
for the common defense. Protecting and defending our Nation was not an 
afterthought; it was a first thought.
  The defense of America and our allies has always been a strategic and 
moral goal. The agreement we have before us today, however, primarily 
meets Iran's goals. Sanctions are lifted; nuclear research and 
development continues, and America's safety is compromised. Under this 
deal, in a matter of years--likely in our lifetimes, but certainly in 
the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren--Iran will have a bomb.
  The President of the United States has said that this agreement is 
not based on trust, but on verification. I wish that was true because 
this agreement shouldn't be based on trust. I certainly do not trust a 
government that has acted as a bank for terrorists.
  Any agreement should be based on verification; but where is the 
simple assurance of anytime, anywhere inspections? We don't have 
verification. What we have is misplaced hope, hope that Iran has 
disclosed all of its past nuclear activities, hope that Iran will be 
transparent, hope that Iran has somehow changed.
  Earlier this year, 367 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter 
to the President outlining several conditions that any final nuclear 
agreement must address. Unfortunately, the agreement we have before us 
does not meet congressional standards and has numerous fatal flaws.
  For example, in 2012, Congress barred Iranians from coming here to 
study nuclear science and nuclear engineering at U.S. universities. One 
would think that is a good policy, given that they are seeking to get a 
bomb.
  In one of the most outrageous provisions of this deal, the Department 
of Homeland Security and the Department of State will no longer be 
allowed to enforce the bar. This deal will actually make the U.S. an 
accomplice to Iran's nuclear weapons program by granting Iranians the 
ability to come to the U.S. to acquire knowledge instrumental in their 
being able to design and build nuclear bombs.
  Other concerns include giving Iran a signing bonus, lifting the arms 
embargo, failure to cut off Iran's pathway to the bomb, and the lack of 
protection for not only our own safety, but for the safety of the 
world. A nuclear Iran is a threat to our great ally, Israel, but is 
also a threat to the rest of the Middle East, America, and the world.
  While the administration has said that any deal is better than no 
deal, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Delay is preferable to error,'' and 
I agree with Jefferson.
  Had our negotiators remained at the table a while longer, perhaps we 
would not be where we are today; yet, as it stands, this so-called 
deal, if it goes through, will likely mark the pages of history as a 
great error.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am reminded back to Churchill. He said it is always better to jaw-
jaw than to war-war.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Representative Connolly 
for yielding me time and, really, for your tremendous leadership on 
this very vital issue. Also, I must salute our Leader Pelosi for her 
unwavering support and hard work for global peace and security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3461, a resolution to 
approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  Now, in the last two Congresses, mind you, I introduced the Prevent 
Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy Act, 
which called for the appointment of a high-level special envoy to 
address Iran's nuclear program and an end to the no-contact policy 
between our diplomats.
  Since the 1970s, quite frankly, I have worked on many nuclear 
nonproliferation issues and believe very strongly that the deal that 
President Obama and our P5+1 partners negotiated demonstrates how 
effective diplomacy can be. It will lead us closer to a world where our 
children and future generations can live without the fear of Iran 
acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  The JCPOA, supported by the majority of Americans and key 
international allies, including France, Germany, and Britain, though 
not perfect, it is the best way to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a 
nuclear weapon.
  The Iran nuclear deal puts into place the most intrusive inspection 
system, including a 24/7 surveillance of Iran's enrichment facilities 
and reactors; it cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon, 
and it will enhance regional and global security.

                              {time}  1915

  United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power stated in her recent 
political op-ed: ``If we walk away, there is no diplomatic door No. 2, 
no do-over, no rewrite of the deal on the table.''
  Rejecting the Iran deal will isolate the United States from our 
international partners. It 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 its weapons programs with no oversight. That is 
unacceptable. We cannot afford the alternative to this deal.
  This is a defining moment for our country and for our world. Let us 
continue to work for peace. We all know that the military option is 
always there. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution 
of approval.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution and 
against this disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran.
  The actions that Iran will be allowed to pursue under this agreement 
are a direct threat to the United States and to our allies, and it 
falls far short of the commitment the President made to the American 
people, which is to verifiably prevent Iran from getting a nuclear 
weapon.
  Under the deal, Iran will maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure. 
They will be able to conduct research on advanced centrifuges that are 
capable of rapidly enriching uranium and developing ballistic missiles 
that are capable of carrying a bomb to Israel, Europe, or the United 
States. Instead of anytime, anywhere inspections, the bureaucratic 
process ensures lengthy delays, which will allow Iran to cover its 
tracks.
  This troubling deal will provide billions of dollars to fund Iran's 
international terror enterprise even as they call for Israel's 
annihilation and chant ``death to America.''
  It is time to lead the world to a better deal that will result in 
Iran's forever abandoning its threats to the world.
  Mr. Speaker, while this House actually votes on the merits of this 
deal, I know what happened today in the other House of Congress--the 
Senate. There, almost all Democrats have joined to block a vote on this 
deal. One Democrat who wanted to vote was Senator Schumer of New York. 
Senator Schumer released a statement last month that showed he 
understands the

[[Page 13999]]

serious defects of this deal--from the inadequate inspections to the 
billions that will flow into Iran's terror enterprise. Because of these 
defects, Senator Schumer concluded, we will be worse off with this 
agreement than without it.
  But there is another choice, Mr. Speaker--a better deal--one 
negotiated with a clear understanding of the nature of our enemy.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this deal, to encourage the President 
to go back to the negotiating table, and to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, it was John Kennedy who negotiated the 
first nuclear Test Ban Treaty successfully with our archenemy that 
threatened to bury us--the Soviet Union. He said that we should never 
negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the P5+1 nuclear agreement 
with Iran, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 
Like my vote against the Iraq war, this decision is one of the most 
important foreign policy votes I will take during my time in Congress.
  The intent of sanctions and negotiations has always been to 
diplomatically cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and to 
verifiably increase the transparency of their nuclear activities. It is 
clear to me, as well as to numerous nuclear, diplomatic, and national 
security experts around the globe, that this agreement achieves these 
critical goals.
  It not only cuts off all pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it also 
imposes unprecedented and permanent inspections, and it ensures we can 
automatically reinstate international sanctions if Iran violates the 
agreement.
  In contrast, defeating this deal would allow Iran to resume its 
nuclear program with no restrictions or oversight, increasing the 
likelihood of military conflict and a regional nuclear weapons race--
precisely the scenario sanctions were designed to prevent.
  Another costly war in the Middle East would put American lives at 
risk and undermine the security of our Nation and our allies, including 
Israel.
  While the risks of a nuclear-armed Iran are unquestionably dire, 
there is simply no scenario in which these risks are reduced by 
rejecting this deal.
  There are no decisions I take more seriously than those that involve 
potentially sending American troops into harm's way. This is, 
undeniably, one of those decisions. Under this agreement, every option 
is and will remain on the table, including that of military force; but 
we have a solemn obligation to ensure that every diplomatic avenue is 
exhausted before military action is taken. That is why I opposed 
authorizing the Iraq war and why I support this nuclear deal with Iran.
  This deal has certainly not been perfect, but perfect is not and 
never has been an option. Those who are urging the defeat of this deal 
have a responsibility to propose a viable alternative, yet no such 
alternative has been put forward. This agreement before us is the best 
path available. It has my full support.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, when the President was running 
for reelection, he said: Look, with Iran, it is very simple. We will 
remove the sanctions when they dismantle and give up their nuclear 
program.
  That was a promise he made to the American people, but this deal 
doesn't even come close to that. Iran is allowed to maintain a vast, 
vast nuclear infrastructure.
  Two years ago in this House, we passed more robust sanctions, which 
would have further tightened the screws on the Iranian regime. I think, 
at that time, Iran desperately wanted to get out of the sanctions. If 
you had asked Iran what they wanted, they would have, obviously, wanted 
the sanctions relief because they needed the money--the regime needed 
it to solidify themselves in power--but they also would have wanted to 
keep their nuclear program. Then, of course, they would have wanted to 
continue to fund terrorism.
  This agreement basically gives Iran everything it wants, so I join my 
colleagues who have urged that we resoundingly reject this agreement.
  I want to point out something that, I think, is very personal to a 
lot of veterans.
  If you look right here, this is an up-armored Humvee in Iraq in, 
probably, the 2007-2008 time period. It has been ripped to shreds by an 
EFP device--an explosively formed penetrator. This is something wherein 
the explosion will cause these pieces of metal to go 3,000 meters per 
second. It will ravage the individuals who are in the Humvee, and it 
will even go through the armor. These devices caused the deaths of 
hundreds of our servicemembers, and they wounded many, many more.
  Why do I bring that up?
  Because this was perpetrated by this man, Qasem Soleimani, who is the 
head of the Quds Force--Iran's Revolutionary Guard terrorist outfit. He 
was orchestrating those attacks on American servicemembers. That is 
enough, right? We are doing a deal with a country that has a lot of 
American blood on its hands.
  It is even worse than that. This deal relieves the international 
sanctions on Qasem Soleimani and the Quds Force. It empowers the very 
people who harmed our servicemembers in Iraq. I think that that is an 
insult to the memories of the people who lost their lives on our behalf 
and an insult to their families.
  For that reason, in addition to all of the other great ones that have 
been mentioned, we need to resoundingly reject this deal.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out for the record 
that Soleimani remains on the list.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2012, Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu went to the 
U.N. with a graph, much like the one right beside me. It was a picture 
of a bomb with a red line. The Prime Minister said: ``The red line must 
be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program.''
  This deal does that.
  Today, we can say that Iran cannot produce or stockpile highly 
enriched uranium, and it has to get rid of 98 percent of its low 
enriched uranium. To make sure that they don't achieve a nuclear 
weapon, we have the strictest inspection regimen in the history of 
nuclear agreements. The impetus for 2 years of negotiation has been 
achieved.
  So what is the problem?
  The gears of war are halted when we prove that negotiation and 
diplomacy are the best methods of achieving peace. This deal is a 
triumph of diplomacy over military conflict. It is a win for those who 
reject the misconception that diplomacy is weakness.
  In 2003, Vice President Cheney said: ``I have been charged by the 
President with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are 
negotiated with.'' The ensuing decades of war brought 6,840 U.S. 
soldiers home in coffins and squandered trillions of hard-earned, 
American tax dollars.
  Yet, we have learned from that.
  We have learned our lesson that we must negotiate, that we must talk 
it out before we begin to shoot it out. The fact that a majority of 
Americans supports this deal means that people are tired of sacrificing 
so much for the bankrupt idea that a conversation is capitulation.
  This agreement keeps nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands for decades. 
In 2003, Iran had 164 centrifuges. In 2005, they had 3,000. In 2009, 
they had 8,000. By 2013, they had 22,000. While we were rattling sabers 
and making bravado-type comments about what we were going to do to 
them, they were making centrifuges. When the President got down to the 
business of negotiation, we had brought that process to a stop.
  We will continue to sanction human rights violators wherever they 
are, including in Iran, and we will also continue to confront people 
who export

[[Page 14000]]

terrorism; but the best way to empower reformers within Iran is to 
engage. Diplomatic victories require playing the long game. You need 
patience, and you need unshakable courage in your convictions.
  Let me say that I remember the moment in 2007 when then-Senator Obama 
said he would engage in personal diplomacy with leaders in the Middle 
East in order to stop bloodshed in the region. That is the moment that 
I knew I would vote for him, and I am proud to stand here nearly a 
decade later to congratulate the President for this diplomatic victory.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues have come to the floor today and 
have stated that this is the most important vote or the most important 
series of votes that we will take in this Congress. I agree with them 
because these votes boil down to the fundamental question:
  What kind of a world do we want to live in?
  What kind of a world do we want for ourselves? for our children? for 
our grandchildren? for future generations?
  Do we want to live in a world where we legitimize the most radical, 
the most extremist, the most terrorist government in the world--a 
government that has a long and well-documented history of lying to the 
world? of holding Americans hostage? of hanging homosexuals from 
cranes? of executing juveniles?
  Do we want to empower that government with an investment of at least 
$56 billion, a portion of which will surely go to terrorist activities 
not just in the Middle East but all over the world?
  Do we want to guarantee that whether it is in 10 years or in 13 years 
or in 15 years or in 20 years that that same government will have the 
ability to build a nuclear arsenal?
  Do we want to afford that same government--the mullahs in Iran--the 
ability to have intercontinental ballistic missiles? Those aren't for 
Israel. Those aren't for the Middle East. Those are for us. The only 
purpose of those missiles is to carry a nuclear warhead.
  What kind of a world do we want to live in?
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, many years from now, my daughters, ages 
5 and 3, will look up how their dad voted on this critical issue. I 
think--and I am very hopeful and I am confident--that they will thank 
me, because this is a bad deal. This is a deal that not only endangers 
our allies in the Middle East, it endangers us. This is a deal where we 
have to ask ourselves who we are, what we stand for, and what kind of a 
world we want to live in.
  For that reason, I am opposing the Iran deal, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, our friend from Florida asks the right 
questions. He has just got the wrong answer. I can answer those 
questions.
  I want a world that rolls back the nuclear capability of Iran, not a 
world based on a false hope that we can make it work somehow without a 
plan.
  That is what puts the world at risk. That is what puts my children 
and grandchildren at risk. I am not willing to take that risk
  Mr. Speaker, before I recognize Mrs. Davis of California, can I 
inquire how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from 
Virginia has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
has 42\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Forty-two?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. What a lucky man my friend from California is.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, after much deliberation and 
soul searching, I am convinced that the P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan 
of Action creates a viable path to reduce Iran's nuclear weapons 
capability.
  For that reason, I believe this agreement is in the best interest of 
the United States. Of course, the agreement must also be in the best 
interest of our friends in the Middle East.
  As someone who has lived in Israel and has returned many times since, 
I understand that, for Israelis and Americans with close ties to 
Israel, Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map is not an abstract 
concern.
  It has been less than a hundred years since the Jewish people nearly 
suffered such a fate. The threat of annihilation is very real to 
Israelis, and it is very real to me.
  I would never take a vote that I thought could leave my grandchildren 
a world without a strong, safe Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I am under no illusions that this agreement will end 
Iran's hegemonic ambitions, but I can't allow their destabilizing 
behavior to have the protection of a nuclear umbrella.
  I agree with the former head of the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, 
the head of that intelligence agency, Amos Yadlin, that, if we walk 
away from this agreement, Iran will remain closer to a nuclear bomb in 
the coming years, and the chances of a collapse of the sanctions regime 
will increase.
  Nobody in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, trusts Iran. That is why we need 
and we must have and take the responsibility to come together after 
this vote to make sure that the United States is exercising all of its 
initiative to implement this agreement and to address what we know will 
come, those inevitable challenges.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), 
a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
  Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, when President Obama announced that 
the P5+1 had reached an agreement on Iran's nuclear program, he stated 
that the deal was not built on trust, that it was built on 
verification.
  This was a clear acknowledgement by the administration that the Iran 
regime is not a trustworthy negotiating partner and that any agreement 
must contain stringent verification guidelines to ensure that Iran 
adheres to its obligations.
  Unfortunately, the verification procedures in the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action are impotent at best. While the agreement does allow for
24/7 monitoring of declared sites, it includes a provision that gives 
Iran up to 24 days to grant inspectors access to suspected undeclared 
facilities.
  According to former IAEA officials, this greatly increases the 
probability that nefarious nuclear activities could escape detection.
  While this verification scheme is already embarrassingly weak, it 
gets worse when one considers the secret side deals that prevent 
inspection of the Parchin military complex and allow Iran to inspect 
itself. This is not the ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections the 
administration claimed it was pursuing.
  The fact is that, in spite of claims of the administration, this 
agreement is not built on verification. It is built on trust.
  It requires us to trust a regime that is the largest exporter of 
terrorism in the world, that has already violated the interim nuclear 
agreement and whose Supreme Leader just today stated that Israel will 
not exist in 25 years.
  Mr. Speaker, as the President himself has said, no deal is better 
than a bad deal. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad deal, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, President Kennedy, who served in 
this Chamber, spoke at American University about preventing nuclear war 
and that to do so it was necessary to deal with our most feared and 
distrusted enemy at the time, the Soviet Union, as mistrusted and evil 
in the eyes of Americans then as Iran is today. As you recall, Prime 
Minister Khrushchev boldly stated, ``We will bury you.''
  President Kennedy understood, though, that in negotiations with an 
enemy, ``We must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to 
a choice of either a humiliating retreat or nuclear war.''
  President Obama, along with the other five nations at the negotiating 
table in Vienna, confronted the same reality.
  When President Reagan engaged in detente with the Soviet Union, he 
also

[[Page 14001]]

was negotiating with our most feared and distrusted enemy.
  In negotiations with Iran, it has been the same for President Obama 
as it was for President Kennedy in negotiating with the Soviet Union.
  Both President Kennedy and President Obama had the same goals as 
America has had for over a half a century, and that is to prevent 
nuclear war. And to do so, it has been necessary to deal with an 
untrusted foe.
  I have listened to my constituents. I have been privy to many 
classified briefings. I have spoken personally to President Obama and 
Secretary Kerry.
  I have met with officials in Vienna at the headquarters of the IAEA 
and with diplomats and officials from Europe and Asia and considered 
the opinions of renowned physicists and military generals.
  Over those past several weeks and months, I have often thought about 
President Kennedy's eloquent words at American University in August of 
'63 when he said that, in the final analysis, ``We all inhabit the same 
small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our 
children's future. And we are all mortal.'' The same holds true today.
  I support this agreement based upon the information I have gleaned 
from the aforementioned individuals and groups and with the 
understanding there is no more important mission than preventing 
nuclear war.
  Mr. Speaker, our people and our planet are in the balance. I am 
convinced this is the most effective way that Iran will not build a 
nuclear weapon.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), 
chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time and for 
the excellent job he has been doing tonight during the debate on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this week is a somber week for our Nation. September the 
11th reminds us of the sacred responsibility we, in Congress, have to 
protect the American people from those who want to kill us. That is why 
we must oppose the Iran deal.
  This deal only emboldens our enemies at the expense of our friends 
and our own national security. So it is no surprise that a majority in 
Congress oppose this deal, as do most Americans, for many reasons.
  First, it allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future.
  Second, it lists sanctions and frees up as much as $150 billion in 
assets for Iran. These funds inevitably will be used by Iran to export 
terrorism as even the President himself has admitted.
  Third, the longstanding arms embargo against Iran will be lifted. 
This enables Iran to buy long-range surface-to-air missiles from Russia 
by the end of the year.
  Fourth, there is no credible way to conduct inspections of Iran's 
nuclear weapons-building sites. Under the proposed deal, Iran is given 
weeks, if not months, of advanced notice of any inspection. This 
provides ample time for Iran to hide evidence of nuclear weapons 
activities and violate the agreement.
  Secret deals that the administration has hidden from Congress and the 
American people have now been revealed. One secret deal permits Iran to 
conduct its own inspections at a military facility suspected of ties to 
nuclear weapons.
  Finally, by increasing the odds of a nuclear Iran, this deal directly 
threatens the security and future of Israel. The Iran deal destabilizes 
the Middle East, jeopardizes America's security, and endangers the 
world. The Iran deal must be opposed now and in the future.
  Remember, this is not the law of the land. This deal is a nonbinding 
executive agreement. Only the Constitution is the law of the land.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope our fellow Americans 
understand what is really at stake here: engagement and the rollback of 
a nuclear threat or the kinetic option, which is military intervention 
that takes us down a path that will lead to more terrorism, more 
violence, and the necessity of troops on the ground. I choose the 
former, and I believe our fellow Americans will, too.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise my 
vehement objection to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and to 
call on my colleagues to do the same.
  In March, I joined 346 of my bipartisan colleagues in a letter 
outlining the issues needed to be addressed by Iran in a comprehensive 
nuclear agreement.
  The last sentence of that agreement said: Congress must be convinced 
that the agreement's terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and then 
and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions 
relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read this entire agreement, and I am profoundly 
disappointed to say that it falls remarkably short of foreclosing a 
pathway to a bomb.
  To the contrary, this agreement brings Iran to the brink of becoming 
a nuclear weapons state and 8 short years from now provides them a 
pathway to acquiring technology to strike Europe and well beyond.
  To ease the concerns of my noncommittal colleagues, the President has 
promised a military option remains on the table.
  I am simply awestricken by the fact that my colleagues on the left 
have fallen for these assurances. It is the same administration that 
promised the red line in Syria.
  It is the same empty rhetoric that has sustained the Syrian civil 
war, the Libyan civil war, ISIL's control of western Iraq, and, of 
course, the imperialist Vladimir Putin that has annexed the sovereign 
territory of the Ukraine.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this deal and any deal that 
enables a belligerent state sponsor of terror to have access to 
hundreds of billions of dollars and nuclear weapons that will allow its 
atrocities to continue in perpetuity, all the while four Americans, one 
of them a native of the State of Michigan, my home State, Amir Hekmati, 
is being held hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, in no other world, public or private, would this 
agreement be considered credible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. I was saying that, in no other world, Mr. 
Speaker--and to all of you--having served in the public and in the 
private sector, have I ever seen an agreement where we are negotiating 
with a party that has no respect for the other party.
  In this case, the Supreme Leader of the State of Iran as late as 
yesterday referred to the United States as the Great Satan and called 
for us to be wiped off the face of the Earth, not just Israel.
  We are the Great Satan. They are Satan, according to the Ayatollah. 
We are the Great Satan. I object to entering into an agreement with a 
country that has no respect.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Democratic Leader 
Pelosi for her tireless and unyielding advocacy for the Iran nuclear 
deal agreed to between Iran and six major world powers, with the 
unanimous support of the U.N. Security Council.

                              {time}  1945

  I very much share the leader's view that diplomacy and peace must be 
given every chance in our dealings with Iran before we contemplate the 
use of any other options.
  I also want to acknowledge the fact that, acting with the President's 
full support, Secretary of State John Kerry has done a masterful job of 
holding the P5+1 coalition together. It was far from certain that 
Russia and China, intent as each of them is on reducing America's 
influence in the world, would continue their participation in the tough 
multinational effort necessary to get us to this point.

[[Page 14002]]

  This agreement proves that world leaders, despite being divided on a 
range of issues, can still work together and reach an agreement with 
profound implications for international peace and security. This is 
truly extraordinary.
  I support this agreement not because it is perfect, but because it is 
a deal that stands up extremely well as a barrier against nuclear 
proliferation for at least 15 years. It also establishes an intrusive 
inspections regimen to ensure that Iran's program remains heavily 
monitored and exclusively peaceful for even longer.
  One of the most important provisions of this deal allows any 
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council who can show that Iran 
has violated the agreement the ability to snap back the tough sanctions 
that had previously been in place.
  Now, I know there are critics who believe that, by rejecting the deal 
and increasing sanctions on Iran, that the U.S. can somehow coerce the 
leaders of Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear program. As 
effective as the current sanctions have been in bringing Iran to the 
table to negotiate, they have not stopped Iran from becoming a 
threshold nuclear state.
  If Congress rejects this deal, it will not lead to a better one. If 
the U.S. walks away from this deal, we will have squandered the best 
chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. In fact, 
U.S. rejection of the deal is more likely to isolate the United States 
rather than Iran from the rest of the world.
  It would reinforce questions around the world about our commitment to 
multilateralism and American political dysfunction. Furthermore, it 
would seriously undermine our ability to lead any future diplomatic 
efforts on terrorism and on a range of other issues important to our 
national security interests.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which is necessary 
for the success of the nuclear deal, the preservation of the 
international financial sanctions architecture, and for maintaining the 
credibility of U.S. diplomatic commitments in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived 
agreement between our current administration and the fanatical regime 
ruling the nation of Iran.
  I find it impossible to understand how those who are sworn to protect 
the security and interests of the American people could enter into such 
a one-sided deal. This is a deal that expands the lethal potential of a 
ruthless regime by giving them a path to a nuclear weapon; a regime 
whose stated objective is the destruction of the United States; a 
regime committed to the complete and utter destruction of Israel, our 
most trusted friend and ally in the Middle East; and a regime that 
almost no one believes will honor this deal.
  It is incomprehensible that we would so blindly ignore the warnings 
of the world's most aggressive supporter of terrorism by allowing them 
access to $150 billion in assets and allowing them to use those assets 
to project their war against our Nation and our allies.
  If the rantings of this regime are not enough to cause us to reject 
this deal, then we should let history instruct us. This regime has been 
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. This 
regime has been responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in 
Israel and other nations. In 2009, this regime murdered their own 
citizens who courageously advocated for the freedom of the Iranian 
people. The actions of the Iranian regime speak for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, history is a great teacher, and I believe the past 
mistakes of world leaders who failed to recognize the lethal danger 
posed by ruthless and ambitious regimes have been written in the pages 
of history with the blood of millions upon millions of people.
  We must not allow our Nation to take rank with those nations and 
leaders who chose appeasement over courage, who chose to take what 
appeared to them to be the easy path, instead of bearing the 
responsibility of making the harder decision because it was the right 
decision.
  If the administration is correct that allowing the ruling regime in 
Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons will pose no threat to 
America and Israel, then no one will remember how the Members of this 
Congress voted; but if this administration and the supporters of this 
agreement are wrong and we suffer a catastrophic loss of lives, no one 
will ever forget what we did here. We will bear the burden of this vote 
for the rest of our lives.
  America's foreign policy is at a crossroads. I am reminded how a 
great President described how we should deal with dangerous nations. 
President Theodore Roosevelt said we should speak softly and carry a 
big stick. He described this approach as the exercise of intelligent 
forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any 
likely crisis. This deal does not meet that standard.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the time when the burden of leadership that has 
been entrusted to every Member of Congress falls most heavily upon us. 
The American people look to us to do our duty and bear this 
responsibility without regard to party or politics, to put their safety 
and security first and foremost. I urge all the Members of this House 
to put aside the politics and partisanship that otherwise divide us and 
stand together in opposition to this deal.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, the goal of the negotiations between world 
powers and Iran has always been to prevent them from developing a 
nuclear weapon. I think we have to be realistic about this.
  This agreement, as opposed to rejecting the agreement, takes us very 
far toward that goal; and I think accomplishes that goal in a way that 
we should all be able to live with and accept. The alternative is just 
too treacherous, I think, for us to even imagine.
  I have been involved in this issue for as long as I have been here, 
this last 2\1/2\ years that I have been in Congress. I, as many 
Members, have had countless hours of briefings. I have read the 
documents; I have read the classified reports, and I am confident that 
this agreement, simply put, makes the world a safer place, both for the 
U.S. and our allies.
  What this agreement does not do, however--and I think it is important 
to keep in context--this agreement does not make Iran a good actor on 
the world stage. It is intended to tamp down their nuclear aspirations.
  It doesn't mean that Iran can be trusted. In fact, the very nature of 
the agreement is that it will rely on inspections; it will rely on the 
eyes of the world to be on Iran to ensure that the agreement is adhered 
to with robust inspections.
  Like any negotiated agreement, it is not perfect. If Iran cheats, we 
will know it through inspections. If Iran violates the agreement, our 
allies and the United States will be able to put back in place those 
sanctions that were so important to get them to the negotiating table 
in the first place. In fact, even if our allies don't agree, we would 
have the ability to unilaterally take steps to reinstate those 
important sanctions.
  Finally, I think, importantly, under this question, the U.S. will be 
in a much stronger position than we are today if, in fact, military 
intervention ultimately is required because we will have allowed the 
diplomatic process to work, I believe, and I think most Americans 
believe, it strengthens our hand, it strengthens our standing in the 
world if, in fact, the necessity of military action does come upon us. 
The fact that we gave diplomacy a chance, I think, is a really 
important point.
  Now, I have heard, from friends on both sides of the aisle, concern 
about the Americans that are being held, and this is a subject that I 
know something about. I represent the family of Amir Hekmati, and I 
appreciate the efforts of Members on both sides to call upon

[[Page 14003]]

Iran to release the Americans that they hold.
  I personally thank Chairman Royce for his effort through his 
leadership on the Committee on Foreign Affairs to assist me in 
developing a resolution that allowed this House to speak with one voice 
on that question.
  It would be a mistake, as some have suggested, to have included the 
freedom of innocent Americans as one of the provisions of an agreement 
because, by the very nature of an agreement through negotiation, in 
order to secure a concession, in order to secure the release of those 
Americans in exchange for something else that was negotiated at the 
bargaining table, we would have had to exchange something that makes 
the world a less safe place.
  Don't take my word for it. Listen to the position taken by that 
young, brave man that I represent, that young marine, Amir Hekmati, who 
himself has said that the onus is on Iran to unilaterally release him 
and not to include him as part of a transaction that deals with Iran's 
nuclear capabilities.
  That is the position that I take because I think it is the right 
position, but I think it is important to note that that is also the 
position that this brave young man, who for 4 years has been sitting in 
an Iranian jail cell, also takes.
  Finally, we have to be honest with ourselves about the question that 
is before us. Now, if I were to have written this agreement by myself, 
it would be a different agreement, and I am sure that is true of 
virtually everybody in this House.
  The fact of the matter is, when evaluating our position on this 
question, we have to first search our own conscience, but we have to 
measure the effect of this agreement and the consequences of adhering 
to it and enacting this agreement with the consequences of walking away 
from a multilateral negotiated agreement with no prospect.
  Listen to the voices of the other nations involved, with no prospect 
of being able to come back to the negotiating table.
  The conclusion, I think, that I have come to in examining my 
conscience is that we are in a far better position as a world and we 
are far more secure through this agreement than we would be with the 
uncertainty of walking away from the diplomatic process and allowing 
Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon in the next months.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 
30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the conclusion that I have come to, 
but this is also the conclusion that experts on both sides of the 
political spectrum have come to.
  Ambassadors from across the world--former Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright thinks this is the right path forward; former 
Secretary of State Colin Powell thinks this is the right path forward.
  I understand that individuals in this House may come to different 
conclusions after examining the facts. The only thing I ask and 
encourage my colleagues to do is to vote your heart. Vote what you 
think is right.
  Examine the documents and do what you think is in the best interests 
of this country and of the world, and the conclusion that I have come 
to is that supporting this agreement is the right thing.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would also point out, though, that we have heard from many experts. 
We have heard from many generals, admirals, and there are over 200 
generals and flag officers, admirals who have come to the opposite 
conclusion, who have come to the conclusion that this makes the country 
less safe, and throughout the course of the afternoon and evening here, 
supporters of this agreement have argued that we will be aggressive 
against Iran, aggressive against Iran on its regional aggression, 
aggressive against Iran on its human rights violations.

                              {time}  2000

  I will just bring up some concerns I have for the consideration of 
the body here.
  I don't see it. This administration was silent during Iran's Green 
revolution, when the Iranian people were in the streets revolting 
against the regime at the time of the stolen election there in Iran. 
They needed U.S. leadership the most at that time.
  And since the administration began its negotiations with Iran, we 
have had a grand total of three human rights abuse designations from 
the administration--three designations against the backdrop of a record 
number of executions under the so-called moderate Rouhani, more 
executions this year than under alternative leadership in the past.
  So if you are seeing unparalleled levels of repression and executions 
and we don't see that being countered forcefully, I come to a certain 
conclusion. I see the same thing with the administration not 
confronting Assad's mass murders. Assad is Iranian-backed.
  From my standpoint, if the administration is locked into an 
agreement, I will tell you how I think. I presume the administration 
will defend that agreement, and I presume that that will mean ignoring 
Iran's abuses at home and probably ignoring Iran's aggression abroad. 
The negotiations were a constraint on the administration taking action 
and protesting, and I presume that the new agreement is going to be a 
constraint on the administration's taking action against Iran.
  I am just pointing out my view of this, based upon what I have 
observed going back to the Green revolution and this desire for a 
rapprochement with Iran. I wish that the administration would take on a 
new life in confronting Iran. I don't see it. And we will have a really 
bad deal to contend with.
  The other part about the deal, and other points were made here 
tonight, but sanctions relief provided to Iran under this agreement 
will enable them to increase the size and scope of their ballistic 
missiles.
  So the other observation I would make is the medium-and long-term 
threat of an Iranian ballistic missile that can reach the United States 
is very real. That is what we have heard from so many retired officers 
and what we have heard from the Pentagon, and yet the administration 
has been reluctant to ensure that the United States has adequate 
protective measures to guard the homeland against the Iranian ballistic 
missile threat.
  The missile defense program has suffered greatly under President 
Obama. One of his first major decisions was to cut funding for the 
Missile Defense Agency. Then there was the unilateral abrogation of 
signed missile defense agreements with our allies Poland and the Czech 
Republic in terms of the interceptor program that was supposed to 
defend Europe and the United States against any future Iranian 
potential launch.
  And contrary to the representation provided to Congress as part of 
the New START, the President canceled phase 4 of the European missile 
defense plan, which was specifically designed to increase protection of 
the U.S. homeland.
  So now that this agreement will pump resources and technology 
advancements into the ballistic missile threat to the U.S. by Iran, my 
other hope is that this institution will have uniform opposition to the 
administration's record of cutting missile defense and support 
proactive measures to protect the U.S. homeland. Because I will remind 
everyone here, Iran claims today that they are not bound in this 
agreement on the issue of ballistic missiles. They do not recognize the 
U.N. sanctions on their ballistic missiles, and they are claiming we 
did not put it specifically into the agreement. So as far as they are 
concerned, they are moving forward. They are moving forward with their 
ballistic missile program.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Iran agreement.
  In 2009, I was able to visit Israel and was in separate meetings with 
Prime Minister Netanyahu, then-President Peres, and the Israeli Chief 
of Staff of the IDF, or Israeli Defense Forces. I

[[Page 14004]]

asked the same question: What would it take to stop Iran from gaining a 
nuclear weapon? And they all gave me the same answer. They said: You 
have to impose economic sanctions that are tough enough that the 
Government of Iran fears a collapse of the economy and a resulting loss 
of power. And that is the only thing short of war that will cause them 
to give up their quest for a nuclear weapon.
  The Obama administration, merely to bring them to the negotiating 
table, threw them a lifeline and relaxed economic sanctions. And then, 
even before going to the Congress of the United States, they went to 
the United Nations to unravel economic sanctions on Iran.
  Michael Oren, Ambassador to the United States from Israel, said that, 
even though the President has tried to box the Congress in--the United 
States has a $17 trillion economy, and that by the United States 
imposing economic sanctions on Iran, that in fact other countries will 
be forced to follow in order to be able to do business with the United 
States.
  This is really the hope and change applied to American national 
security. The hope and change is that the conduct of Iran will change 
over time; that the ruling mullahs will in fact somehow become 
enlightened. And that when they say ``death to America,'' it is more of 
a cultural expression.
  In 1983, 241 marines died from an Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerilla 
in a truck bomb.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. COFFMAN. In 1996, 19 airmen died in the Khobar Towers by an 
Iranian-backed attack.
  When they say ``death to Americans,'' they mean death to Americans.
  In 2005, I was in Iraq with the United States Marine Corps, and we 
were losing soldiers and marines on the ground due to IEDs, but we up-
armored our vehicles and we did better route reconnaissance and 
security. Iran introduced what was called an EFP--a shape charge, or an 
explosive force penetrator--that was designed to penetrate the thickest 
hulls of our vehicles and killed hundreds of soldiers and marines on 
the ground. When the Iranians say ``death to Americans,'' they mean it.
  This deal will threaten the stability of the region, the security of 
the United States and of Israel, and I would urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentlewoman 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3461, legislation to approve 
the Iran nuclear agreement. While I will admit this deal is not 
absolutely perfect, I believe it does offer the best chance of 
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iran nuclear agreement is an opportunity, the likes 
of which we could not even imagine a few years ago: a chance to stop 
Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to do so without engaging in 
another costly and bloody war.
  Now, I did not reach this conclusion lightly. I did so only after 
closely examining the deal and the classified and unclassified 
supplementary documents. I also spoke to experts and numerous officials 
who were closely involved in the talks, including one of the IAEA 
inspectors, and carefully weighed the arguments from both sides.
  While I still have some concerns, I simply do not see an alternative 
that will constrain Iran's nuclear program and maintain the global 
cooperation needed to enforce these limits.
  Mr. Speaker, the plain language of this agreement explicitly states 
that ``under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire 
any nuclear weapons.'' There is no waiver, no exception, no qualifier 
or sunset. Iran may never have a nuclear weapon, period. That is what 
the agreement says.
  Now, of course, nobody believes a simple affirmation alone is enough, 
especially with Iran's history, which is why this deal imposes tough 
limitations on Iran and includes safeguards to better ensure that if 
Iran cheats, we will know and can respond by reimposing economic 
sanctions, or, as the President has indicated, the military option 
remains on the table.
  I want to note some of the limitations that are in the agreement.
  Iran must cut its low enriched uranium stockpile by 96 percent. It 
currently has 7,500 kilograms of low enriched uranium. It has to cut 
that to 300 kilograms--from 7,500 to 300.
  Iran must cut its centrifuge capacity by over 66 percent--from 19,000 
centrifuges to 6,104; and of the 5,000 it may run, all must be the 
lower efficiency, first generation centrifuges.
  The reactor core in the heavy water plant at Arak must be removed and 
filled with concrete, making it unusable for nuclear weapons, and it 
must be redesigned for nuclear energy purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that this deal is not based on trust. In 
fact, it assumes Iran will try to cheat. That is why the inspections 
regime is so intrusive. In addition, IAEA inspectors will have full 
access to all declared sites and use of the most advanced technology 
available.
  It also subjects Iran's entire nuclear fuel cycle to inspections, 
from uranium mining to waste disposal and every stage in between. No 
other member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is subject to that 
scrutiny, nor would we be inspecting Iran's whole fuel cycle if we 
trusted them.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about something. The United States did 
not negotiate this agreement alone. This was a joint effort with the 
UK, Germany, France, China, Russia, and the EU. Those countries are in 
a more vulnerable position than the United States if Iran should 
violate this agreement.
  Now, any observer of foreign affairs will tell you that in recent 
years it has been next to impossible to get this mix of countries to 
agree on anything, much less a deal with such significance as this. Yet 
that is what we have here--an agreement that major global powers back 
and are ready to enforce the agreement. And if we sabotage it now, if 
we are the only country to say ``no'' to diplomacy and ``yes'' to 
military action, we may very well do so alone.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this agreement is not perfect. 
However, no one got everything they wanted in this agreement. For every 
critic who says the P5+1 gave away too much, there is one in Iran who 
says the Iranians did the same.
  This deal has vast potential, but its success will ultimately hinge 
on its implementation. It would be better use of our energies to focus 
on ensuring that this deal succeeds and that the IAEA has what is 
necessary to carry out its mandate.
  One final point, if some of the critics are right and we eventually 
have to resort to a military option with or without our international 
neighbors, I think it would be much better for us to have had hundreds 
of inspectors on the ground inspecting nuclear and nonnuclear 
facilities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. LYNCH. It would be far better for us and our international allies 
to have had international inspectors--hundreds--on the ground in Iran, 
so that if we do have to take military action, we have that 
information, we have that intelligence, so that any military action 
that eventually is necessary will be much more effective.
  But I agree that this agreement is our best chance, this opportunity 
for diplomacy, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong disagreement 
with the President's deal.
  Tonight is the eve of the 14th anniversary of attacks on America by 
radical Islamic terrorists. These were direct, premeditated attacks on 
our soil

[[Page 14005]]

that targeted and murdered thousands of Americans, just because they 
were Americans.
  It was a dirty, cowardly act that reflects the lack of civility and 
values of all terrorists, those who finance terror, those who plan 
terror attacks, and those who carry them out.
  Who would have thought we would be here at this time debating whether 
to approve an agreement with the number one state sponsor of terrorism 
in the world, a deal with a country that chants ``death to America'' 
while holding four American hostages, a deal that removes sanctions and 
allows billions of dollars to flow into a regime that wants to 
annihilate us and our allies, a deal that allows thousands of 
centrifuges to continue spinning and enriching nuclear fuel that can 
and most likely will be used in nuclear weapons.
  There is a better way to deal with this regime, by not making any 
concessions until Iran ends their support of terrorism and demonstrates 
they can be civilized and trusted. They must earn our trust.
  Mr. Speaker, America's $18 trillion to $19 trillion economy dwarfs 
Iran's $400 billion economy, and some sell America short to say that 
the world would stand with Iran over us if we kept our sanctions and 
showed resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day when America 
negotiated with terrorists, and I certainly never thought I would see 
the day when those who swore to protect her would agree to a deal 
shrouded in secrecy--not Congress' deal, not the American people's 
deal, the President's and the minority that supports its deal that 
jeopardizes so much of our safety and security and gains so little.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a strong ``no'' vote on this 
deal. I encourage this Chamber, the Senate, and the administration to 
do the right thing by rejecting this deal in its entirety; and I pray 
that God would intervene and help us.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, as the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress--in 
fact, the only Ph.D. scientist of any kind--I have taken very seriously 
my responsibility to review the technical aspects of the proposed 
agreement.
  After over a dozen briefings, many of them individual classified 
briefings by the technical experts who have supported our negotiators, 
I have come to support this deal not based on trust of Iran, but based 
on science.
  I would like to take a moment to make four technical points that 
underpin my support of this deal.
  First, in regards to the claim that ``Iran gets to be in charge of 
inspecting itself'' in investigations of its past weaponization 
activities, this is simply not true. The investigations will be carried 
out by a team of IAEA inspectors, using equipment and sampling kits 
prepared by the IAEA, with samples being sent to the international 
Network of Analytical Laboratories, of which a number of U.S. 
laboratories are members.
  I urge my colleagues who harbor doubts about this inspection regime 
to avail themselves of classified briefings on the details. What I can 
say publicly is that our technical experts have full confidence in the 
technical inspection capability of the IAEA.
  Secondly, in regards to the 24-day inspection delay, which has been a 
source of concern for many, including myself, under the proposed 
agreement, Iran's declared nuclear facilities will be available for 
anytime, anywhere inspection.
  However, for undeclared facilities, including military facilities, 
Iran has the opportunity to contest what is normally a 24-hour 
inspection regime under the nonproliferation treaty and additional 
protocol for a period of up to 24 days. This is clearly not ideal. It 
is a negotiated number.
  However, when I look closely at the many steps that must be taken to 
produce and to test a nuclear weapon, the ability to detect activities 
in a window of 24 days versus 24 hours has limited operational 
significance.
  This is because, while many steps toward weaponization can 
unfortunately be hidden from even a 24-hour inspection, things like 
design and testing of nonnuclear components, but the moment that Iran 
touches nuclear materials, it will be subject to detection by the IAEA, 
even months after any attempted scrubbing of the facility.
  Thirdly, I support the administration's estimate of a 1-year minimum 
breakout time. This is the reaction time that the world community will 
have for a diplomatic, economic, and military response if Iran decides 
to resume its nuclear weapons program.
  Because of the importance of this issue, I have spent a great deal of 
time and effort personally vetting this estimate. The breakout time 
calculation is complex because there are many possible paths to obtain 
the fissile material for a first weapon, and each of these must be 
examined.
  After many hours of study and detailed questioning of our experts, I 
have concluded that the 1-year estimate for the minimum breakout time 
is accurate.
  Fourth, in regards to the weaponization timeline, this is the time 
needed by Iran from the point that it possesses a sufficient quantity 
of nuclear material for a first weapon, to the time that it will take 
them to assemble and to test that first nuclear weapon.
  Unfortunately, Iran has made significant progress toward 
weaponization, including such items as the multipoint initiation system 
for implosion devices that is referenced in the IAEA report of 2011.
  Moreover, if Iran breaks out of this agreement, it will resume the 
weaponization activities during the same year that it takes to 
accumulate fissile materials for a first weapon.
  Therefore, I concur with the assessment that, in the context of a 1-
year breakout effort, the additional time for weaponization may be 
small. However, at the end of this agreement, when the breakout time to 
obtain fissile material is shortened, the weaponization activities 
become the dominant factor in the time line.
  This underscores the importance of maintaining maximum visibility 
into all aspects of the Iranian nuclear capability, a position that is 
surely strengthened by the adoption of this agreement and, also, of 
significantly strengthening the nonproliferation treaty for Iran and 
for all other nuclear threshold countries.
  This must be the work of the coming decade, so that by the end of the 
main terms of this agreement, Iran and its neighbors in the Middle East 
and around the world will be bound by a much stronger and more 
verifiable nonproliferation treaty.
  As was emphasized by former Senators Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn, two 
gentlemen who have actually reduced the threat of nuclear war, instead 
of just talking about it, that this is not a perfect deal, but it is 
the best path forward and our best chance to achieve our goal of 
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action as the best opportunity to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. 
Remember, we did not negotiate this deal alone, but if we walk away, we 
walk away alone.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We did not negotiate this deal alone. Also negotiating this deal was 
Iran and was Russia and was China--true enough--but when it comes to 
the question of inspections, I do not have the document that indicates 
how these inspections will be done; but what I do know is what is 
reported to be the procedure and what is asserted also by the Iranians 
to be the procedure.
  As reported, it is Iran, not international inspectors, who will 
provide the agencies the photos of the locations. It is Iran that will 
provide the Agency videos of the locations. It is Iran, not 
international inspectors, who will provide the Agency the environmental 
samples. It is Iran that will use Iran's authenticated equipment, not 
the equipment of the international inspectors.
  The point I make, again, is that one of the reasons we wanted to have 
the agreements, the side agreements, the

[[Page 14006]]

two side agreements, including the one addressing the 12 questions that 
have never been answered about the thousand pages of bomb work that the 
IAEA had in its possession, that Iran supposedly conducted at Parchin, 
was to get Iran to answer these questions. To this day, to my 
knowledge, scientists in Iran are not available to answer these 
questions.
  Now, perhaps if we obtain these documents, these two side agreements, 
we will have the details that assure us that, finally, these 12 
questions have been answered, but I can tell you, during the interim 
agreement, we only got half of the first question answered, and after 
that, Iran shut it down. There was to be no more discussion about their 
past bomb work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Kelly).
  (Mr. KELLY of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.
  On the eve of September 11, I remember the American lives lost to 
terrorism and the unfortunate reality that people want to do America 
harm.
  Based on my review of the agreement, combined with my personal 
experience of being deployed in the Army in Iraq in 2005 and, again, in 
2009 and 2010 and seeing firsthand the Iranian influence there, I have 
no reason to believe that Iran will act in good faith in this 
agreement.
  It is not just my concerns that I have regarding this deal, but it is 
also my concerns I have consistently heard throughout the August work 
month from my constituents, regardless of party affiliation, that did 
not support this agreement with Iran.
  Lifting economic sanctions that Congress has imposed for more than 
two decades only gives Iran, a recognized state sponsor of terrorism 
since 1984, access to billions of dollars to finance terrorism 
activities in the region and to get closer to their ultimate goal of 
building a nuclear weapon.
  I oppose with all my heart and soul the Iran nuclear agreement 
because I do not believe the agreement negotiated by the administration 
is in the best interest of our national security, nor is it in the best 
interest of our allies in the Middle East, nor is it in the best 
interest of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the 
administration's Iran nuclear agreement.
  On the Eve of September 11, we remember the lives lost and 
unfortunate reality that people want to do America harm.
  Based on my review of the agreement combined with my personal 
experience of being deployed to Iraq in 2005 and again in 2009-2010 and 
seeing firsthand the Iranian influence there, I have no reason to 
believe Iran will act in good faith.
  It is not just concerns I have regarding the deal, but concerns I 
consistently heard from constituents, regardless of party affiliation, 
during the August work period.
  Just this week, Iran's Supreme Leader said America remains the 
``Great Satan'' and reiterated his desire to wipe Israel off the map. 
Common sense would prevail that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is 
not to promote peace but exactly the opposite.
  Lifting economic sanctions that Congress has imposed for more than 
two decades only gives Iran--a recognized state sponsor of terrorism 
since 1984--access to billions of dollars to finance terrorist 
activities in the region and get closer to their ultimate goal of 
building a nuclear weapon.
  Increased access to wealth coupled with a lack of ``anytime, 
anywhere'' inspections will only allow Iran to increase their support 
of terrorism in the region to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and is 
not nearly sufficient in stopping their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
  I oppose the Iran nuclear agreement because I do not believe that the 
agreement negotiated by the administration is in the best interest of 
our national security nor is it in the best interest of our allies in 
the Middle East.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is the best option available 
to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The alternatives are 
simply too risky and too costly, which is why the deal's opponents have 
failed to articulate a realistic alternative.
  During my time in Congress, I have voted for every bill that imposed 
crippling sanctions on Iran, which brought the regime to the 
negotiating table and united the world to stop Iran's pursuit of a 
nuclear weapon.
  Sanctions were meant to be a tool to ensure negotiations; that is 
exactly what they have done, but as we have learned from the past 
decade, sanctions alone are not enough to stop Iran from expanding its 
nuclear program.
  Before negotiations began, Iran greatly increased its enrichment 
stockpile and centrifuge capacity, despite sanctions. That is why a 
verifiable agreement that will cut off Iran's ability to build a 
nuclear weapon is necessary.
  The International Atomic Energy Agency will have nearly continuous 
access to Iran's declared nuclear facilities and can gain unprecedented 
access to other suspicious, undeclared sites in as little as 24 hours.
  Under this agreement, Iran will dismantle two-thirds of its installed 
centrifuges, remove over 97 percent of its uranium stockpile, and make 
changes to its Arak plutonium reactor before it receives sanctions 
relief.
  United States Department of Energy Secretary and nuclear physicist 
Ernest Moniz has confirmed that the agreement increases Iran's breakout 
time significantly for well over a decade, from 2 to 3 months today to 
at least 12 months moving forward. This additional time will give us 
ample opportunity to catch and stop Iran should it choose to pursue a 
nuclear weapon.
  Some have suggested that we need to reject this deal in order to get 
a better one, but I have found no evidence to believe that a better 
deal is possible.
  It is clear that some of our negotiating partners and other allies do 
not want more sanctions. If we reject this deal, the robust 
international sanctions regime would certainly erode, if not unravel 
entirely.
  In the meantime, Iran could move forward with its enrichment program 
without inspections; limitations on manufacturing, installation, 
research, and development of new centrifuges; and constraints on its 
enriched uranium stockpile. Simply put, no deal would mean no 
inspections and no constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
  Some have suggested that we cannot make an agreement with a country 
that we do not trust, but we must remember that this deal is not based 
on trust, but rather the most intrusive inspections regime upon which 
we have ever agreed.
  We did not trust the Soviet Union, especially when we negotiated an 
arms reduction treaty with them as we fought in devastating proxy wars 
around the world.

                              {time}  2030

  Today we are not debating whether to trust Iran. We are debating 
whether and how we should enhance monitoring of its nuclear program.
  I remain committed to working with the administration and my 
colleagues here in Congress to contain Iran's conventional capabilities 
that threaten stability in the region and throughout the world, but 
know that this deal is the best option to take the nuclear issue out of 
the equation.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this agreement.
  Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of viewing this as the most intrusive regime, I 
remember South Africa. We put the kinds of sanctions on South Africa 
that we tried to get the administration to put on Iran.
  We had legislation here by a vote of 400-20 to do that, and the 
administration blocked that legislation in the Senate. That would have 
given us real leverage.
  Why do I think so? Because in South Africa, when we put those 
sanctions on, it actually gave the regime a choice between compromise 
on its nuclear program and dropping apartheid and changing its system 
or economic collapse.
  The choice was made in South Africa to turn over their nuclear bomb 
to the

[[Page 14007]]

international inspectors. Now, I would consider that an intrusive 
regime. I wouldn't consider this one.
  In the case of Libya, they turned over their weapons programs to 
international inspectors, allowed them in, allowed them to take them 
out.
  I don't know why we say this is the most intrusive regime. It seems 
to me that, clearly, in cases where we actually forced the issue, where 
we actually in South Africa put the totality of sanctions in place, 
that Congress both in the House and the Senate in a bipartisan way felt 
were mandatory to force the South African hand.
  In that case, yes, we got them to give up their nuclear capabilities 
and their right to enrich and all of that. I don't see that here.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, for months now, the President has made 
promises that we have heard that would prohibit Iran from obtaining 
nuclear weapons through strict oversight.
  Unfortunately, we see now that this deal does not do that at all. The 
Iranian regime has done nothing to earn the trust of the international 
community, yet this agreement rewards Iran with sanctions relief.
  I was a member of the Iran Sanctions Conference Committee, and I 
support tough, strict sanctions against this regime.
  You see, the Iran sanctions were designed to force a peaceful 
resolution to this ongoing situation. It was clear to many that the 
sanctions were working.
  Iran had an inflation rate of 35 percent, the value of its currency 
was falling, and its monetary reserves were dwindling.
  Iran had no choice but to come to the negotiation table. So the U.S. 
was in a position of power to negotiate a good deal.
  Instead, we have a deal which allows Iran to continue to use 
centrifuges, a deal that allows them to continue to enrich uranium, a 
deal where, after 15 years, it will be unclear what, if any, access the 
inspectors will have to their facilities, and a deal where Iran can 
dispute inspections and delay for 24 days.
  This is not, by the way, ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections that the 
administration also promised us.
  The President may claim that this deal is built on verifications. 
That is simply not true. We now know that Congress hasn't even received 
all the details related to the deal. There are side deals as well.
  So what makes us believe that Iran will abide by the agreement that 
we see, let alone by the side deals that we have not seen?
  This deal asks us to trust a country that holds American hostages, 
that tortures its own people, and that has called for the destruction 
of the United States and its allies. It is not a surprise that Iran and 
its allies are celebrating.
  However, it is obvious that this deal does little to advance U.S. 
security. We can still reject this severely flawed deal. There are 
still alternatives. The U.S. can use sanctions, sanctions that have 
worked to negotiate a good deal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT. We can use those sanctions, those sanctions from the 
very committee that I was on, to negotiate a good deal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the security of the 
United States and protecting the security of our allies as well by 
rejecting this misguided deal.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman 
Royce. He has actually dealt with this and done this very honorably.
  It has been powerful to watch. There has been amazing testimony given 
to us. There have been great speakers here. But I fear something very 
important has not gotten enough understanding and enough focus.
  Who in this body is going to take responsibility when the Iranian 
regime is flush with cash and the death and destruction that is coming 
with that?
  Who here is going to take responsibility for the displaced people 
around the region?
  Who here is going to take responsibility for what some of the experts 
have told us, the potential financing of a Sunni-Shia war in the 
region, the amount of death, whether it be the $59 billion the 
administration talks about or the $150 billion that sits in accounts 
around the world that is about to be handed back to the regime?
  I hold up this board next to me so you can see this is more. This is 
so much more than just the neighbors around Iran.
  The bad acts have been happening all over the world. Tell me why 
there is Iranian Revolutionary Guard money, Quds Force money showing up 
in our hemisphere.
  Earlier this year I was at a series of meetings in Panama. We had 
parliamentarians from the region speaking to us, telling us that they 
are actually seeing Iranian money moving through their banks, financing 
bad actors in their region, creating death and destruction, trying to 
finance the overthrows of their governments. That is in our own 
hemisphere.
  Are we prepared as a body, particularly those who will vote for this, 
to step up and take responsibility for the lives that are about to be 
lost, for the governments that are going to be overthrown and the 
destruction and displaced people, the refugees, the cascades that are 
going to come from that?
  We are about to hand billions and billions and billions of dollars to 
a regime that is committed to destroying our way of life, but also to 
destroying their own neighbors.
  That is what is on the line right now. We are about to execute a vote 
here that is going to kill, maim, destabilize not only the region; the 
world.
  Those who are about to vote for this, I expect you to step up and be 
responsible for what you have done.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  We have heard a lot in these debates that have gone on today. I would 
like to take this opportunity to try to reinforce the tremendous 
support that we have for this deal.
  I would like to also debunk the idea that somehow this administration 
is not concerned enough about the security of this country.
  Let me just share with you the tremendous support that this deal has. 
I will do that by reading some excerpts from and insert into the Record 
an open letter signed by 36 retired U.S. generals and admirals who make 
the case that addressing the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran 
diplomatically is far superior than trying to do it militarily.
  In their letter, these retired military leaders say about the nuclear 
agreement with Iran, ``There is no better option to prevent an Iranian 
nuclear weapon,'' ``If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, 
intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military 
options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, 
the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is 
that stark.''
  Recognizing the importance of strong multilateral coordination and 
action, the retired military leaders go on to say, ``If at some point 
it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, 
gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would 
only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. 
We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones.''
  Mr. Speaker and Members, while I have great respect for all of the 
Members of this House, for the most part, I do not accept the notion 
that Members who have not served in the way that

[[Page 14008]]

these generals and admirals have served this country would know better 
about our security.
  So I would like to insert that letter into the Record.

  The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security--An Open Letter From 
                     Retired Generals and Admirals

       On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international 
     negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United 
     States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia 
     to contain Iran's nuclear program. We, the undersigned 
     retired military officers, support the agreement as the most 
     effective means currently available to prevent Iran from 
     obtaining nuclear weapons.
       The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a 
     nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and 
     strengthens American national security. America and our 
     allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be 
     safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not 
     based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough 
     sanctions for failure to comply.
       There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear 
     weapon. Military action would be less effective than the 
     deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranian's 
     cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the 
     inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain 
     on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the 
     Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The 
     choice is that stark.
       We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, 
     ``[r]elieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran 
     diplomatically is superior than trying to do that 
     militarily.''
       If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military 
     action against Iran, gathering sufficient international 
     support for such an effort would only be possible if we have 
     first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust 
     diplomatic options before moving to military ones.
       For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call 
     upon Congress and the American people to support this 
     agreement.
         GEN James ``Hoss'' Cartwright, U.S. Marine Corps;
         GEN Joseph P. Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps;
         GEN Merrill ``Tony'' McPeak, U.S. Air Force;
         GEN Lloyd W. ``Fig'' Newton, U.S. Air Force;
         LGEN Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army;
         LGEN Arlen D. Jameson, U.S. Air Force;
         LGEN Frank Kearney, U.S. Army;
         LGEN Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army;
         LGEN Donald L. Kerrick, U.S. Army;
         LGEN Charles P. Otstott, U.S. Army;
         LGEN Norman R. Seip, U.S. Air Force;
         LGEN James M. Thompson, U.S. Army;
         VADM Kevin P. Green, U.S. Navy;
         VADM Lee F. Gunn, U.S. Navy;
         MGEN George Buskirk, U.S. Army;
         MGEN Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army;
         MGEN Marcelite J. Harris, U.S. Air Force;
         MGEN Frederick H. Lawson, U.S. Army;
         MGEN William L. Nash, U.S. Army;
         MGEN Tony Taguba, U.S. Army;
         RADM John Hutson, U.S. Navy;
         RADM Malcolm MacKinnon III, U.S. Navy;
         RADM Edward ``Sonny'' Masso, U.S. Navy;
         RADM Joseph Sestak, U.S. Navy;
         RADM Garland ``Gar'' P. Wright, U.S. Navy;
         BGEN John Adams, U.S. Air Force;
         BGEN Stephen A. Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps;
         BGEN Patricia ``Pat'' Foote, U.S. Army;
         BGEN Lawrence E. Gillespie, U.S. Army;
         BGEN John Johns, U.S. Army;
         BGEN David McGinnis, U.S. Army;
         BGEN Stephen Xenakis, U.S. Army;
         RDML James Arden ``Jamie'' Barnett, Jr., U.S. Navy;
         RDML Jay A. DeLoach, U.S. Navy;
         RDML Harold L. Robinson, U.S. Navy;
         RDML Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. And, further, I would like to share 
with you something from someone that I came to know very well. It is a 
Washington Post article that I am going to quote from.
  The quotes will be from Republican and former Treasury Secretary 
Paulson. He will not only make very strong statements about his support 
for this deal, he slams the naysayers of this Iranian deal.
  Let me read from the Washington Post article from August 14 in which 
former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was asked what he thought about 
the viability of maintaining multilateral nuclear sanctions against 
Iran if the United States decided to walk away from the nuclear deal 
that has just been agreed to between Iran and the international 
community.
  It is important to note that former Secretary Paulson, a Republican, 
was in charge of administering the administration's sanctions under 
President George W. Bush during the period when the international 
community was just beginning to enact the current regime of punitive 
sanctions over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
  This was his response, ``It's somewhere in between naive and 
unrealistic to assume that after we, the United States of America, has 
negotiated something like this, with the five other parties, and with 
the whole world community watching, that we could back away from that--
and that the others would go with us, or even that our allies would go 
with us.''
  Paulson also viewed as far-fetched the idea that the United States 
could force other nations into lockstep on a more hard-line approach to 
Iran by threatening them with secondary sanctions.
  Again, Mr. Paulson said:
  ```I think it's totally unrealistic to believe that if we backed out 
of this deal, that the multilateral sanctions would stay in place,' 
Paulson said. `I'm just trying to envision us sanctioning European 
banks or enforcing them, or Japanese banks, or big Chinese banks.'''

                              {time}  2045

  In fact, the former Treasury Secretary could barely hide his disdain 
for those who think they could strike a path to a better deal than one 
that has been reached.
  Further, he said: ``I had a seat in Washington when we dealt with a 
big, intractable, messy problem, where there weren't any neat, 
beautiful, elegant solutions.''
  He said: ``You were deciding between doing something that 
objectionable or doing nothing at all, which could even be more 
objectionable. So I don't particularly like it when people criticize 
something that's big and important that's been done if they don't have 
a better idea.''

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2015]

Republican and Former Treasury Secretary Paulson Slams Naysayer of Iran 
                                  Deal

                         (By Karoun Demirjian)

       Not many high-profile Republicans have anything nice to say 
     about the Iran deal.
       But former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson--the guy who was 
     in charge of the government's sanctions operation under 
     President George W. Bush, when the international community 
     was just setting up this regime of punitive measures over 
     Iran's nuclear ambitions--thinks at this point, it would be 
     pretty ill-advised to back away.
       ``It's somewhere in between naive and unrealistic to assume 
     that after we've, the United States of America, has 
     negotiated something like this with the five other, you know, 
     parties and with the whole world community watching, that we 
     could back away from that--and that the others would go with 
     us, or even that our allies would go with us,'' Paulson said 
     during a forum sponsored by the Aspen Institute on Thursday 
     night to discuss his new book on China.
       ``And unilateral sanctions don't work, okay?'' Paulson 
     continued. ``They really have to be multilateral.''
       Paulson was responding to a question from the moderator of 
     the event, who had asked what Paulson thought about the 
     viability of maintaining sanctions against Iran, should the 
     United States walk away from the agreement struck in Vienna 
     last month. Congress will vote on that very question next 
     month, but naysayers need a veto-proof, two-thirds majority 
     in both houses to kill the deal--a formidable hurdle to 
     clear.
       In Congress and on the campaign trail, the critics of the 
     deal--many, though not all of them Republicans--have been 
     advocating ripping up the agreement and either leaving the 
     U.S. sanctions in place or stepping them up to make the point 
     to Iran and the international community that the United 
     States means business. Some lawmakers, including Sen. Charles 
     E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), and candidates have even suggested that 
     the United States could force other nations into lockstep on 
     a more hardline approach to Iran by threatening them with 
     secondary sanctions.
       Paulson thinks that idea is farfetched.
       ``I think it's totally unrealistic to believe that if we 
     backed out of this deal that the multilateral sanctions would 
     stay in place,'' Paulson said. ``I'm just trying to envision 
     us sanctioning European banks or enforcing them, or Japanese 
     banks, or big Chinese banks.''
       Sanctions against Iran have become far more extensive since 
     Paulson left office. And Paulson's comments, delivered in a 
     resort city in Colorado, may not carry that much weight among 
     his GOP colleagues in Washington.
       The former Goldman Sachs chief executive came to the 
     Treasury Department in 2006 on the eve of a colossal 
     financial crash and left

[[Page 14009]]

     as a controversial figure for the policies he spearheaded. 
     Since leaving that post, he has broken from the mainstream 
     GOP party line to advocate for more attention to issues like 
     climate change.
       Even others in the Bush administration probably wouldn't 
     agree with Paulson: His former boss, George W., advised 
     against lifting Iran sanctions this spring.
       But Iran sanctions are Paulson's wheelhouse, and while he 
     didn't direct any darts toward specific politicians or give 
     his own point-by-point assessment of the merits of the deal, 
     Paulson's disdain for those who think they can strike a path 
     to a better solution than the one reached in Vienna was 
     apparent.
       ``I had a seat in Washington when we dealt with a big, 
     intractable, messy problem, where there weren't any neat, 
     beautiful, elegant solutions,'' Paulson said. ``You were 
     deciding between doing something that was objectionable or 
     doing nothing at all, which could even be more objectionable.
       ``So I don't particularly like it when people criticize 
     something that's big and important that's been done if they 
     don't have a better idea,'' Paulson said.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I 
would like to discuss a point that I do not think has been given enough 
attention yet in this debate. Iran could move in any direction over the 
next 15 years and the postagreement dynamics in Iran would play out in 
a number of ways. We are aware of the less benign scenarios.
  There is also the scenario in which the agreement helps to amplify 
the voices of those in Iran who want peace in regional and 
international accommodation. I have hope with respect to this latter 
possibility, and I will tell you why.
  It is because more than half the population of Iran today--almost 55 
percent--is under 30 years old, and the youth unemployment rate is 
somewhere between 27 and 40 percent. I hope that these young people, 
given the opportunity to work, to achieve prosperity, and to live 
peacefully, will, in fact, help animate the kind of change in Iran that 
will, indeed, move it to become a responsible member of the world 
community.
  This is a possibility that I urge Members to keep in mind when they 
vote on the resolution before us today.
  I have no more time, but I would just urge my colleagues to support 
this important deal and agreement, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to also submit later for the 
Record a letter by 200 retired generals and flag officers and 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 Nasrallah, who is the head of 
Hezbollah, says this about this deal:

       Iran will become richer and wealthier and will also become 
     more influential under the deal reached this week. 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, 
when I chaired the Terrorism Subcommittee, we were in Haifa when 
Nasrallah was firing off the Iranian-made rockets with 90,000 ball 
bearings in the warheads into the town of Haifa; there were 600 victims 
inside the trauma hospitals, and now, Iran has transferred over 80,000 
missiles.
  What is it Nasrallah wants that he doesn't have currently? He wants 
guidance systems so that those missiles will hit targets, such as 
individual buildings in Tel Aviv, the airport, Jerusalem. That is what 
he needs. That is what Iran is telling Nasrallah it will provide.
  It needs the hard currency and with this agreement will come the hard 
currency. It is also committed to restock the inventory that Hamas used 
when it fired off its rockets into Israel from Gaza and to rebuild the 
tunnels; all of this is what the Iranians seek to fund, but to do that, 
they need the sanctions lifted.
  When they lift those sanctions, who is going to be the primary 
beneficiary? It is going to be people such as the Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard Corps that will be strengthened.
  Look, Mr. Speaker, if this agreement goes through, Iran gets a cash 
bonanza. It gets a boost to its international standing. It gets a 
lighted path toward nuclear weapons. With sweeping sanctions relief, we 
have lessened our ability to challenge Iran's conduct across the board. 
As Iran grows stronger, we will be weaker to respond.
  The question before us today is whether temporary constraints on 
Iran's nuclear program are worth the price of permanent sanctions 
relief. When I say the Revolutionary Guard is going to be the 
beneficiary, I say that because they are the ones that have taken over 
so many of the major companies in Iran and they are working to 
destabilize the entire Middle East.
  That organization fuels the Assad regime in Syria today. Those 
rockets are being launched by the Quds Force into Israel. They are 
going to provide them with more weapons and more military personnel. 
That organization backs the Houthi rebels. There were 200 Quds Forces 
that were on the vanguard when they overthrew our ally in Yemen, and 
they overran that country.
  It is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in 
Iraq. The IRGC exports terrorism throughout that region. It holds sway 
over Iran's nuclear program. It brutally, brutally represses internal 
dissent, and as part of the Iranian agreement, the IRGC is going to be 
bolstered in a big way, and I will explain how else. It is going to 
have the funds to build up its tanks, its fighter jets, and the 
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  The European sanctions on the elite Quds Forces--this is the group 
that does the political assassinations, assassinations outside Iran, 
and does the terrorist work outside of Iran--that is going to be lifted 
on the European side.
  The administration signed off on these concessions. The deal will 
allow sales of aircraft and parts to Iranian airlines, which the Quds 
Force uses to move its people and weapons throughout the region. The 
IRGC controls key parts, as I said, of the Iranian economy--the largest 
construction companies, the telecom sector, shipping.
  Ninety current and former IRGC officials and companies will be taken 
off the sanctions list as a result of this deal. Even sanctions on the 
head of Iran's elite Quds Force, General Soleimani, will be coming off. 
Soleimani had been involved in the plot to assassinate the Saudi 
Ambassador here in Washington, D.C.
  While still under a UN travel ban, Soleimani traveled to Moscow on 
July 24, 10 days after the Iran nuclear agreement was announced, and he 
held meetings with the Russian Defense Minister and with President 
Vladimir Putin. Believe me, those meetings are about weapon systems, 
which the Russians want to sell to the Quds Force, to the Iranians.
  The IRGC is the biggest sponsor of terror throughout the Middle East 
and even tried to carry out a terrorist attack here. Under the nuclear 
agreement, as Iran is reconnected to the global economy, the IRGC is 
going to be the biggest winner.
  The agreement helps legitimize Soleimani and gives additional 
resources to the mastermind behind the world's foremost state sponsor 
of terrorism and eyeing future weapon sales.
  It was Russia that teamed up with Iran in the eleventh hour, after we 
thought this deal was done, to insist on one more thing, the lifting of 
the arms embargo. I just ask you: If they did that, whose side do you 
think Moscow is going to take when Iran tests this agreement?
  Now, we talked a little bit about the younger generation in Iran. 
Yes, yes, 55 percent is under 30, but it is not those 55 percent under 
30 that are going to be empowered. The ones holding the strings now--
because of the way the Iranian economy works--are the generals, are the 
clerics. They are the ones that have taken over the companies.
  When you have got $60 billion to $100 billion, depending upon whose 
figure you use, and you lift the escrow on that and that money goes 
back to Iran, it is their accounts that it is going to go into, and 
they are going to control the contracts going forward.
  How is that going to liberalize the economy or work to the benefit of 
the

[[Page 14010]]

next generation in Iran? No, it makes it more certain that the tyranny 
that this theocracy imposes is going to be strengthened.
  We reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy; we remove the Security 
Council resolutions against Iran's illicit nuclear program, and we okay 
Iran as a nuclear threshold state. That is what has been done here.
  You and I know that, once that process is underway, Iran is going to 
produce nuclear weapons on an industrial scale when they are at the end 
of that process, unless they cheat before they get to the end of the 
process.
  Secretary Kerry had previously said we do not recognize Iran's right 
to enrich and that there is no right to enrich in the NPT. However, 
this agreement legitimizes Iran's vast nuclear program, including its 
right to enriched uranium, which can be used to produce a nuclear 
warhead.
  I guarantee you that everybody in the region is going to be looking 
at that and saying: We want the same agreement Iran had. We want that 
same exemption to the NPT.
  After the agreement's temporary limits expire, Iran's nuclear program 
will be treated in the same manner as that of any other nonnuclear 
weapon state party to the NPT. Okay, so we are going to treat Iran like 
it is Holland, but it is not Holland. It has been caught cheating. That 
is why we are here. It has been caught cheating in the past, over and 
over, on their agreements.
  Iran can have a peaceful nuclear program without the ability to 
enrich uranium. This is something we all understand. Many countries 
have this. It is this key bomb-making technology that is so 
objectionable.
  We had no problem with the idea of letting them have a peaceful 
nuclear program; but why give up the right to enrich? Preventing the 
spread of this dangerous technology has been the foundation of our 
nonproliferation policy for decades.
  As a result, over 20 countries have peaceful nuclear energy programs 
without a domestic enrichment program. In fact, buying fuel for nuclear 
power plants abroad from countries like Russia is much more cost 
effective than producing it domestically.
  You have to ask: Why do they want to produce it domestically? If this 
agreement is allowed to go forward, the United States will recognize 
the ability of Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, to 
enrich uranium.
  Despite claims to the contrary, this will set a dangerous precedent; 
it will greatly undermine longstanding U.S. efforts to restrict the 
spread of this key bomb-making technology. How can we tell our allies 
they can't have it if we do this?
  If fully implemented, this agreement will destroy the Iran sanctions 
regime, which this Congress has built up over decades, despite 
opposition from several administrations. We did that in Congress. We 
pushed this. The billions in sanctions relief that Iran will get will 
support its terrorist activity, and those billions are just a 
downpayment.
  Under this agreement, European sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard and the leader of its elite Quds Force--Soleimani, again--are 
removed, and their job is to export the revolution. That means their 
job is to export terrorism.
  General Dempsey--I will close with this--testified that Iranian 
militias, such as those trained and equipped by Soleimani, killed 500 
U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Removing sanctions on Soleimani and the IRGC is 
so shocking that, when the deal was first announced, many thought that 
it was a mistake, thought that that was not the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, like my vote against the Iraq War, 
consideration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is one 
of the most consequential foreign policy votes I will take during my 
time in Congress. After careful consideration I have decided to support 
the JCPOA because it is the best way forward to prevent Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon and advance the national security interests 
of the United States and our allies.
  The intent of sanctions and these negotiations has always been to 
diplomatically cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and to 
verifiably increase transparency of their nuclear activities. After 
reviewing the agreement and its classified documents, participating in 
classified briefings with Secretaries Kerry, Moniz, and Lew, and 
listening to the insights of experts on all sides, it is clear that 
this deal achieves these goals.
  The JCPOA will ensure that Iran will not have the materials or 
capability to build a nuclear weapon and extends the breakout time for 
building a nuclear bomb from two or three months as it currently stands 
to at least a year. And if Iran violates the agreement, unprecedented 
international inspections will ensure we know about it and can 
automatically reinstate international sanctions.
  In contrast, blocking this deal would allow Iran to resume its 
nuclear program with no restrictions or oversight, increasing the 
likelihood of military conflict and a regional nuclear weapons race--
precisely the scenario sanctions were designed to prevent. Another 
costly war in the Middle East would put American lives at risk and 
undermine the security of our nation and our allies, including Israel.
  There are no decisions I take more seriously than those that involve 
potentially sending Americans into harm's way. This is undeniably one 
of those decisions.
  Under the JCPOA, every option is--and will remain--on the table, 
including military force. But as a Member of Congress I have a solemn 
obligation to ensure every diplomatic avenue is exhausted before 
military action is taken. That is why I opposed authorizing the Iraq 
War and why I support the JCPOA.
  This is a pivotal moment. We must certainly remain vigilant in the 
years and decades to come to ensure the deal is strictly enforced and 
that Iran upholds its end of the bargain, but the terms of this 
agreement are strong, verifiable, and long-lasting.
  The JCPOA is certainly not perfect, but perfect is not an option. 
Those who are urging the defeat of this deal have a responsibility to 
propose a viable alternative--yet no such alternative has been put 
forward.
  While the risks of a nuclear armed Iran are unquestionably dire, 
there is simply no scenario in which these risks are reduced by 
rejecting this deal This agreement is the best option available and it 
has my full support.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition 
to House Resolution 3461, the to Approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan 
of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear 
program of Iran.
  The President's failed legacy to execute a strategy of peace through 
strength has resulted in mass murders throughout the Middle East. We 
have seen his failure to take action after Syria violated the 
President's declared ``red line'' and used chemical weapons against its 
citizens. We have seen it in his failure to recognize ISIL/DAESH as a 
significant threat to Americans, not as the ``JV'' team. When it comes 
to Middle East policy, the President has been dangerously inaccurate, 
putting American families at risk.
  In South Carolina's Second District, I hosted three town hall 
meetings on the deal, and the response from my constituents was 
overwhelming--the American people know this deal is dangerous in the 
tradition of Neville Chamberlain.
  This week's vote on the Iranian nuclear deal is of historic 
proportions. If allowed, this deal would economically and militarily 
reenergize a regime bent on the destruction of democracy all over the 
world. It will put the young people of Iran who seek change at risk. We 
must act immediately to stop this deal and vote against the Resolution 
of Approval.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin with a couple quotes from 
the President about the agreement:
  ``There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's 
stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic 
missiles.
  ``It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency.''
  Mr. Speaker, you would be forgiven if you thought I was quoting 
President Obama. However, I was quoting President Bill Clinton lauding 
his nuclear agreement with North Korea in 1994. Additionally he stated, 
``This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American 
objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean 
Peninsula.''
  Mr. Speaker, we now know that reality turned out to be very 
different. Despite assurances from President Clinton, the North Koreans 
violated the deal, began a clandestine program to enrich uranium and in 
2006 conducted its first underground test of a nuclear weapon.
  Once again we are told by a Democrat President that an agreement will 
prevent an

[[Page 14011]]

adversarial country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We would be fools 
to believe that they will not violate the Obama agreement just as North 
Korea violated the Clinton agreement. The stakes here are even higher. 
Iran is a regime that will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to 
achieve its long-stated goals: the destruction of both Israel and 
America.
  The Iran Nuclear Deal that was agreed to by President Obama is wholly 
inadequate and unacceptable. The deal gives up-front, permanent 
sanctions relief to the Iranian mullahs and allows Iran to have an 
internationally recognized nuclear program after 15 years that could 
quickly produce a nuclear weapon.
  Most laughable are the ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections. In fact, 
the agreement grants the Iranians 24 days to allow the IAEA access to 
undeclared nuclear facilities. This gives Iran ample opportunity to 
cheat and continue its march toward a nuclear weapon. We have also 
learned that the Iranians will be able to provide their own samples 
from their military base at Parchin to international inspectors. This 
is essentially asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
  I also have great concerns about what happens once sanctions are 
lifted and billions of dollars are flowing back into Iran. While the UN 
Security Council resolutions allegedly prevent Iran from shipping arms 
to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Assad in 
Syria, nothing prevents them from sending money. In an incredibly 
dangerous concession, the U.S. even agreed to shorten the length of the 
arms embargo against Iran. There is no question that this will 
negatively impact regional stability as well as the U.S. Navy's access 
to the Persian Gulf. An article in the Washington Post pointed out that 
the funds available to Iran immediately upon implementation of this 
deal would equate to approximately 10% of its GDP. That would be 
equivalent to a $1.7 trillion injection into our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this agreement will prevent Iran from 
acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe it will do just the opposite. In 
no way should a country that vows to wipe Israel off the map and chants 
``Death to America'' be allowed nuclear capabilities. Today marks a 
turning point for the future of one of our greatest allies, Israel. If 
this deal goes through, President Obama and Democrats in Congress will 
own the consequences of allowing the Iranian regime to become a nuclear 
power.
  We can and must have a better deal. A deal that truly allows for 
anytime/anywhere inspections. A deal that would keep restrictions on 
Iran's nuclear program for decades. A deal that forces Iran to end its 
missile development program. A deal that allows Iran truly limited 
enrichment capability. A deal that releases U.S. hostages in Iran. It 
is a catastrophic failure that President Obama did not insist on these 
provisions in the nuclear deal. We should be embarrassed that as the 
leader of the free world and the most powerful country on earth, this 
is the best deal President Obama could negotiate.
  We have been presented with a false choice of accepting this deal or 
going to war. We should reject this deal and return to work, not to 
war. We cannot allow the sanctions to be lifted, we must reject 
approval of the deal and we must have all the information--including 
side agreements--before the clock can begin on the deal. I urge my 
colleagues to stand with our ally Israel and with the American people. 
The consequences of these votes are truly life and death.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, an Iran with a nuclear weapon would 
present an existential threat to Israel, destabilize the region and 
undermine U.S. security interests. This agreement is our best option 
for avoiding such a scenario. If Congress rejects this agreement, there 
is a high probability Iran will continue developing weapons grade 
plutonium and uranium.
  That could result in American military action--something I believe we 
should avoid--and that the American people oppose. A U.S. strike would 
be costly, causing loss of life on both sides--and could lead to 
attacks on Israel. Yet, it would only postpone Iran's nuclear weapons 
development by a few years.
  Clearly, a strong, enforceable diplomatic solution is superior. Let's 
be clear--this agreement is enforceable. The monitoring and inspection 
provisions are more intrusive than any previous agreement. Most 
importantly, they will prevent Iran from producing fissionable material 
without the international community knowing.
  There are some who suggest that even with this agreement Iran might 
still acquire nuclear weapons in the long term. While some provisions 
of this agreement are indeed time limited and the world will need to 
revisit this issue, this agreement remains our best chance of thwarting 
the immediate threat. Many estimates suggest Iran is two to three 
months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon--and this agreement 
addresses that very imminent threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from constituents on all sides of the 
issue. I respect the opinions of those who do not support it. However, 
I believe this agreement is our best option.
  Support the agreement. Vote yes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise after careful 
consideration and review of the Joint-Comprehensive Plan of Action 
(JCPOA) and would like to extend my full support of the deal negotiated 
between Iran and the P5+1 countries. This historical agreement between 
the United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, plus 
Germany, is in the best interest of our country, our major ally in the 
Middle East, and the global community.
  The agreement, which will face Congressional scrutiny, has won 
endorsement by more than one hundred former American diplomats. The 
group that contains Republicans and Democrats described the deal, 
negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Dr. 
Ernest J. Moniz as a ``landmark agreement.'' It would make no sense to 
reject this diplomatic movement towards stability and peace in the 
region.
  Twenty-nine top American scientists have also endorsed the deal, 
noting that it will ``advance the cause of peace and security in the 
Middle East, and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation 
agreements.'' The group of scientists includes six Noble Laureates. In 
a letter to President Barack Obama, they pointed out that Iran was only 
``a few weeks away'' from having fuel for nearby weapons. The agreement 
would stop Iran's nuclear program, the scientists wrote.
  In the JCPOA, Iran agrees that it will not develop or acquire a 
nuclear weapon. The deal also includes a permanent ban on Iran's 
development of key nuclear weapon components and is based on four clear 
objectives; blocking the highly enriched uranium route, allowing no 
path to plutonium, intensive monitoring, and incentives for compliance
  Without the agreement, there will be no restraints on Iran's nuclear 
program. There will more than likely be an arms race to acquire and 
develop nuclear weapons by various nations in the Middle East. Such a 
climate would not be in the best interest of our country, and certainly 
not in the best interests of our ally, Israel, and the global 
community.
  It is my firm belief that if this deal is not implemented due to a 
Congressional blockade, we risk devastating military conflict. I am 
hopeful that we can continue on this trajectory of peace and diplomacy 
as opposed to an unavoidable nuclear arms race and armed conflict in 
the region. As we move to the next phase and allow Congress to study 
and debate this agreement, we must listen to the non-proliferation 
experts who have worked tirelessly to move the deal forward. I urge my 
Congressional colleagues to support the deal. It would be negligent to 
walk away from a nuclear deal at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 412, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________