Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. As it is the proud American tradition, we can both ensure the security of our country and welcome desperate women, children, and seniors who are facing ISIS' brutality. As my colleague who spoke before me just said, our hearts go out to the refugees, but our hand of friendship does not. And it could. We could do this in a bipartisan way. If we betray our values as a country and slam the door in the faces of those innocent victims of terror, we do not strengthen our security. We weaken ourselves in the fight against ISIS' savage ideology. As the Refugee Council USA and its coalition wrote to Congress--and this is very important--``it would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion. This feeds into extremist propaganda and makes us all less safe.'' I talked about the French to begin with. It was interesting to me to hear President Hollande as he spoke to thousands of people in the wake of the tragedy. What he said in some of his remarks at various venues was that France would be welcoming 30,000 refugees from Syria in the period ahead. With all that they have suffered, with the immediacy of the tragedy, with the emotion of the moment, they are still doing the right thing. The Republican bill before us does not make us safer, and it does not reflect our values. It does not have my support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank her for her tremendous leadership on this issue. I join her; Mr. Heck of Washington; our whip, Mr. Hoyer; Congresswoman Moore of Wisconsin; and so many others on the Republican side of the aisle who have been such strong leaders on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Mr. Chair, some concerns have been raised here that I think are in need of response. In terms of this amendment, I rise in opposition to it and state that the Bank's portfolio is well-collateralized, especially in the largest product sector, and it maintains a loss rate of less than one-quarter of 1 percent. The Bank is also self-funded, largely through user fees collected from foreign customers, and has generated a surplus of close to $7 billion, money that has been sent to the U.S. Treasury to help reduce the deficit. The previous speaker, Mr. Mulvaney, talked about some incidences of fraud that he said were associated with the Bank. I think it is important for our colleagues and those who are listening to this debate to know that those incidences of fraud were fraud exacted upon the Bank, not by the Bank; and so the charge that this fraud was within the Bank is just simply not true. These were people who tried to defraud the Bank. Now, there was one incidence of fraud that the members of the staff of the Bank referred to or called out--one incident. So I just don't want anyone to be misled into thinking that, however it was characterized, it is a fact. That is why we have an IG, and that is why it is so good that in this bill, in terms of fraud and ethics, it creates a nonpartisan chief ethics officer and requires a GAO review at least once every 4 years of the Bank's fraud controls. Legitimate concerns were raised, but the fact is the Bank should not be associated with fraud that is being exacted against it as if it was committing fraud. That is just not so. But it is a good evening because we are debating an issue that has strong bipartisan support, that creates jobs, that reduces the deficit, that increases our competitiveness overseas, that enables U.S. companies to have markets for our products overseas, not only big businesses that are addressed in this amendment. That is important as well. But for small and moderate-sized businesses who would not have the internal resources to find markets abroad, the Ex-Im Bank is created for that purpose. I thank Mr. Dent and others who have been so much a part of bringing this legislation to the floor. I think it is a victory for the American people that we will have a bill that not only is good for our highways and in terms of transportation, but also reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank in order to agree with the language in the Senate bill. So all of these amendments, however well intentioned or well thought out, have the additional burden of taking down the Bank. Maybe you save them for another day, but in the here and now, we do not need any amendments on the Ex-Im Bank in the transportation bill just because the Ex-Im Bank is authorized in the transportation bill in the Senate. This House very thoughtfully passed our own authorization. I would hope that the Senate would agree to our language unamended. Again, I commend all of you who made this evening possible, and I look forward to a celebration of passing a highway bill that does not take down the Ex-Im Bank.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. My dear colleagues of the 114th Congress of the United States, today, as every day, we come to this floor strengthened and inspired by the support of our colleagues, the trust of our constituents, and the love of our families. My special thanks to my husband, Paul; our five children; our nine grandchildren; and the entire Pelosi and D'Alesandro families for their support. My deep gratitude to the people of San Francisco for the continued honor they give me to represent them here. My heartfelt thanks to my Democratic colleagues for extending me the honor of being nominated to be Speaker of the House. Thank you, my colleagues. Today, we bid farewell to a Speaker who has served his constituents and this Congress with honor for 25 years, Speaker John Boehner. In his story, we are reminded of the enduring, exceptional promise of America--this hardworking son of an Ohio bartender and owner who grew up to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Boehner talked about the American Dream. John Boehner, you are the personification of the American Dream. As you all know, Speaker Boehner was a formidable spokesman for the Republican agenda. My Republican colleagues, I am sure you know--and I can attest--to the fact that he was always true and loyal to the members of his Conference in any negotiations we ever had. Although we had our differences and often, I always respected his dedication to this House and his commitment to his values. Thank you, John, for your leadership and courage as Speaker. Your graciousness as Speaker extended and was reflected in your staff under the leadership of Mike Sommers, whom we all respect. Thank you to John Boehner's staff. I know I speak for everyone here, Democrats and Republicans, when I thank you for making the visit of His Holiness Pope Francis such a beautiful and meaningful experience for all of us. Today, we extend our thanks and congratulations to Debbie; your daughters, Lindsay and Tricia; and the entire Boehner family, now including grandson, Allister. Let's hear it for the family of John Boehner. On behalf of House Democrats and personally, I wish you and your family all of God's blessings in the glorious years ahead. Last month, we witnessed something truly special when Pope Francis made history addressing a joint session of Congress. Standing right here, Pope Francis called on us to seek hope, peace, and dialogue for all people and reminded us of our duty to find a way forward for everyone. ``A good political leader,'' His Holiness said, ``is one who, with the interest of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism.'' Pope Francis echoed the principles of our Founders that placed at the heart of our democracy the saying, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' from many, one. The Founders could never have imagined how vast our country would become, how diverse and many we would be--ethnically, gender identities, beliefs, and priorities--but they knew we had to be one. Every day in this House and across the country we pledge allegiance to one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This is the beauty of America, that for all of our honest differences, perspectives, and priorities aired and argued so passionately on this floor, we are committed to being one nation. Despite our differences--in fact, respecting them--I look forward to a clear debate in this marketplace of ideas, the people's House of Representatives. So, my fellow colleagues, we have a responsibility to act upon our shared faith in the greatness of our country. We have a responsibility to be worthy of the sacrifices of our troops, our veterans, and our military families. We have a responsibility to make real the promise of the American Dream for all. There is important work before the Congress. We must do more to promote growth, decrease the deficit, create good-paying jobs, and increase the paychecks of America's working families. Today, in this House, a page is turned. A new chapter has begun. Today, the gavel passes to a proud son of Wisconsin, the first Speaker from Wisconsin. Paul Ryan has had the full breadth of experience on Capitol Hill, from a young staffer to a Tortilla Coast waiter--shall I say that again?--Tortilla Coast waiter--to a Congressman, to being a sincere and proud advocate for his point of view as chairman of the Budget Committee, as a respected leader and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and in a minute, he will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of House Democrats, I extend the hand of friendship to you. Congratulations to you, Paul, and to Janna; your children, Liza, Charlie, and Sam; your mother, who is here--how proud she must be--and the entire Ryan family, whom we all know mean so much to you. Mr. Speaker, God bless you and your family. And God bless the United States of America. This is the people's House. This is the people's gavel. In the people's name, it is my privilege to hand this gavel to the Speaker- elect of the House, Congressman and Honorable Paul D. Ryan.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for yielding and for his kind words, and I return the compliment to him. To the staff of the Budget Committee, the staff of the other committees of jurisdiction on both sides of the aisle who enabled this important agreement to come forward, thank you very much. Madam Speaker, today we are proud to come to the floor with legislation that moves America forward, affirming the full faith and credit of the United States of America, as our Constitution says should never be in doubt, and passing a budget agreement that creates jobs, protects seniors, and invests in our future. Today we cast our votes for a bipartisan budget package that represents significant progress for hardworking American families. Throughout the budget process, I am proud that Democrats have been united by our values and our determination to win progress for those hardworking American families. We showed we had the votes and the resolve to sustain the President's vetoes of funding bills that did not meet the needs of those people. Working with our Republican colleagues on a compromise enabled us at long last to bring to the floor a bill, a bill with which we have broken the sequester stranglehold on our national defense and our investments in good-paying jobs and the future of America. In this agreement before the House, we achieve equal funding; we honor the principle of parity between defense and domestic priorities. We achieve equal funding increases for defense and domestic initiatives, amounting to $112 billion over the next 2 years. We prevent a 20 percent cut in disability benefits for millions of people in 2016 and extend the solvency of the Social Security Disability Insurance program. We prevent a drastic increase in Medicare part B premiums and deductibles for millions of seniors next year. And we affirm the full faith and credit of the United States is nonnegotiable and unbreakable, with a clean debt limit suspension. We push through the gridlock to provide more economic certainty and, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, create an additional 340,000 jobs in 2016 alone. Budget and senior groups and groups for disability are lining up in strong support of this agreement. As AARP wrote to congressional leaders--I'm sure you saw this, Mr. Rogers, and thank you for your courageous support of this legislation, our great chairman of the Appropriations Committee--AARP wrote, ``AARP strongly supports the bipartisan agreement you have reached to avert deep reductions in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2016, and to address the imminent spike in Medicare Part B premiums which many older Americans would otherwise experience. Your efforts to reach across the aisle and together find sensible solutions to significant problems are appreciated and commended.'' Working together, Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans, we have found a way forward for the American people. I thank the Republican leadership for their partnership in reaching this agreement. Again, I thank the staffs of the committees of jurisdiction: the Budget Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and others. I commend our colleagues for speaking out on this important agreement. Let us pass this agreement. Let's vote ``yes'' today together. Let us pass this agreement, move swiftly to keep government open, and make progress for the American people. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I hope it is a big strong one.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. As a former ranking member on the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw on a regular basis how important this was to our economy and to small businesses in America. So here today we are coming to the floor in a bipartisan way to create good-paying jobs. How many good-paying jobs? 1.5 million since the year 2007. We are here to reduce the deficit. How much are we reducing the deficit? In the past two decades, $7 billion in money has come in to reduce the deficit. So we are creating good-paying jobs, reducing the deficit, fueling our economy, and we are respecting the entrepreneurship and the optimism of small- and moderate-sized businesses across the country. Yes, there are some big businesses that benefit, but most of them have subcontractors that need the work of the Ex-Im Bank. So when we talk about making it in America, I want to recognize the great leadership of our whip, Mr. Hoyer. Make it in America, this is what this is about. Make it in America so that people can make it in America but that, also, we can find markets abroad for our products made in America. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer, for your leadership on that and on the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Because of all of that work, the term ``Made in America,'' that label continues to have the great prestige and quality that we have always known it to have. I want to salute Mr. Denny Heck. He is just remarkable. In 24 hours, he had 187 cosponsors of his bill earlier this year. That is so remarkable. Then in a short time after that, he had even more. Thank you for all the work that you have done to bring us to today. To the Republicans who are supporting this, to Mr. Fincher, thank you for your leadership and your courage to give us this opportunity today. I want to thank Maxine Waters. This has been a long haul, as many of you know. Over that period of time, for one reason or another, there were not hearings in the committee of jurisdiction that could focus on the advantages of the Ex-Im Bank. So she had roundtable after roundtable, bringing in experts on what this meant to our economy, listening to the public, hearing from small businesses about what this meant to them. Who would have ever thought that Maxine Waters, the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, would be the champion for big-, moderate-, and small-sized businesses in our company? We would have thought it, and now the world knows. So, Maxine, thank you for your perseverance. You really did such a wonderful job keeping this issue alive. I recognize the great leadership we have at the Ex-Im Bank with Mr. Hochberg and the others who were there, the other hardworking people who are there who know about markets. This is important because many banks that small businesses might go to for a loan or loan guarantees, they are not used to dealing with markets abroad and that is why this is such an important link between entrepreneurship, creativity, innovation in our country, and how to expand markets for all of that throughout the world. So I am really happy. Congratulations to the House of Representatives. Today, we are creating good-paying jobs. We are reducing the deficit. We are honoring entrepreneurship, and we are doing it in a bipartisan way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I would like to say how proud he was and thrilled he was that Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren was going to succeed him in the Congress. He made that well known to all of us. So his service continues his leadership in your excellent service and leadership in the Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Congressman Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the House Democrats of California, for calling us together in a Special Order to honor a truly great man. I want to associate myself with the remarks that have gone before and to say to Sam Farr: Thank you to you and to Shary for the love and affection and care that you gave not only to Don Edwards, but to Edie Wilkie, for such a long time. We all talked about how much we loved them. You were there for them all the time, and we are completely, entirely, in your debt. Thank you for the love that you gave them. Thank you again, Zoe Lofgren and the entire California delegation, for orchestrating this Special Order hour. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we honor an august statesman who labored with dignity, led with integrity, and lived with courage, William Donlon-- otherwise known as ``Don Edwards''--who passed away last month at the age of 100. His life was a gift to the Nation. He protected our communities through his service as an FBI agent. He protected our country through his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He moved our country forward through his service as a U.S. Congressman. Service. Leadership. Patriotism. Don Edwards. Don reminded us that how we live our values matters; so he fought for fair pay, becoming the ``Father of the Equal Rights Amendment.'' He stood with the Freedom Riders at a time when they were written off as troublemakers and agitators. He championed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and fought to protect freedom of speech. He spoke up for workers, for our environment, for the resources needed to improve our country, and for future generations. As chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights for more than 20 years, Don became the ``conscience of the Congress'' and strived to ensure that all Americans enjoyed equality of opportunity. He took great pride in the fact that he was the floor leader for the Equal Rights Amendment, that he managed that bill. During his 32 years in the House, Congressman Edwards helped change the course of history. So significant was his leadership. Oddly enough, Don won his first election to any office in 1950 when he was elected president of the California Young Republicans. Throughout his life, Don's ability to respect all viewpoints made him a remarkable leader who was respected by Members on both sides of the aisle. When he was 88 years old, Don reminded us that the world works better when we get along, and that is what we owe everybody. In California, we hold a special place of honor for Congressman Edwards, the long-time dean of the California Democratic delegation. The beautiful, pristine Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge serves as a tribute to his efforts to preserve our environment and our ideals for future generations. In fact, he, as a modern-day man and as a Member of Congress, with his love of nature and all living things, was probably as close to a model of St. Francis of Assisi as we have ever seen--Don Edwards, a gentle, beautiful man. Don Edwards never stopped serving our country, and his achievements will stand forever as a living monument to his determined vision and legendary ability. But it wasn't just about that. It is how he encouraged others. I can tell you, when I came to Congress 28 years ago, there were only 23 women in the House out of 435--12 Democrats, 11 Republicans. To say that we weren't always paid full attention to sounds almost like complaining, but it was a fact. Nobody ever asked, ``What do you think?'' to any of the women Members. I mean, we made our voices heard, of course, but nobody ever asked, ``What do you think?'' except Don Edwards. Don Edwards would ask, ``What do you think of this?'' to each of us, especially when he was dealing with issues that related directly to us. But even well beyond that, whether we were talking about national security, economic growth--whatever the subject--Don would always ask us, ``What do you think?'' I can remember hearing him ask, ``Nancy, what do you think?'' And I said, ``Don, do you know how unusual that is, to hear you say that?'' And he would ask, ``Why do you say that?'' And I said, ``Because not many people around here, of the four hundred and something versus the 23, come up and ask the few women who are here what we think.'' But he was always about encouraging people to reach their fulfillment and to see what their contribution could do for the common good. Sadly, we lost Edie Wilkie a few years ago. As Sam Farr mentioned, she predeceased Don by a number of years. He worshiped Edie, and they were a real team for equality, for peace, for disarmament, for protecting the environment, for promoting opportunity and fairness. They were such a team. So I hope it is a comfort now to his children and to his grandchildren--to all he loved--that so many people throughout the world and, certainly, in our country mourn the loss of a consummate public servant, a proud Californian, and a proud American. May his legacy long endure in this House, and may it challenge all of us to do more and to do better on behalf of America's working families. Thank you again, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, for bringing us together.

Ms. PELOSI. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the leadership of a consummate civil servant, a skilled strategist and an astute adviser for his outstanding service to the Congress for the better of three decades, a proud son of Iowa who is deeply dedicated to our country, to advancing the Democratic agenda on the House floor, and to strengthening our democracy, an exemplary professional whom I have had the privilege to have on my staff for the past 13 years. I speak of-- respected on both sides of the aisle--Jerry Hartz. Jerry is a master of House rules and parliamentary procedure. Over the years, Jerry has managed influential and consequential debates on the House floor. He played a vital role in advancing our Democratic efforts to improve the lives of Americans by moving forward vital legislation. We simply could not have done without you, Jerry. On the most challenging and critical legislative issues of our day, Jerry consistently exhibited the wisdom, the creativity, and the fairness needed to improve our world. Though we will miss his experience and his expertise, I am proud that Jerry will continue to contribute shaping our Nation at the National Democratic Institute. Thank you to Jerry's wife, Jennifer, who is with us today, and their daughters, Alicia and Evelyn, for sharing Jerry with us all these years. Earlier this morning we had a huge number of Members of Congress come pay their respects to Jerry and to Jennifer, a large number of staff from both sides of the aisle who recognize Jerry's sense of fairness. Thank you, Jerry, for your long and excellent service to the Democratic Caucus, to this House, and the United States Congress and, in doing so, to the United States of America. Thank you for your patriotism and your leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and salute her for her relentless championing of the rights of consumers in our country as our ranking member on the Financial Services Committee. I come to the floor on this legislation because it is something that runs deep in terms of our commitment and our responsibility to the consumers in our country. It is very curious to me that this is called the Homeowners Assistance Act because it is exactly the opposite of that. I say that with regret because I think that there could have been some good features of this bill--and there had been that we all agreed on, that if there is legislation, as there has been, Dodd-Frank, and the regulations that spring from it, as there must be, that we have adequate time for the regulations to be implemented, to listen to the private sector, to say: What are the ramifications of these regulations, and do you need more time? We all subscribe that a certain amount of time, not an amount of time that is going to deter ever implementing the regulations, but a good faith attempt to come to terms. What is unfortunate about this legislation, though, Madam Speaker, is that in taking that goodwill and turning it into a bill, what the Republicans have decided to do is to take away the right of private action for a homeowner, for a consumer. They are trying to destroy homeowners' rights to be heard in court when they think they have been tricked or misled in any kind of a transaction. This is so really important. It was in September of 2008 when we had a meeting in my office then at the time, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, to talk about what was happening to the financial institutions in our country. There was a meltdown of such seriousness as was described by the Secretary of the Treasury that when I asked the chairman of the Fed, who was in the room, Mr. Bernanke, did he agree with that characterization of the situation we were in, he said: If we do not act immediately, we may not have an economy by Monday. This was Thursday night. So we went forward, largely with Democratic votes, to support a Republican President, President Bush, whose administration put forth legislation, and we worked together to make it something that we could pass on the floor, overwhelmingly Democratic votes supporting a Republican President in order to protect our economy. What we couldn't do in that legislation or since was include the ability for a homeowner to declare bankruptcy--not that we wanted them to, and not that we hoped they ever needed to, but they had the leverage, they had the leverage in a negotiation with their lender to do so. Many of them were seriously abused by bundling and all kinds of other things that had happened that it was no longer my home loan from my neighborhood banker or my community banker or something like that. These notes, these mortgages, were sold and sold and sold, so nobody even knew who their lender was. But we, the Congress, refused to give them the right of bankruptcy. Here we are again, Madam Speaker, these years later since September of 2008 to October of 2015, 7 years later. We have passed that bill that pulled back the financial institutions from their serious meltdown, helping Main Street as well as our financial institutions necessary for our economy. We passed the TARP bill, and we passed Dodd- Frank to make sure that the abuses that occurred that caused that meltdown in 2008 would not happen again because of what it did to our economy, to our working families, and to our financial institutions in our country. So with Dodd-Frank, we had something that was really a breakthrough to protect the consumers, that Financial Consumer Protection Agency, and there is something really important, to protect average people, consumers. So when the regulations are released and the private sector said they needed more time, take more time. The administrator of the agency said: Okay, take more time. Then our Republican friends said: Oh, no, let's bring it to the floor and turn it into a bill to take more time. But then, to put this, like a Trojan horse, this bill comes in here with this underbelly of taking away the right of private action for a consumer. How many people have we heard from, one reason or another engaged in a contract, a financial transaction, where not the devil was in the details, hell was in the details. Terrible for them, and they had no right of private action. This just isn't right. So we may have our differences of opinion as to the amount of regulation or the timing of regulation. That is a legitimate debate for us to have, and to listen to the private sector in our public-private discussions to make sure that the intent of Congress and the intent of protecting the American people is intact. I don't paint everyone in the private sector with the same brush as I come out against those who say let's take away that right for consumers to have their day in court. So I ask my colleagues, think about the consumer, what it means to the consumer to have his or her day in court. We are not supposed to be constricting leverage for the consumer in our country; we are supposed to be expanding opportunity for them so that when they engage in a transaction, they are respected because they have leverage at the table. Don't diminish their leverage by passing this legislation. I am so pleased that the President's staff has said that they would recommend a veto should this bill come to the President's desk. Remove all doubt in the consumers' mind. We are not here to deter them, but to empower them. I thank the gentlewoman again for her leadership and the members of the committee who have been so protective of America's consumers, because do you know what? The consumers are the lifeblood of our economy. We are a consumer economy. And until consumers have the consumer confidence to invest, to spend, to buy a home, to inject demand into the economy, our economy will never turn around. We are a middle class economy. We are a consumer economy. Let's strengthen that by voting ``no'' on this bill and saying ``yes'' to consumers. We want them to be as strong at the negotiating table as they can be. With that, I commend the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Waters.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership, as well as that of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Rogers, to bring us to the floor today where we can vote in a bipartisan way to keep government open without doing harm to women's health in our country. To shut government down is a really bad decision for this Congress to make. The last time we did that, we lost $24 billion. The last time this Congress voted to shut down government, we lost $24 billion to our economy, 120,000 jobs in our workforce. Our Federal workforce, which contains more than 30 percent of veterans in its composition, was furloughed or worse. The American people deserve better. So as we go forward from this continuing resolution, which is a good outcome of the conversations that have gone back and forth--a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, and I hope a strong bipartisan vote in the House--let us take heed of the words of Pope Francis, who just, not even 1 week ago, spoke to us in this Chamber. Pope Francis asked us to work together for the common good of the people. He urged and said a good leader would have a spirit of openness and pragmatism, again, to get the job done for the American people. As we go forward, we will have some difficult choices to make. We all share the values of strengthening our national security, investing in our children's future, reducing the deficit as we go forward, but as we do so, there are some important differences that we share. Let's hope that we recognize a good idea, wherever it springs from. Let us also recognize what our responsibilities are to the American people first and foremost. I consider this a very positive action we are taking today. I wish that we were finished with all of our appropriations work. As an appropriator, I know that that is always the goal of our chairman and ranking member. I thank our ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey, for her leadership, but also for the optimism she just expressed, that, as we go forward, we will do so in a timely fashion, maybe long before December 11, so we will have removed all doubt in the public's mind that government will work, that it will function, as the Pope had asked us, for the good of the American people. There are important decisions ahead, though, in terms of what our priorities are in a budget. A budget should be a statement of our national values, and what is important to us should be reflected on how we allocate those resources. We have the omnibus bill to deal with. We also have investments in the infrastructure of our country and our transportation. That will be an important bill that we will be debating at the same time, but has a relationship in terms of how we offset, how we pay for that. We have the issue of the Ex-Im Bank, a great job creator for our country and, yet, still unauthorized, long overdue for us to authorize it. Before Thanksgiving probably we will have the issue of a vote on honoring the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The last time that was put into doubt, it was unfortunate because it lowered our credit rating, even though we didn't follow through with it. Even though the full faith and credit ended up being honored, just the threat, the suspicion, that it could be undermined lowered our credit rating. We have really important work to do for the good of the people. Again, let us honor our responsibilities in the beautiful spirit of Saint--Pope Francis. I say Saint Francis because that is the patron saint of my city, of San Francisco, and the namesake also of Pope Francis. But Pope Francis instructed us as to what good leaders do, and good leaders have a sense of humility to respect the views of other people and not be condescending in terms of our views are the only ones that matter. In that spirit, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, with the Speaker, with others, and certainly under the leadership of our distinguished ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on August 5th a beloved community leader, education and affordable housing advocate, and civil rights activist passed away in San Francisco. Rosario Anaya was a trailblazer and a pillar of San Francisco's Latino community, who dedicated her life to championing social and economic justice for the disenfranchised and underserved. Rosario was born on October 7, 1944 in Cochabamba, Bolivia and moved to San Francisco in the early 1960's, where she earned her bachelor's degree in public administration and a master's degree in counseling and psychology from the University of San Francisco. She went on to the UCLA Anderson School of Business's Management Development for Entrepreneurs program. From the start, she proved herself to be a formidable force in the struggle for civil rights. Soon after moving to our city, she became a leader within the Mission Coalition Organization, a diverse network of local agencies that advocated for employment, housing, and education reform. For forty years, until her untimely passing, she directed the Mission Language and Vocational School, a nonprofit community organization that offers English as a Second Language, and a wide range of computer and vocational courses for all immigrants. Among her many accomplishments with MLVS, she established the flourishing Latino Cuisine Culinary Academy, which provides immigrant workers with expanded opportunities within the San Francisco food industry. In addition to her commitment to MLVS, Rosario was a key leader in many campaigns and coalitions for social and economic justice, including the San Francisco Latino Voter Registration Project, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and the United Farm Workers, where she organized food caravans from San Francisco to UFW's headquarters in Delano, California. She campaigned to rename Army Street in San Francisco for legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez. Mayor George Moscone appointed Rosario to the San Francisco Board of Education in the late 1970's. When she ran for a full four-year term in 1978, she became the first woman of Latin American descent elected to public office in San Francisco and subsequently served two more terms as School Board President. More recently, in 2010 Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed her to the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission in order to help plan and supervise the construction of affordable housing. Rosario served on more boards and committees and received more commendations and honors than can be named for her work in San Francisco and the State of California, as well as receiving international recognition from the governments of Mexico and Venezuela. Rosario Anaya's leadership improving the lives of immigrants and at- risk populations within the San Francisco community has inspired generations of activists. She epitomized dignity and grace, and she leaves a shining legacy of fighting injustice. I extend my deepest sympathy and condolences to Rosario's family and friends during this sad time. I hope it is a comfort to them to know that Rosario's legacy will live on through the countless lives she touched and the numerous coalitions and programs she helmed in her efforts to create a more just and equitable world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this morning, at 8:46, across America there was a moment of silence and remembrance that, on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world witnessed a horrific attack against our Nation. The profound, unfathomable casualties shattered our sense of safety. Yet, out of the ashes of the fallen World Trade Center towers, the crushed concrete of the Pentagon, and the burning fields of Pennsylvania, Americans rose united. We comforted strangers. We strengthened community. Hope prevailed over hatred. Resilience defeated fear. Americans will never forget where we were on that day. We must always remember what happened that day. President Lincoln once cautioned of the silent artillery of time wearing away at our memories. He was referencing those who had lost their lives in the Civil War. We pray that the years might ease the pain of the bereaved and that it would be a comfort to them that we will never forget. Young people born after 9/11 are coming of age in a world that knows that no attack will ever destroy America's ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality of opportunity for all people. Terrorism will never triumph over justice. That is a goal of terrorists: to instill terror, instill fear. They have failed. We have emerged even more committed to protecting the liberties that have long distinguished our Nation from regimes that rely on divisiveness and hatred. We honor the thousands of people we lost that day and those we lost to 9/11-related illnesses in the years that followed. We must remember those heroes of 9/11. In remembering them, we must honor our commitments to them, whether it is access to health care for those who were affected by 9/11. The selfless first responders--firefighters, police officers, and courageous citizens who helped save lives, searched for survivors, and jeopardized their own safety to rescue others--represent the very best of humanity. May we forever remember the spirit of September 11, 2001, and strive to build a future based on the hope and unity that emerged from the ashes that day. And may we always remember that, on this day, as we discuss this issue, we are walking on sacred ground. May we treat it with dignity and respect.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership, for the courage it took for him and the humility to listen and to learn what was in this legislation and this agreement. That is something that I commend the Members of the House for doing, to listen and to learn. Our distinguished Speaker just referenced the oath of office that we take when we become Members of Congress. It is a vow that we make to the American people, to protect and support our Constitution and our responsibility to protect and defend the American people. Today, Mr. Speaker, we will vote on an agreement to make America safer--indeed, to make the world a safer place--so say the nuclear scientists and the diplomats, so say the military and security leaders of both parties or of no party, so does the faith community beseech us to do. This morning, Father Conroy offered a prayer to God to ``help the Members of this House to recognize that you are with us in our deliberations.'' Indeed, as we cast our votes on this historic agreement, we are thankful to God, that God was with us to, again, give us the humility to learn and the courage to act; and for that, we should all be grateful. It is important to note that support for this agreement, as I have said, comes from both sides of the aisle. More than 100 former diplomats--Democrats and Republicans and ambassadors, et cetera--wrote: In our judgment, the agreement deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more risky alternatives. Thirty-six generals and admirals wrote: ``There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. If the Iranians cheat''--as the Speaker suggested they might--``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 stark.'' What is mysterious to me is that when our colleagues come to the floor and say, under this agreement, Iran can be a nuclear power in 10 or 15 years, so we should reject this agreement, no. Without the agreement, they are a threshold nuclear power right now and can have a weapon within months or a year. It seems to me the choice is clear, as the generals and admirals pointed out. It is also interesting to note that our distinguished Speaker pointed out some shortcomings, in his view, in the agreement. That is disagreed with by the best nuclear physicist, who wrote to congratulate the President on the agreement. Now, these are Nobel laureates, and these are engineers, nuclear physicists, who work and specialize in nuclear weapons research and development. They said: ``We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve''-- this is really important--``as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements.'' They went on to say: ``This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non- proliferation framework.'' That is why they were congratulating the President of the United States. I mentioned the prayer of Father Conroy this morning. I also, this morning, saw in The Washington Post that the Prime Minister of the U.K., David Cameron; the French President, Francois Hollande; and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, wrote an op-ed that said: ``This is an important moment. It is a crucial opportunity at a time of heightened global uncertainty to show what diplomacy can achieve.'' These heads of state went on to state: ``This is not an agreement based on trust or on any assumption about how Iran may look in 10 or 15 years. It is based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long-lasting.'' They said: ``We condemn in no uncertain terms that Iran does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel and the unacceptable language that Iran's leaders use about Israel. Israel's security matters are, and will, remain our key interests, too.'' Prime Minister Cameron, President Hollande, and Chancellor Merkel then said: ``We would not have reached the nuclear deal with Iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the non- proliferation regime as a whole . . . We are confident that the agreement provides the foundation for resolving the conflict on Iran's nuclear program permanently. That is why we now want to embark on the full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.'' Today, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the agreement that enhances our vigilance and strengthens our security. I just always am fond of quoting a story of Solomon in the Bible. When King David died and Solomon was to become king, he was uncertain as to his ability to be king in terms of his wisdom and the rest. He prayed to God and prayed that God would give him the wisdom because David was such a great king and how could he say to God, I am going to be the king of your people, help me with wisdom? God came to him in the night, and he said: Solomon, because you did not ask for longevity, because you did not ask for great riches, because you did not ask for vengeance upon your enemies, I will give you more wisdom than anyone has ever had; and you will be renowned for wisdom, the Solomon of wisdom which sprang from humility, the humility to pray for enlightenment, for knowledge, for wisdom, for judgment. That humility is so essential in the job that we do here. We don't have foregone conclusions. That is why I am so proud of my Members who spent so much time studying this issue, not only reading the agreement and the classified sections and the rest, but seeking answers, having information, seeking validation from generals and admirals and scientists and leaders of other countries as to what their actions would be should we, unfortunately, reject this, which happily we will not do today. They had the humility to open their minds to learn, and when they learned, they had the courage to take action where some others of their friends may not have arrived yet because they did not have the benefit of all of this information. Wherever Members come down on this issue, we know one thing--that we have to come together in the end to protect our country and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I say, mostly of my own experience, that I have had decades of experience in tracking Iran and its nuclear ambitions. I have served longer than anyone--more than two times more than anyone--on the Intelligence Committee, so I know of what I speak. I went to the Intelligence Committee to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and that gave me some judgment as to what the President brought back in this agreement. Still, I was subjected to the harshest scrutiny as to, from my experience, if I thought that this was the best possible route we could achieve. We mustn't judge agreements by what they don't do but respect them for what they do do; and what this does is to make our country safer, the region safer, and our friends in Israel safer as their own national security experts have attested. So I thank you, my colleagues. I thank you for listening, for learning, for coming to whatever conclusion you came to, but for understanding that, at the end of the day, we have respect for each other's opinions and a regard for our responsibilities to our people, to the people in the region, to our friend Israel, and also a global responsibility. I join the nuclear physicist in congratulating President Barack Obama for his great leadership and for giving us this opportunity. Today, we will not just be making history as the approval of the agreement goes forward. We will be making progress for the cause of peace in the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his extraordinary leadership as the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, which has served us so well. His leadership has served us so well in this debate today and in our deliberations leading up to this debate. It has served us well in the ongoing as we use intelligence to protect the American people. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). I did not go to the well as usual for the leader, but I wanted to be here because I have some materials that I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think today and tomorrow, the next 24 hours, is a very, very special time in the Congress of the United States. Members will be called upon to make a decision that affects our oath of office, to protect and support the Constitution and, of course, the American people. This is a moment that we are prepared for. That is what I have this binder here for, to say I commend my colleagues because they have spent thousands of hours reviewing the agreement, reviewing the annexes and the classified materials, speaking with experts, gaining information, acquiring validation from outside sources other than the administration and the agreement itself, conversations with each other, conversations with their constituents, all to have, again, a sense of humility that we all don't know everything about this subject. And we have to get our assurances from those whose judgment we respect, as well as to support this agreement on the merits. It is a very fine agreement. I will take a moment just to talk about my own credentials because I see that people are doing that in their statements. I read with interest Senator Menendez' statement where he talks about his service in the Senate, and I will talk about mine in the House. For over 20 years, I have served as a member of the Intelligence Committee both as a member of the committee, as the top Democrat on the committee, and as the Speaker and leader ex officio over the years, longer than anyone in the history of the Congress. I went to the Intelligence Committee because I had a major concern which sprang from my district, which was a very big interest there in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Plowshares, an organization dedicated to that purpose, was founded there. They saluted President Reagan and the actions that he took when he was President. And they are very actively supporting this agreement now. But I mentioned my credentials because I brought that experience to make a judgment on the agreement after it was negotiated. Of course we were briefed, as members of the committee and members of the leadership, on the ongoing as to the progress that was being made in negotiations. Again, having been briefed all along the way, I still was pleasantly pleased to see what the final product was. What the President negotiated was remarkable. It was remarkable in several respects. One was that the P5, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus one--that would be Germany--the P5 nations negotiated this agreement with Iran: China, Russia, France, the U.K., the United States. This is quite remarkable, that all of those countries could come to agreement. And an important part of that leadership was the leadership of President Obama to have that engagement sustained over a couple-year period. Now, President Bush took us a bit down this path, and that is referenced in an op-ed that was put forth by Brent Scowcroft. When he supported this legislation, he says that ``The deal ensures that this will be the case for at least 15 years and likely longer.'' But he talks about the fact that this has been a goal, as what Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union arms control and what President Nixon did with China. It was a negotiation. And he talked about the fact that this particular agreement was one that was worked on under the presidency of President Bush. Actually, he places it in time. So let me read his comment: ``Congress again faces a momentous decision regarding U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) will show the world whether the United States has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the Middle East, or whether it will contribute to further turmoil, including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. Strong words perhaps, but clear language is helpful in the cacophony of today's media. ``In my view, the JCPOA''--as it is known--``meets the key objective, shared by recent administrations of both parties, that Iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council.'' He goes on for a couple of pages. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record Brent Scowcroft's statement. [From the Washington Post, August 23, 2015] The Iran Deal: An Epochal Moment That Congress Shouldn't Squander (By Brent Scowcroft) Congress again faces a momentous decision regarding U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) will show the world whether the United States has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the Middle East, or whether it will contribute to further turmoil, including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. (Strong words perhaps, but clear language is helpful in the cacophony of today's media) In my view, the JCPOA meets the key objective, shared by recent administrations of both parties, that Iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council. Iran has committed to never developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon; the deal ensures that this will be the case for at least 15 years and likely longer, unless Iran repudiates the inspection regime and its commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Additional Protocol. There is no more credible expert on nuclear weapons than Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who led the technical negotiating team. When he asserts that the JCPOA blocks each of Iran's pathways to the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, responsible people listen. Twenty-nine eminent U.S. nuclear scientists have endorsed Moniz's assertions. If the United States could have handed Iran a ``take it or leave it'' agreement, the terms doubtless would have been more onerous on Iran. But negotiated agreements, the only ones that get signed in times of peace, are compromises by definition. It is what President Reagan did with the Soviet Union on arms control; it is what President Nixon did with China. And as was the case with specific agreements with the Soviet Union and China, we will continue to have significant differences with Iran on important issues, including human rights, support for terrorist groups and meddling in the internal affairs of neighbors. We must never tire of working to persuade Iran to change its behavior on these issues, and countering it where necessary. And while I believe the JCPOA, if implemented scrupulously by Iran, will help engage Tehran constructively on regional issues, we must always remember that its sole purpose is to halt the country's nuclear weapons activities. Israel's security, an abiding U.S. concern, will be enhanced by the full implementation of the nuclear deal. Iran is fully implementing the interim agreement that has placed strict limits on its nuclear program since January 2014 while the final agreement was being negotiated. If Iran demonstrates the same resolve under the JCPOA, the world will be a much safer place. And if it does not, we will know in time to react appropriately. Let us not forget that Israel is the only country in the Middle East with overwhelming retaliatory capability. I have no doubt that Iran's leaders are well aware of Israel's military capabilities. Similarly, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members have impressive conventional militaries, and the United States is committed to enhancing their capabilities. Congress rightfully is conducting a full review and hearing from proponents and opponents of the nuclear deal. However, the seeming effort to make the JCPOA the ultimate test of Congress's commitment to Israel is probably unprecedented in the annals of relations between two vibrant democracies. Let us be clear: There is no credible alternative were Congress to prevent U.S. participation in the nuclear deal. If we walk away, we walk away alone. The world's leading powers worked together effectively because of U.S. leadership. To turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abdication of the United States' unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among our allies and friends. We would lose all leverage over Iran's nuclear activities. The international sanctions regime would dissolve. And no member of Congress should be under the illusion that another U.S. invasion of the Middle East would be helpful. So I urge strongly that Congress support this agreement. But there is more that Congress should do. Implementation and verification will be the key to success, and Congress has an important role. It should ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency, other relevant bodies and U.S. intelligence agencies have all the resources necessary to facilitate inspection and monitor compliance. Congress should ensure that military assistance, ballistic missile defense and training commitments that the United States made to GCC leaders at Camp David in May are fully funded and implemented without delay. And it should ensure that the United States works closely with the GCC and other allies to moderate Iranian behavior in the region, countering it where necessary. My generation is on the sidelines of policymaking now; this is a natural development. But decades of experience strongly suggest that there are epochal moments that should not be squandered. President Nixon realized it with China. Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush realized it with the Soviet Union. And I believe we face it with Iran today.

Ms. PELOSI. I also want to quote another Republican--Brent Scowcroft served in the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush-- Senator John Warner joined Senator Carl Levin. These are two chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee--one a Democrat, but before him, a Republican, John Warner. They talk about they support this. They say: The deal on the table is a strong agreement on many counts, and it leaves in place the robust deterrence and credibility of a military option. We urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in and could support the use of a military option. The failure of the United States to join the agreement would have that effect. Mr. Speaker, I submit Carl Levin and John Warner's statement for the Record. Why Hawks Should Also Back the Iran Deal (By Carl Levin and John Warner) We both were elected to the Senate in 1978 and privileged to have served together on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 30 years, during which we each held committee leadership positions of chairman or ranking minority member. We support the Iran Agreement negotiated by the United States and other leading world powers for many reasons, including its limitations on Iran's nuclear activities, its strong inspections regime, and the ability to quickly re-impose sanctions should Iran violate its provisions. But we also see a compelling reason to support the agreement that has gotten little attention: Rejecting it would weaken the deterrent value of America's military option. As former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have always believed that the U.S. should keep a strong military option on the table. If Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, some believe that military action is inevitable if we're to prevent it from reaching its goal. We don't subscribe to that notion, but we are skeptical that, should Iran attempt to consider moving to a nuclear weapon, we could deter them from pursuing it through economic sanctions alone. How does rejecting the agreement give America a weaker military hand to play? Let's imagine a world in which the United States rejects the nuclear accord that all other parties have embraced. The sanctions now in place would likely not be maintained and enforced by all the parties to the agreement, so those would lose their strong deterrent value. Iran would effectively argue to the world that it had been willing to negotiate an agreement, only to have that agreement rejected by a recalcitrant America. In that world, should we find credible evidence that Iran is starting to move toward a nuclear weapon, the United States would almost certainly consider use of the military option to stop that program. But it's highly unlikely that our traditional European allies, let alone China and Russia, would support the use of the military option since we had undermined the diplomatic path. Iran surely would know this, and so from the start, would have less fear of a military option than if it faced a unified coalition. While the United States would certainly provide the greatest combat power in any military action, allies and other partners make valuable contributions--not just in direct participation, but also in access rights, logistics, intelligence, and other critical support. If we reject the agreement, we risk isolating ourselves and damaging our ability to assemble the strongest possible coalition to stop Iran. In short, then, rejecting the Iran deal would erode the current deterrent value of the military option, making it more likely Iran might choose to pursue a nuclear weapon, and would then make it more costly for the U.S. to mount any subsequent military operation. It would tie the hands of any future president trying to build international participation and support for military force against Iran should that be necessary. Those who think the use of force against Iran is almost inevitable should want the military option to be as credible and effective as possible, both as a deterrent to Iran's nuclear ambitions and in destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program should that become necessary. For that to be the case, the United States needs to be a party to the agreement rather than being the cause of its collapse. In our many years on the Armed Services Committee, we saw time and again how America is stronger when we fight alongside allies. Iran must constantly be kept aware that a collective framework of deterrence stands resolute, and that if credible evidence evolves that Iran is taking steps towards a nuclear arsenal, it would face the real possibility of military action by a unified coalition of nations to stop their efforts. The deal on the table is a strong agreement on many counts, and it leaves in place the robust deterrence and credibility of a military option. We urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in and could support the use of a military option. The failure of the United States to join the agreement would have that effect.

Ms. PELOSI. Again, I refer to the statements of my colleagues. They are thoughtful; they are serious, and they are courageous in support of the agreement. I would like to thank President Obama and the entire administration for being available as Members sought clarification to respond to their concerns. I want to thank the President, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, Secretary Lew, and so many others for their leadership and availability to us in a bipartisan way in our Democratic Caucus. For years, Iran's rapidly accelerating enrichment capability and burgeoning nuclear stockpile has represented one of the greatest threats to peace and security anywhere in the world. We all stipulate to that. That is why we need an agreement. That is why I am so pleased that we have so many statements of validation from people. The experts say: This agreement is one of the greatest diplomatic achievements of the 21st century. It is no wonder that such a diverse and extraordinary constellation of experts have made their voices heard in support of this--again, I use the word--``extraordinary'' accord. On the steps of the Capitol the other day with our veterans and with our Gold Star moms who have lost their sons, we heard the words of diplomats and soldiers, generals and admirals and diplomats by the score--Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisan. We heard from our most distinguished nuclear physicists; we heard from those scientists, and we heard from people of faith. I would like to quote some of them. More than 100 Democratic and Republican former diplomats and ambassadors wrote: In our judgment, the JCPOA deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show that it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more risky alternatives. That is the diplomats. The generals and admirals wrote: 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. Twenty-nine of our Nation's most prominent nuclear scientists and engineers wrote: We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements. I quote ``and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.'' This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework. They went on to say more. Mr. Speaker, 440 rabbis urged Congress to endorse the statement, writing: The Obama administration has successfully brought together the major international powers to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. The broad international sanctions move Iran to enter this historic agreement. They urge support. Mr. Speaker, 4,100 Catholic nuns wrote to Congress stating: As women of faith, followers of the one who said, ``Blessed are the peacemakers,'' we urge that you risk on the side of peace and vote to approve the Iran nuclear deal. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew warned of the hazards of rejecting the agreement, reminding us that foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand. I say this in response to something that my distinguished colleague from California said: Indeed, they would be more likely to blame us for walking away from a credible solution to one of the world's greatest security threats and would continue to reengage with Iran. He went on to say: Instead of toughening the sanctions, the decision by Congress to unilaterally reject the deal will end a decade of isolation of Iran and put the United States at odds with the rest of the world. We certainly don't want to do that. Today, something very interesting happened, Mr. Speaker. It was a statement put forth by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post and said: This is an important moment. It is a crucial opportunity at a time of heightened global uncertainty to show what diplomacy can achieve. This is not an agreement based on trust or any assumption about how Iran may look in 10 or 15 years. It is based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long-lasting. They went on to say: We condemn in no uncertain terms that Iran does not recognize the existence of the State of Israel and the unacceptable language that Iran's leaders use about Israel. Israel's security matters are and will remain our key interests, too. We would not have reached the nuclear deal with Iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the nonproliferation regime as a whole. We are confident that the agreement provides the foundation for resolving a conflict on Iran's nuclear program permanently. This is why we now want to embark on the full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, once all national procedures are complete. Our own President wrote to Congressman Jerry Nadler: I believe that JCPOA, which cuts off every pathway Iran could have to a nuclear weapon and creates the must robust verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program, is a very good deal for the United States, for the State of Israel, and for the region as a whole. Many of us share the views that had been expressed by those in a position to make a difference on this agreement. Tuesday night, again after the votes here in this House, dozens of Members supporting the nuclear agreement stood on the steps of the Capitol. We were honored to be joined by military veterans and Gold Star families, men and women whose sacrifices remind us of the significance of putting diplomacy before war. They remind us of the significance of this historic transformational achievement. Congratulations. These nuclear physicists, they congratulated the President on this agreement. I congratulate him, too. Our men and women in uniform and our veterans and our Gold Star moms remind us of our first duty, to protect and defend the American people. I am pleased to say we achieve that with this agreement. I urge my colleagues to support the agreement and to vote ``no'' on the other items that are being put before us today. I think we all have to, as we evaluate our decision, ask ourselves: If we were the one deciding vote as to whether this agreement would go forward or that we would fall behind, how would we vote? None of us has the luxury to walk away from that responsibility. I am proud of the statements that our colleagues have made, the agreement the President has reached; and I know that tomorrow we will sustain whatever veto the President may have to make.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me on this very special Special Order. I thank you for affording me the opportunity to visit with Speaker Wright, as you mentioned, in just the recent past. On a number of occasions and visits to Texas, I have had the privilege of basking in his glow, because that is what we did here in the Congress of the United States. When Jim Wright was the Speaker of the House, I had the privilege to serve under his leadership for a short period of time because I was a new Member at the time. And when he would come to this floor, to this well, to speak as the Speaker of the House, his oratory was just so compelling. People would stop what they were doing to listen to what Jim Wright had to say and how he said it. In some ways, that was of another era that hearkened back to how the business or the work of Congress was conducted, where people would come and actually listen to the debate. He was a man of great oratorical skill, of course, a legislative master, but he was also a person of great courage and a person of great principle. Tonight we gather on the floor to honor the memory of this great Speaker of the House. From the service that earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross in World War II to leadership that defined his 34 years in the House, Jim Wright exemplified commitment to the bright future of America's families. He was a great patriot. He was one of America's most distinguished and dedicated public servants, a person known for deep courage, brilliant eloquence, and a complete mastery of the legislative process. Wright's strong, decisive leadership built an indelible legacy of progress not only in his beloved State of Texas, but around the world. Jim Wright championed investing in our infrastructure. Jim Wright had been a member of the Transportation Committee. He helped forge a path to peace in Central America. For that, I will always be grateful to him for his brilliance, for his leadership, and especially for his courage. It was hard to do. Jim Wright sought prosperity for every hard-working family. Speaker Wright was a patriot who held the respect of friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Even after he left the House, Wright continued to contribute to building a better future for our country by sharing his wisdom with the new generation of leaders, as professor at Texas Christian University. When Jim Wright was presented the gavel in 1987, becoming the Speaker of the 100th Congress, he spoke of the enduring promise of our Constitution and of the sacred responsibility it entrusts the Members of the House. He said: We are its custodians. Those men of principle and vision who penned the deed to freedom had in mind a very special place for the Congress. Ours is a creative and dynamic role. We alone can legislate. Only we can appropriate. We are expected to initiate, to innovate, to see the obstacles on the road ahead, and to chart a path around them for our Nation. He went on to say: Let us, with gratitude for the privilege that is ours, ask Almighty God that He shall grant to each of us a portion of the vision to see the right; the courage to stand for the right; the honesty to admit human error; and the love that binds our Nation and our people together, to the end that we may continue to be not the envy of the world but an inspiration to the world--and an instrument of His peace. Mr. Speaker, 28 years later, Jim Wright's prayer for bravery and humility still speaks to us through the decades. He was indeed a person who had the vision to see the right and the courage to stand for the right. And, for that, we are enormously grateful. Speaker Jim Wright never stopped serving our country, and his achievements will stand forever as a living monument to his determined vision and legislative ability. I learned a lot from Jim Wright in the short period of time that I served with him in Congress, and from time to time I share those lessons with newer Members of Congress, but also with great humor. We hope it is a comfort to Speaker Wright's family, friends, students, and colleagues that so many of us share their grief and some come to the floor to join with them in celebrating his memory. May his legacy long keep watch over the House he led, and may it challenge all of us to do more and do better on behalf of America's hard-working families. Thank you to Jim Wright's family for sharing him with all of us. It was an honor to serve with him. It was even a bigger privilege to call him friend. I will miss that I will not be seeing him from time to time in Texas. I always invited him to the Congress for any special occasion we had. And on one or two occasions, he did accept, and that was an honor for this House. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for calling this Special Order.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I do want to add to my remarks because I was so taken by speaking about Jim Wright; but on the occasions I did see him in Texas, on the most recent occasions, he expressed the pride he took in your service in the Congress. Congratulations to you, Congressman Veasey, for carrying on that beautiful legacy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thought the motion was to refer it to committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I will stay where we are until the gentleman rules. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Yes.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution.