David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 3, is Employee Appreciation Day; and since we won't be in session, I rise today to register my appreciation for the staff members who allow me to serve the people of the Fourth District of North Carolina. The current political and media environment is not always an easy one for congressional staff to operate in, yet, every year, the staffers working in my North Carolina district offices help thousands of constituents navigate Federal agencies. They reach out to local businesses, governments, and other organizations, and help constituents access needed support. In Washington, D.C., our office staff researches thousands of pieces of legislation. They help me communicate with hundreds of thousands of constituent communications, and help welcome constituents to Washington. And they join me in meetings with constituent groups and local and State representatives and universities and businesses--every imaginable group. So the list of tasks is long, but all of them help ensure that the people of the Fourth District of North Carolina have a voice in the people's House. Simply put, these staff members that serve all of us represent the very best of public service. I and the people of North Carolina are grateful for their service. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of their dedication and diligence, I would like to include in the Congressional Record the names of each of my staff currently employed in my office: Nadia Alston, Katelynn Anderson, Sonia Barnes, Nora Blalock, Bayly Hassell, Asher Hildebrand, James Hunter, Lawrence Kluttz, Tracy Lovett, Sean Maxwell, Neel Mandavilli, Dave Russell, Samantha Schifrin, Anna Tilghman, Justin Wein, Leigh Whittaker, and Robyn Winneberger. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the effort that these staff members continue to put forth and for the opportunity that Employee Appreciation Day gives me and others to honor their service.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this sham Republican budget resolution. After wringing their hands for the last 8 years about debt and deficits, today's resolution makes clear Republicans care about fiscal discipline only when it is a Democratic President they are dealing with. This budget resolution would add $9.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. It has only one purpose: to provide for the eventual repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but it would ruin our fiscal health as well. Of course, the ACA was fully paid for by Democrats with new revenue and with cost-containment measures. Nonpartisan budget experts say that repealing the ACA would actually increase the deficit by $350 billion. So the hypocrisy of our Republican colleagues on this issue is simply breathtaking, even by Washington standards. Of course, repeal of ACA wouldn't just blow a hole in the budget, it would: destabilize the insurance market and cause premiums to skyrocket; eliminate insurance coverage for 30 million Americans, including 4 million children; raise taxes on the middle-class; burden local and rural hospitals with more uncompensated care; eliminate Medicaid benefits for millions of vulnerable citizens; and abolish vital patient protections, including the provision that stopped insurance companies from discriminating against those with preexisting condition. After more than 6 years, moreover, we are still waiting for that comprehensive Republican plan to replace the ACA. News flash: they don't have one.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. They simply don't have one. Rather than work with Democrats to improve the ACA, Republicans continue to put their own political ideology over the health and well-being of the Americans we are all pledged to serve. I urge all Members to forcefully reject this budget resolution.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 and the United States' decision to abstain, but H. Res. 11 does not engage on those issues. Instead, it misrepresents the motives of the Obama administration as it made the tough decision to abstain, and it distorts the content of the U.N. Security Council resolution, apparently for political purposes. In fact, H. Res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the United States Congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state solution. As we enter a period of great geopolitical uncertainty, that principle has never been more important. In the face of new threats to democracy and stability, we must join together to reaffirm the most fundamental tenets of our foreign policy, including our strong and unwavering support for Israel. But we must also demonstrate to the world that we are still committed to diplomacy that defends human rights and promotes peace. In an effort to make that unifying affirmation, I, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday in the nature of a substitute for H. Res. 11. Our substitute was intended to put forward clear, consensus language that omitted the flaws of the underlying legislation and reaffirmed America's longstanding commitment to Israel and to peace in the region. Our alternative didn't attempt to solve all the region's problems. We didn't pass judgment on recent events at the United Nations. In fact, those of us working on this resolution have varying views on that question. Nor did our resolution include politically charged attacks on the foreign policy priorities of the other party. Instead, our resolution is carefully designed to allow a broad, bipartisan consensus to speak in one voice in support of a two-state solution as the most credible pathway to peace. Unfortunately, this substitute amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, which instead moved forward with the closed rule we have before us. The alternative resolution has now been introduced separately as H. Res. 23, and it is available for cosponsorship. Today, however, we don't have that before us because of this rule. Members don't have the opportunity to vote on this or any other resolution that accurately affirms both our vital relationship with Israel and the longstanding bipartisan consensus that supports a viable two-state solution. Instead, we are presented with an extreme resolution that badly distorts the history--and we have heard that again here this morning--and that recklessly maligns U.S. diplomacy, all to embarrass the Obama administration for political gain. It is not worthy of this body. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution.-

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Engel, for yielding a portion of his time to opponents of this resolution. I also appreciate his willingness to work with me and other Members on our alternative resolution that is more accurate and less divisive, a resolution, unfortunately, the majority has denied a hearing for on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 11. The resolution before us today fails to credibly reaffirm our Nation's support for a two-state solution. It provides an inaccurate accounting of the United States' longstanding policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It includes reckless and divisive charges regarding the recent United Nations Security Council resolution, designed, it would appear, solely to embarrass the outgoing administration. It falsely claims, for example, that the Security Council resolution ``contradicts the Oslo Accords.'' It goes so far as to link the resolution to the boycott and divestiture movement. Mr. Speaker, there is room for honest debate about the U.N. resolution and about the U.S. decision to abstain, but there is not room, there shouldn't be room, for this kind of disgraceful distortion. H. Res. 11 doesn't really engage the issues; it obscures and distorts them. I would suggest that both those who support and oppose recent U.S. actions should oppose this irresponsible and divisive resolution. It does distort the record. In fact, during the Obama administration, fewer U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict have passed than under any other modern Presidency. In fact, the December resolution is the only one that has passed under President Obama's leadership; and if you want a fair and comprehensive account of the thinking that went into that difficult decision, I commend to every Member Samantha Power's statement at the United Nations, one of the finest statements of its sort that I have ever read. H. Res. 11 also doesn't take into account the fact that Republican and Democratic administrations alike have allowed Security Council resolutions addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to pass, many of which were opposed by Israel. The fact is H. Res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the United States Congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state solution. In this period of great geopolitical turmoil and uncertainty, we must reaffirm those fundamental aspects of our foreign policy, including our strong and unwavering support for Israel, while also demonstrating to the world that we are committed to a diplomacy that defends human rights and promotes Israeli and Palestinian states that live side by side in peace and security, a formulation that has characterized our country's diplomacy for decades. At best, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 11 would muddy the waters of our diplomacy and foreign policy. At worst, it could undermine our decade- long efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I can't, in good faith, support the adoption of this resolution, and I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are all friends of Israel, but that friendship requires more than demonizing the United Nations and the Obama administration. In fact, it requires the facing of hard truths, the destructive effect of incitement and violence on the Palestinian side, which the U.N. resolution explicitly acknowledges, and the threat to peace and to any conceivable two-state solution by relentless settlement expansion on the Israeli side, pushed by the right wing, unchallenged by H. Res. 11. The majority, seeking to push this resolution through, has displayed little interest in what it would take actually to achieve peace, choosing instead to distort the history, to impugn the motives of those attempting to achieve peace. It is not worthy of this body. I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the 114th Congress comes to a close, I have introduced the Swine Waste Infrastructure and Natural Environment Act (the SWINE Act, or H.R. 6483). I am hopeful that this bill will provoke constructive discussions and suggestions in the coming weeks from stakeholders in the agricultural and environmental communities, so that I can introduce an improved version early next year. The SWINE Act builds on efforts in North Carolina and elsewhere to develop new technologies to manage and dispose of waste from animal agricultural production, replacing the current ``lagoon and spray- field'' method used by many swine producers. In 1999, the environmental impact of lagoon and spray-field waste disposal systems was made particularly acute by Hurricane Floyd, an unusually large storm which caused poorly-regulated hog lagoons to overflow and discharge untreated animal waste into water systems across Eastern North Carolina. But for years prior to the storm, large animal feeding operations had emitted noxious odor and threatened the air and water quality of small rural communities across the Southeast. In the aftermath of Hurricane Floyd, forward-thinking leaders in North Carolina initiated a process in which industry, academia, and the environmental community worked together to identify waste disposal technologies that would mitigate the worst environmental effects of the lagoon and spray-field system. The effort sparked a vigorous public discussion on issues related to swine waste while fostering a period of technological innovation in waste processing technology. For nearly a decade, I helped secure federal assistance for the research and development of environmentally sound methods of processing swine waste and for technical assistance to producers who sought to adopt such technologies. While this process resulted in significant progress toward a viable alternative to lagoon and spray-fields, the technologies developed thus far fell short of the established threshold for economic feasibility and have thus not been widely adopted by producers. The environmental and social threats posed by the lagoon and spray- field method are not limited to North Carolina, and thus require a national solution. With additional investments in research and development and incentives for technology adoption, the technologies developed in North Carolina and elsewhere--or new technologies yet to be developed--can be made market-ready, producing an affordable and environmentally superior replacement for lagoon and spray-field. We should not be forced to choose between a clean environment and a successful, innovative animal agriculture industry. With this bill, I believe we can improve the environment while remaining the world leader in animal agricultural production.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank our ranking member, and I associate myself with the kind remarks others have made regarding our departing chairman, with whom I also share many years of productive and cooperative work in this institution. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this continuing resolution includes significant funding to help ensure that North Carolina and other affected States have the resources necessary to recover and rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Matthew and other major storms that struck earlier this year. As North Carolina's only member on the Appropriations Committee, securing this funding has been my top priority since Hurricane Matthew made landfall, and I am grateful for the bipartisan cooperation of our State's congressional delegation and also of the Appropriations Committee leadership throughout this entire process. The bill before us also includes critical funding to address the Flint water crisis, our national opioid epidemic, and Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot initiative. It is heartening to see these efforts bear fruit, but this bipartisan success stands in stark contrast to how the Republican leadership of this House has managed the appropriations end game this year. Rather than work in a productive way with Democrats to finalize our fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills, Republican leaders of the House have, again, decided, this time in connivance with the Trump transition, to abandon the appropriations bills we negotiated in good faith in favor of yet another stopgap measure, this one arbitrarily lasting for 5 months. This doesn't bode well for the appropriations process. We have heard the alarm bells sounded here today by appropriations leaders from both sides of the aisle. Make no mistake, there are some immediate consequences as well. This CR will damage HUD programs that serve our most vulnerable populations. It will prevent States from receiving new highway and transit funding called for in the bipartisan FAST Act. The CR also contains a partisan anti-safety provision that would block overnight rest requirements for commercial truck drivers, endangering highway travel for millions of drivers across the country. Perhaps the most egregious, as well as unprecedented, is the inclusion of a waiver for President-elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense. Whatever the merits of this nomination, setting aside the 7-year waiting period that is designed to protect the civilian control of the military deserves more deliberation and debate than a CR provides. Mr. Speaker, as we enter this period of political uncertainty, I hope that we can commit in future fiscal years to an appropriations process that allows us to exercise the power of the purse--this body's essential constitutional power--in a measured and bipartisan way.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Debra Saunders-White, Chancellor of North Carolina Central University. Her death at 59, after a valiant battle with kidney cancer, is a tragic loss for the university and our state. My wife Lisa and I extend our condolences to the family of Dr. Saunders-White, the North Carolina Central community, and her extensive network of colleagues and friends. Chancellor Debra Saunders-White was a first-generation college student, which gave her insight into the obstacles many students and families face and a passion to overcome them. She also understood the opportunities that come with higher education, especially for lower- income students. She was often found talking with students in the lunch hall or while walking around campus. Her warmth, the personal interest she took in students, and her courage in the face of adversity won the hearts of all who knew her. Dr. Saunders-White began her career as Assistant Provost of Technology at Hampton University, where she later served as Chief Information Officer. In North Carolina, she first served at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in the roles of Vice Chancellor of Information Technology, interim Associate Provost, and finally Chief Diversity Officer in the Office of Institutional Diversity. In May 2011, Dr. Saunders-White moved to Washington, D.C. to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs in the Department of Education. On June 1st, 2013 Debra Saunders-White was appointed by UNC President Tom Ross and welcomed as the first female chancellor of North Carolina Central University, one of the top Historically Black Universities in this country. During her time as chancellor, Dr. Saunders-White led an era of growth for North Carolina Central University, cultivating a theme of ``Eagle Excellence''. Her legacy includes the expansion of a dual degree program with North Carolina State University, as well as a collaboration with Durham Technical Community College to allow more students to transfer to NCCU. Construction of both a new business school and student center will begin next year thanks to Chancellor Saunders-White's efforts. It is a tribute to her legacy that this year North Carolina Central University was recognized as ``HBCU of the Year'' by HBCU Digest. I join the North Carolina Central University and Durham communities in mourning the passing of Debra Saunders-White, who set the university towards an even brighter future with her wise stewardship and strategic vision. We eagerly anticipate the new student center and will think of her every time we walk into it. Chancellor Saunders-White combined professionalism and a collaborative style in a unique way, and I always enjoyed working with her. I especially admired her courage and determination in continuing to provide leadership throughout her battle with cancer. We join with her family, her many friends, and the students, faculty, and staff of NCCU, in mourning her passing and honoring her exemplary life.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of William T. Brown of Fayetteville, North Carolina, a committed advocate for civil rights and educational excellence. His place in history was secured by his leadership during the integration of Cumberland County schools, one of the largest and most diverse school districts in the state of North Carolina. Mr. Brown passed away on November 14 at the age of 87. My wife Lisa and I wish to extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues. A North Carolina native, William T. Brown graduated from North Carolina A&T State University in 1948 and North Carolina Central University in 1954. Mr. Brown also pursued graduate degrees at Columbia University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1955, Mr. Brown moved to Fayetteville and began teaching science at E.E. Smith High School. After leading Ferguson Elementary School, he served as principal of Washington Drive Junior High School from 1963 to 1971, where he oversaw the process of integration almost a decade after the landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education. In 1971, Mr. Brown became principal of E.E. Smith High School. It was during this pivotal year that white students began attending the historically black high schools in Cumberland County. During this time, Mr. Brown emphasized to students and parents that their success in breaking down barriers would be remembered long after the racial backlash had subsided. A career educator, Mr. Brown later became assistant superintendent and associate superintendent for Fayetteville City Schools. He retired in 1992 and served as special assistant to the chancellor at Fayetteville State University until 1995. He was then appointed to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and served as trustee emeritus at Fayetteville State University. In 1994, the Cumberland County Board of Education named William T. Brown Elementary in Spring Lake, North Carolina, the county's first year-round school, in his honor. In 2014, Fayetteville State University named a Distinguished Professorship in Economics in recognition of his many contributions. The Fayetteville community and the State of North Carolina continue to benefit from William Brown's contributions to public education, desegregation, and expanded opportunity. He was a revered leader in the community, and his tireless efforts helped provide a better future for the people of Cumberland County, the Fourth District, and North Carolina.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the House's consideration of H. Con. Res. 165 is given special relevance by the presidential transition now underway. The resolution sends an important message to the incoming Administration: that the United States Congress reaffirms our nation's commitment to supporting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in pursuit of a just and lasting two-state solution, and that the United States Congress reaffirms a supportive and constructive role, for our country in facilitating resolution of the conflict. Unfortunately, the resolution also contains overly broad and negative language concerning third-party efforts to facilitate an agreement. Still, it does not preclude the United States from putting forward ideas for bridging differences between the parties, for articulating suggestions that fill in gaps, for offering a nonbinding comprehensive framework to help bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table--just as Republican and Democrat Administrations have done in the past. It is my hope, in fact, that the Obama administration might in the coming weeks ``help provide a political horizon for ending the conflict''--I'm quoting now from House Resolution 686, introduced by Representative Yarmuth and myself and cosponsored by 64 members--``by articulating a non-binding vision of what a comprehensive final status agreement might entail that could help foster and guide revived negotiations between the parties.'' The resolution also encourages the U.S. government to ``firmly articulate 49 years of consistent, bipartisan United States opposition to settlement expansion.'' We must be vigilant in protecting 50 years of bipartisan policy to help the Israelis and Palestinians reach as viable two-state solution in order to protect Israel as a secure, democratic, and Jewish state, and to end the cycle of violence that has plagued the region. As a longstanding supporter of the special relationship between the United States and Israel, I believe the United States must remain steadfast in its commitment to help Israel defend itself, to ensure that Israelis and Palestinians feel that a viable political horizon to ending this conflict continues to exist despite the current absence of ongoing, productive negotiations, and to stand ready to help create better conditions for peace--so that real and achievable progress may prove viable in the months and years ahead.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5711. This legislation is only the latest misguided and politicized effort by the majority to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a historic agreement negotiated by the world's major powers in order to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Simply put, enactment of H.R. 5711 would violate the United States Government's obligations under the JCPOA, opening the door for Iran to walk away from this agreement. It also threatens to undermine our credibility with our allies and negotiating partners. Now, we must be vigilant. No one disagrees that we must be vigilant in ensuring Iranian compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. We also should continue to hold Iran to account for its violations of human rights, for its sponsorship of terrorism, and for its nonnuclear weapons development. Last night, I supported, as did almost every Member of this body, a clean reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Extension Act, which guarantees Congress' ability to snap back sanctions should Iran violate the JCPOA. The reauthorization also allows Congress to take positive action on transition day should it be verified that Iran has used its nuclear capacity only for peaceful purposes. So the continued authorization of sanctions will allow the United States to continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. The dangerous bill before us today will do just exactly the opposite. By directly blocking a specific provision of the JCPOA--namely, the permissible sale of commercial passenger aircraft--this legislation would send a clear message to the Iranian people that the United States does not negotiate in good faith; that we expect to have it both ways, with Iran dismantling its nuclear facilities and getting nothing in return. We must also remember, my colleagues, that the Iran nuclear agreement is not just a bilateral agreement between Iran and the United States. It is the product of years and years of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, which is the United Kingdom, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States. The bill before us today would break faith with those negotiating partners in a reckless and dangerous way. Because of this agreement, the breakout time for Iran to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon went from 2 to 3 months to a year or more. Because of this agreement, the international community has 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear sites. Because of this agreement, we possess the enforcement mechanisms necessary to verify Iran's compliance. By all objective accounts, Iran has upheld its end of the bargain. Why would we give up these capabilities by failing to uphold ours? In light of the political transitions taking place in our country, now is especially the time when the United States must keep its word, its word to our allies and to the international community. Now, regardless of all this, it appears that our Republican colleagues are willing to jeopardize a major international agreement for political advantage. They are willing to undermine the credibility of the United States and our allies on the international stage. My colleagues, instead of scoring political points or seeking to undo the foreign policy legacy of the outgoing President, we should be working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure this agreement's success. For that reason, I urge colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and memory of Rodney Ellis of Mocksville, North Carolina, for his work as a committed teacher and an advocate for educational opportunity and success for all students. Mr. Ellis passed away prematurely on September 10, 2016 at the age of 49. On behalf of my family and staff, I wish to extend our sympathy and good wishes to his family. Mr. Ellis was raised by a single mother in Mocksville, North Carolina and Cleveland, Ohio. He returned to North Carolina to attend Winston- Salem State University (WSSU), graduating with a degree in teaching. While at WSSU, he met his wife Lisa, with whom he raised five children. Mr. Ellis began his involvement with the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) as a student at WSSU, serving as president of the campus affiliate of the organization. He later served as president of the Forsyth County chapter. In 2008, Mr. Ellis became vice president of NCAE, and in 2012 he was elected President. As an advocate and a leader, Rodney Ellis was energetic and effective, reflecting a passion for ensuring access to education for all students. He defended public investments in our schools at a time when they were under threat, first from the Great Recession and then from hostile political leadership. Mr. Ellis stepped down from the NCAE presidency in July after serving the maximum two two-year terms. He returned to Winston-Salem to spend more time with his family and teach middle school language arts to students of low-income families. He continued to be a committed educator of students of all socioeconomic backgrounds until the very end of his life. Rodney Ellis leaves a legacy of dedication and commitment that saw North Carolina education through tough times. Both in the classroom and in statewide leadership, his work will benefit thousands of students for generations to come.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the latest Republican effort to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a historic nuclear agreement negotiated by the world's major powers to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Since the deal was finalized, Republicans have tried time and time again to undermine not just the JCPOA but also the credibility of the President of our country, both here at home and on the international stage. We had this very same debate right before leaving in July, when the majority refused to act on such urgent matters as Zika funding or countering gun violence. Instead, they trotted out three bills that would scuttle the Iran agreement. Now, here we are again with two bills, one that would hinder the U.S.' ability to abide by the spirit of the deal and one that promotes a false narrative about American diplomatic activity. Predictably, both bills target President Obama and could require the U.S. to violate international accords. As I have said before, for House Republicans the Iran nuclear agreement has become the ObamaCare of foreign policy. Republicans repeatedly proclaim it a failure, despite its objective success. They call for its immediate repeal without offering any alternative, despite the potentially disastrous consequences of such action. And they continue to clutter the Congressional calendar with so-called message votes designed to score political points instead of addressing the real issues facing our Nation--such as funding research to develop a vaccine against the Zika virus; such as funding the government for the next fiscal year and avoiding the threat of a government shutdown; or such as doing anything constructive that would ensure military readiness, strengthen our infrastructure, or make our Nation more secure. The bill before us today, H.R. 5461, would draw a Presidential veto and would not achieve the goals the sponsor claims it would achieve. The text of this legislation states that a new report on a select number of Iranian assets would help the Treasury Department's ``efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism'' and make ``required compliance with remaining sanctions more easily understood.'' That sounds good, but, in reality, the bill would take away critical resources used to help the Treasury identify Iranian entities engaged in sanctionable conduct--such as human rights violations, financing terrorism, and ballistic missile development--in order to make this new report. In reality, this bill would incentivize corrupt Iranian actors to conduct their financial dealings farther and farther in the shadows. It would actually decrease transparency in Iran's banking sector, thereby undermining existing efforts to force Iran's compliance with international financial standards. In reality, the publication of this report would promote distrust and strengthen the position of hard-liners in Iran. These legislative antics continue, even though the opponents of the JCPOA know full well that strong sanctions on Iran remain in place. Instead of scoring political points or seeking to deny the President a foreign policy achievement, we should be working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure the agreement's success. Mr. Chairman, we need to remember that the world is watching what we do here today. We may think a politicized bill that has no chance of being signed into law doesn't matter much, but, in fact, to the leaders of China, Russia, or Iran, it sends a message of hesitation and disunity. And to the American public, it shows that House leadership is more interested in debating messaging bills than addressing our Nation's most pressing policy concerns. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, forego the partisan games, and focus on the needs of Americans and the security of our Nation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we often hear from constituents who are frustrated by Congress' failure to act on many of the most pressing issues facing our country. Seven weeks ago, as if we were determined to confirm this indictment, Congress adjourned for summer recess with a long list of critical unfinished business. We came nowhere near finishing our appropriations bills, leaving open the question of whether we can even keep the government open past September 30. We failed to pass the most rudimentary gun violence measures, leaving the tragedies of San Bernardino and Orlando unaddressed. And then there was Zika, perhaps the most incredible failure of all. With an epidemic bearing down on us--an epidemic with disastrous human consequences, but with a prescribed course of action that could do much to prevent and mitigate the catastrophe--still, Congress refused to act. Now we are back in session, facing daily headlines about the dangers posed by Zika. The number of Zika travel-related cases in the continental U.S. is increasing, the number of pregnant women infected is growing, and the number of babies being born--or worse, lost--with microcephaly or other Zika-related complications is rising. Increasing numbers of mosquito-borne cases have been reported in Puerto Rico and south Florida. I learned this week that five service members and retirees from Fort Bragg in North Carolina are being treated for Zika. It has been more than 6 months since the President requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $1.9 billion from Congress to fund Zika preparedness, response, and prevention, as well as critical research. The request was carefully and comprehensively documented and justified. In the meantime, our local, State, and Federal public health agencies and authorities have continued to shift funds and reorder priorities in an attempt to get a handle on this public health emergency. Indeed, our own universities and other research centers have been shifting money around for months, as I learned at a conference I helped organize in North Carolina on June 7. Researchers testified there as to the great promise of the work they are doing, but also as to the great efforts they have been required to make, in the face of inadequate and uncertain funding, to ensure that the work continues. I left that conference impressed and encouraged by the work that was going on. But I also left chagrined and angered at the way Congress, under Republican leadership, with no serious attempt at bipartisan cooperation, is letting these dedicated researchers and the entire country down. The House and Senate Republican conference report contains only $1.1 billion of the requested funds, but the larger problem is that it robs other critical public health priorities--notably, Ebola, but also disaster preparedness--in order to satisfy Republican budget ideologues. Adding insult to injury, the Republican conference report also includes several misguided and dangerous policy riders. These poison pills would severely limit access to contraceptives in Puerto Rico, where thousands of cases of Zika have been recorded. It would take yet another shot at Planned Parenthood and would roll back certain clean water regulations, ostensibly to allow for the increased spraying of pesticides. I recently met with Director Anthony S. Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who explained the incredible lengths to which NIH and CDC have gone in order to protect the health of the American people. They have desperately cobbled together a budget, most recently taking money even from vital research into cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and other diseases. Despite such extraordinary efforts, the CDC and NIH will run out of money after October 1. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we honor the President's request of $1.9 billion in a bill free of destructive offsets and ideological riders. It is crucial that Congress take action for the pregnant women in their first trimesters who are scared to leave their homes; for the children born with a range of disabilities, of which microcephaly is only the worst; for the service men and women stationed across the globe who are at particular risk; and for the 25 percent of Puerto Rico's population who will potentially contract this disease. We can and we must as a country do better than this. Let's do the right thing for our constituents, our country, and for the rest of the world by finally funding this public health emergency. We have long since run out of excuses. We can wait no longer.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this and the other two bills before the House this week regarding Iran, all of which would weaken our national security and our international standing, and all of which the President has rightly threatened to veto. If there is a silver lining in this debate, it is that the majority has given us an opportunity to acknowledge the 1-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has made the world safer by severely constraining Iran's nuclear activities and subjecting them to unprecedented international oversight. Yet, instead of celebrating this landmark achievement, the majority is seeking to undo it. H.R. 5119, H.R. 4992, and H.R. 5631, collectively, would deny Iran even the limited access to foreign investment and other meaningful incentives that encourage compliance with the JCPOA. These are just the latest in a series of Republican efforts to undermine this historic agreement negotiated with the world's major powers. Since the deal was finalized, Republicans have tried again and again and again to undermine not just the JCPOA, but also the credibility of the President of the United States on the international stage. It appears the Iran nuclear agreement has become the ObamaCare of foreign policy. What I mean is that Republicans proclaim it a failure repeatedly, despite its objective success. They call for its immediate repeal without offering any viable alternatives, despite the potentially disastrous consequences of such action; and they continue to clutter the congressional calendar with so-called message votes about Iran, instead of addressing the major issues facing our Nation. Now, these legislative antics continue even though opponents of the JCPOA know full well that strong sanctions on Iran remain in place targeting the country's human rights violations, ballistic missile development, and support of terrorism. The bill before us, H.R. 5631, would impose additional mandatory sanctions on Iran for these same violations. There is no one in this Chamber about to let Iran off the hook for its egregious human rights violations or its proliferation of terrorism and ballistic missile technology. And our Republican friends know full well that if a violation of the JCPOA were to occur, we can put sanctions like these in place immediately. So why are we doing this bill now? Must we conclude that our colleagues are more interested in unravelling one of President Obama's signature accomplishments than they are with the facts of the matter? Let's look at the facts: Because of this agreement, an Iranian nuclear weapon is not an imminent threat to the United States or our allies, including Israel. Because of this agreement, the breakout time for Iran to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon went from 2 or 3 months to a year or more. The international community has 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear sites, and we possess an enforcement mechanism to verify Iran's compliance. By all objective accounts, Iran has upheld its end of the bargain, and it is vital that we uphold ours. This isn't just my opinion. This week a bipartisan group of more than 75 national security experts sent a letter to the President stating that ``Iran has remained in compliance with its commitments'' and ``all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked.'' I include in the Congressional Record this letter in its entirety. The Iran Project, New York, NY, July 12, 2016. Letter to the President on the Anniversary of the Nuclear Agreement with Iran. Dear Mr. President: On the first anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, Americans should be proud of your leadership in bringing about this landmark diplomatic agreement. As a result of the JCPOA all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked, thereby providing greater security to our friends and partners in the region and to the world. From November 2013, when the interim nuclear agreement was reached, until today, Iran has remained in compliance with its commitments as verified by regular reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We applaud your Administration's commitment to the rigorous verification of Iran's compliance and remaining in close contact with the U.S. negotiating partners on the JCPOA implementation. This will be essential to ensure their cooperation should action be required to respond to an Iranian violation. As your policies have shown, it will also be essential for the U.S. to continue to assure Israel and the Gulf states of its resolute commitment to their security as our traditional partners in the region. It will be necessary to ensure adequate long-term funding for the IAEA so that it can carry out its inspection and reporting functions as required by the JCPOA. Future relations with Iran can improve or get worse and become dangerous for U.S. interests in the region as Iran continues to support the Assad regime and Hezbollah. The U.S. should develop policies that increase the chances of cooperation with Iran, minimize confrontation, and influence Iran's actions in the region. We acknowledge that opportunities will be limited for testing Iran's willingness to work directly with the U.S. due to the political uncertainties in both countries in the coming year, but engagement should be the U.S. government's long-term goal. Your diplomatic undertaking with Iran was to seek a safer world and stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To achieve those ambitious goals you engaged in prolonged and intense diplomatic negotiations that enabled you to deal directly with Iran and to test its willingness to work with the U.S. and others in some areas of common purpose. The alternative strategy would be to return to an earlier era of treating Iran as America's principal enemy in the region, thereby: risking the unraveling of the JCPOA; drawing strong opposition from negotiating partners; returning to a period of nuclear danger; missing important opportunities for collaboration in the fight against ISIS and the search for solutions to other regional problems; and risking another armed conflict involving the U.S. in the Middle East. We, therefore, encourage your Administration to put in place an institutional structure for conducting relations with Iran in all areas essential to U.S. interests. We suggest several channels that could be set up for your successor: A direct diplomatic channel at the deputy level to continue the communications currently being conducted between the Secretary of State and Iranian Foreign Minister. Without such continuity during the transition period, the next Administration will lack the diplomatic means to enlist or pressure Iran in the management of important and urgent issues such as ISIS, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan where the U.S. and Iran have some common but often clashing interests. An emergency communications capability with Iran's government to avoid misunderstandings or the escalation of incidents or accidents. A regular and direct bilateral channel between the U.S. Treasury and Iranian Central Bank to address all U.S. and Iranian questions about the implementation of sanctions relief commitments under the JCPOA. Treasury and State will need to stay in close harmony in talks with Iran on sanctions relief. Iran's leaders appear reluctant now to engage the U.S. beyond the implementation of the JCPOA, and Iran's actions in the region may make engagement difficult for the U.S. But the one lesson learned from your diplomatic efforts with Iran is that persevering patiently in pursuit of careful diplomacy can lead to progress. A variety of channels with Iran will be needed to drive home messages and to improve mutual understanding on our positions on issues of importance to the U.S.--including regional security questions and the treatment of dual nationals--among others. You have shown that well-conceived and tough-minded diplomacy can protect U.S. national security interests. Given the stakes, the U.S. will need more, not less, engagement with Iran. With respect, Amb. (ret.) Morton Abramowitz, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, Ambassador to Thailand and Turkey Graham Allison, Assistant Secretary of Defense Les AuCoin, U.S. Representative Amb. (ret.) Barbara K. Bodine, Ambassador to Yemen David Bonior, U.S. Representative BGen Stephen A. Cheney (ret.), U.S. Marine Corps Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund Amb. (ret.) James F. Collins, Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States and to the Russian Federation Leon N. Cooper, Brown University, Nobel Laureate Physics Amb. (ret.) Chester A. Crocker, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Amb. (ret.) James B. Cunningham, Ambassador to Israel, Afghanistan, and the United Nations Tom Daschle, U.S. Senator, Senate Majority Leader Suzanne DiMaggio, Director and Senior Fellow at New America Amb. (ret.) James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University Major General Paul D. Eaton (ret.), U.S. Army, Managing Director Vet Voice Foundation Robert Einhorn, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation, the Secretary of State's Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Harold A. Feiveson (ret.), Senior Research Scientist, Princeton University Richard L. Garwin, Chair of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board F. Gregory Gause III, Chairman and Head of the International Affairs Department at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Leslie H. Gelb, Assistant Secretary of State for Political- Military Affairs, Director of Policy Planning and Arms Control at the Department of Defense Amb. (ret.) Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Ambassador to Turkey Morton H. Halperin, Director of Policy Planning Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Planning and Arms Control Lee H. Hamilton, U.S. Representative, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Gary Hart, U.S. Senator, Special Envoy to Northern Ireland Amb. (ret.) William C. Harrop, Ambassador to Israel, Inspector General of the State Department Stephen B. Heintz, President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund James Hoge, Former Editor of Foreign Affairs Magazine Amb. (ret.) Robert Hunter, National Security Council Director of Middle East Affairs and Ambassador to NATO Lt. Gen. (ret.) Arlen D. Jameson, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Commander U.S. Strategic Command J. Bennett Johnston, U.S. Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum, U.S. Senator LTG. Frank Kearney (ret.), U.S. Army, Deputy Director for Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counter- Terrorism Center LTG. Claudia J Kennedy (ret.), U.S. Army, Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Amb. (ret.) Daniel Kurtzer, Ambassador to Israel and Egypt Ellen Laipson, Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council, President Emeritus of Stimson Center Carl Levin, U.S. Senator and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services Mel Levine, U.S. Representative Amb. (ret.) John Limbert, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran Amb. (ret.) Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Ambassador to China, Director of Policy Planning, Department of State Amb. (ret.) William H. Luers, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Suzanne Maloney, Policy Planning Department of State, Deputy Director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution Jessica T. Mathews, Director of the Office of Global Issues, National Security Council Gen. (ret.) Merrill McPeak, U.S. Air Force, Chief of Staff Amb. (ret.) William G. Miller, Ambassador to Ukraine Amb. (ret.) Cameron Munter, Ambassador to Pakistan and Serbia Amb. (ret.) Richard W. Murphy, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Vali Nasr, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Richard Nephew, Director for Iran at the National Security Council, Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the Department of State Amb. (ret.) Ronald E. Neumann, Ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria, and Bahrain Gen. (ret.) Lloyd Fig Newton, U.S. Air Force, Commander, Air Education and Training Command Joseph Nye, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council Admiral (ret.) Eric Olson, US. Navy, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Amb. (ret.) Thomas Pickering, Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs; Ambassador to Israel, Russia, India, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan Paul R. Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia Amb. (ret.) Nicholas Platt, Ambassador to Pakistan, Philippines, and Zambia Joe R. Reeder, Deputy Secretary of the Army, Chairman of the Panama Canal Commission Amb. (ret.) Francis J. Ricciardone, Ambassador to Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, and Palau Burton Richter, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University; Nobel Laureate in Physics Barnett R. Rubin, Senior Adviser to the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Gary S. Samore, White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls at the National Security Council Gen. Brent Scowcroft (ret.), U.S. National Security Advisor Patricia Schroeder, U.S. Representative Gary Sick, Director of the Office of Iran and the Persian Gulf of the National Security Council Jim Slattery, U.S. Representative Mark Udall, U.S. Senator Amb. (ret.) Bill vanden Heuvel, Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Frank N. von Hippel, Assistant Director for National Security, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Jane Wales, Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director of the National Security Council, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Amb. (ret.) Edward S. Walker, Jr., Ambassador to Israel, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates James Walsh, Research Associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program Frank Wilczek, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel Laureate in Physics Timothy E. Wirth, U.S. Senator Amb. (ret.) Frank Wisner, Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs; Ambassador to India, Egypt, the Philippines, and Zambia. The signers of this statement are either former senior officials of the U.S. government or prominent national security leaders who have not held senior government positions. The positions listed after the names of the former government officials are the senior posts held while in government. The positions listed after the names of those who were not from the government are listed with their current position.