Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is very similar to a bill introduced by Rep. Wagner in the last Congress. I opposed that bill then, and for essentially the same reasons will oppose this bill now. As I indicated last year, I support consumer choice and believe there is room for a variety of different business models in the financial services marketplace. I also believe consumers have a right to full transparency regarding compensation arrangements and to recommendations from financial services professionals that are based on the consumers' best interests. In my judgment, the Department of Labor shares these convictions and has proposed a workable Fiduciary Rule that embodies both of these principles. Moreover, whenever our office has raised specific issues that we believed warranted further clarification or adjustment--from so-called level-to-level funding, to the appropriate distinction between education and advice, to the role of annuities and other insurance products in Americans' retirement security--we have found the Department both knowledgeable about, and responsive to, the concerns being raised. While I support the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgating its own Fiduciary Rule, I do not believe the Department of Labor--or the retirement security of millions of Americans--can or should wait on action by the SEC. Accordingly, I oppose this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to respond to all of the misstatements that were made, but now I am going to turn it over to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) be allowed to control the next 15 minutes of debate time as my designee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield myself the balance of my time. I have been listening to the debate, and I am sorry to report that as I come here to close the debate, not much has changed from when we started this debate this morning. This is still, in my view, an unproductive end to an already unproductive and shameful week. We saw in this House just yesterday the spectacle of a kangaroo court-style special Benghazi hearing, using taxpayers' dollars, engaged in a political witch hunt, abuse of power, misuse of taxpayer dollars, and in fact the Republican majority leader himself, Mr. McCarthy, told the country that that was all about bringing down Secretary Clinton's poll numbers. Then, just earlier this week, we pretended, in passing a piece of legislation, that the United States doesn't have to pay all the bills that are due and owing. We passed a piece of legislation that says we will only pay some of our bills but not all of our bills. No American citizen can get up in the morning and say: ``You know what? I am not going to pay my mortgage bill. I will only pay my car payment.'' When a country like the United States puts its full faith and credit at risk, it puts the entire economy of our country and the international economic order at risk. But to add insult to injury, in passing a piece of legislation that said the United States will only pay some of our bills, so forget about that full faith and credit, we passed legislation that says, well, we are going to pay the big bondholders first. So China gets paid first. Wall Street gets paid first. Troops don't get paid. Veterans don't get paid. Doctors providing Medicare services, they don't get paid. Now here we are, for the 61st time, passing a piece of legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which, according to the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, will cost 15 million Americans access to affordable health care, including 3 million children. Now, I have heard some of our colleagues come to the floor and say, well, we want to improve the Affordable Care Act in certain ways. We understand that the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but a piece of legislation that takes away affordable health care from 15 million Americans, that is nothing to celebrate. That is nothing to be proud of. We shouldn't be doing that here on the floor of the House, taking away access to health care for women at places like Planned Parenthood, when the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Chaffetz, has also stated on national television that they didn't violate any laws and later said that they hadn't engaged in inappropriate activity. When our Republican colleagues got that kind of answer with respect to Benghazi, when the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the House and the Committee on Armed Services in the House concluded that there had been no wrongdoing in the tragedy in Benghazi, our Republican colleagues invented the Select Committee on Benghazi. When they didn't get the answer they wanted on Planned Parenthood, they invented a special committee on Planned Parenthood that is going to waste taxpayer money, just as the Select Committee on Benghazi has. Mr. Speaker, I showed, earlier, a chart that shows just how fed up the American people are with what is happening here in the House. The problem is everything we have done this week, from the Benghazi hearings to pretending the United States will only pay part of its bills--and when we do, we are going to pay China first--to dismantling the Affordable Care Act or attempting to do it for the 61st time. They want us working on the important issues. A few weeks from now, our national transportation infrastructure system is going to run out of money. In just a few more weeks, the Federal Government will shut down if we can't come together and work something out. I have introduced the Prevent a Government Shutdown Act. I tried to get a vote on it here on the floor today, but the Committee on Rules said no. Their priority was not to prevent the government from shutting down in a couple weeks. Their priority was, for the 61st time, to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, even at the cost of 15 million Americans' affordable health insurance. Mr. Speaker, let's get on with the big issues of this country. Let's invest in our infrastructure. Let's shut down some of the tax loopholes that perversely incentivize American corporations to move jobs and capital overseas and invest it here at home. Let's make sure we lift the unproductive caps, sequester caps that are slowing down economic growth right now, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Let's invest in our kids' education. Let's invest in scientific research, and let's do it while we shut down some of these ridiculous tax breaks for hedge fund managers. We should end this inversion that is going on where U.S. corporations just change their address to some tax haven overseas to escape their responsibility to the American taxpayers and their country. We have got a lot of pressing issues to take care of--instead, Benghazi, pay China first, pass this legislation to take away health care from 15 million Americans, including 3 million American kids. We can do better. We can do a lot better, Mr. Speaker. Let's defeat this legislation and get on with the real work of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to Mr. Woodall, we don't celebrate legislation that takes away affordable health care to 15 million Americans, including 3 million American children. That is not our definition of bipartisanship. I urge all my colleagues to read the Congressional Budget Office report. The Congressional Budget Office is headed by someone who was chosen by our Republican colleagues, and their report tells us this legislation will take away affordable health care from 15 million Americans. That is nothing to celebrate. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time as well.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, plain and simple, takes away affordable health care to 15 million Americans, including 3 million kids. I keep hearing about how intrusive and awful the Affordable Care Act is. The reality is the majority of Members gathered right here in this Chamber are on the Affordable Care Act. The government is not dictating to them their health insurance. They are on it. All they are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is take away access to affordable health care for 15 million Americans who would not otherwise get affordable health care and, in the process, take away funding for women's health programs, targeting Planned Parenthood as part of a political witch hunt, the same kind of witch hunt we saw just yesterday in the Benghazi special committee hearing, where, the majority leader of this House told the public, it was simply about bringing down Secretary Clinton's poll numbers. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that it has been so difficult for our Republican colleagues to find a replacement for the Speaker. You have got a faction of this House that wants no compromise, that thinks it is a celebration to get rid of health care, affordable health care for 15 million Americans. That is nothing to celebrate, and this is a terrible way to end an already unproductive week here in the House of Representatives. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is not going anywhere because the President of the United States is not going to sign a bill that deprives 15 million Americans of access to affordable health care that they didn't have before. So let's stop the games. We have got to deal with the debt ceiling. We have got to deal with a way where we actually pay all our bills, not just some of the bills, and when we decide which ones to pay, we don't say we are going to pay China first. We have got to make sure we come together to prevent a government shutdown. Instead, for the 61st time, this House is voting to take away health care from the American public. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in that case, in the interest of time, would the gentleman be interested, since we have 9 minutes and 12\1/2\ minutes left and no other speakers, in agreeing that we will each take 5 minutes to close?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. That is my understanding of the agreement, too. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to just tell us--I guess we can do the math--how much time in the 15 minutes remains for each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any additional speakers?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have more speakers, but they are not with us on the floor at the moment. I am not sure exactly how many there are either. I reserve the balance of my time. Does the chairman have additional speakers?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for one additional speaker as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the vote we are going to have today is, I guess, a fitting end to an unproductive and shameful week in the United States Congress. Yesterday, we just witnessed an incredible abuse of power where a so- called special Benghazi committee, funded by taxpayer money, conducted their political witch hunt against Secretary Clinton. The Republican majority leader in this own body told the Nation on television that it was about bringing down Hillary Clinton's polls. That dishonors the memory of the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi. Then earlier this week, this Congress passed legislation that says, you know what? The United States Government doesn't have to pay all of its bills. We will just pay some of our bills. Forget about the full faith and credit of the United States. We will decide we are going to pay some people and not others. It is as if, Mr. Speaker, one of us got up in the morning and said we are just going to make our mortgage payments but forget about the car payments, or we are going to pay this person but not that person. When the United States Government tries to do that, the economy goes downhill fast. To add insult to injury, they said, when we are going to pay certain people, we are going to pay the big bondholders first. The Government of China and Wall Street, they are going to get paid. Our veterans aren't going to get paid. Our soldiers aren't going to get paid. I hope our colleagues are reading what they are passing here in the United States Congress, because that is what they did earlier this week. So what are we doing here today? For the 61st time in this House of Representatives, our Republican colleagues are moving forward on legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Now, the chairman is entitled to his own opinions. He is not entitled to his own facts. All you have to do is read the report of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that analyzed this bill, and here is what they say: that, as a result of this legislation, insurance coverage would decline by about 16 million people in most years; 3 million of those people would be children. Why in the world are we here on the floor of the House of Representatives passing legislation that is going to take away affordable health care to 15 million Americans, including 3 million children? Look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. This shows the decline in the number of uninsured people in the United States. As you can see, you see a rapid drop in the number of uninsured Americans as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Our Republican colleagues' bill wants to get rid of that progress, put all those people back in the position where they don't have affordable health care. They also want to go after women's health programs, including Planned Parenthood, where the testimony from the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Chaffetz, is very clear. They haven't violated any laws. He said it on national television. Here is what he was asked: ``Is there any evidence, in your opinion, that Planned Parenthood has broken any laws?'' ``No. I am not suggesting that they broke the law.'' It is another political witch hunt, just like the Benghazi hearing. You know what? When the regular committees found there was no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, our Republican colleagues created a special committee on Planned Parenthood as well. Mr. Speaker, when the American people had been asked what they think of Congress these days, this is a chart of the words they come up with first: Ridiculous. Waste of time. Terrible. Frustrating. You are just making this chart worse by coming here to this floor, for the 61st time, repealing the Affordable Care Act, a bill that you know has no chance of becoming law because, if it gets to the President's desk, he has told this Congress long ago he will veto it because the President doesn't want to get rid of affordable health care for 15 million Americans and 3 million American kids. The President doesn't want to do it. I am really, really disappointed that our Republican colleagues thought this was a good way to end an unproductive week. It is a sad and shameful statement of the state of affairs in this body. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the International Day of the Girl and to advocate for robust funding for programs that benefit the education of refugee children in general and refugee girls in particular. Today, there are more forcibly displaced people roaming the earth than at any other time since World War II. 60 million men, women and children currently qualify as refugees. One in every two is under the age of 18 and about 50% of them are girls. While the U.S. is a generous supporter of global aid programs, less than 10% of that aid goes to education and less than 2% goes to educate children trapped in emergencies. Many refugee children have no schools nearby to attend and in those cases where education is an option, refugee children face significant challenges such as overcrowding, language barriers and the lack of learning materials. As a consequence, many refugee children around the world do not receive the quality education they need to survive as adults. Access to education is especially vital for young girls who are six times more likely to marry as children if access to secondary education is unavailable to them. Those who fall between the cracks often become victims of human trafficking and child labor. The average refugee is displaced from their home for 17 years. Without an adequate education, refugee children can become economically handicapped for life. They grow up without the skills to earn a living or support a family. According to the Girl Up organization, every additional year of secondary education completed by refugees results in a 10% increase in earnings. Every bit of the support we provide can help break the cycle of poverty that threatens the majority of refugees. That is why I rise on this International Day of the Girl to commend groups like Girl Up and organizations like UNICEF and UNHCR for all they do to support refugees and especially for their support of childhood education.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to thank the ranking member. So that is what this all boils down to. When committees in the House and the Senate investigated Benghazi--and not just any committees--the Defense Committee, the Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate--they all concluded that the allegations were false, that it was a terrible, awful tragedy in Benghazi, but nobody was involved in any wrongdoing. When they didn't get the answer they wanted then, Special Committee on Benghazi, which, as we heard, turned out to be all about politics. And that is exactly what is happening now with Planned Parenthood. Mr. Chaffetz just announced the results of all the hearings on Planned Parenthood. No violation of the law. And so what do you do when you don't get the answer you want? Let's spend more taxpayer money on another special committee. This is a kangaroo court. This is a misuse of public funds. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get on with the business of the House. Let's focus on the economy. Let's come together with a budget agreement to keep the government open. Let's do the real work of the American people and not run a McCarthy- like hearing against Planned Parenthood and women's health. Let's do what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for bringing those troubling revelations to the attention of the House. It shows what a sham process this has been from the beginning. Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of work to do in this Congress. We have got to come together with a budget agreement to keep the government open, to invest in our economy, to deal with modernizing our transportation infrastructure in this country. Yet, what are Republicans bringing to the floor? Another measure to create another so-called select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood, when, as we have heard today, three other House committees have already done that. And what has been the sum total of that investigation? Well, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee told us on national television when he was asked if Planned Parenthood had broken any laws, ``No, I'm not suggesting they broke the law.'' So when you don't get the answer you want, what do you do? Create another special committee. Rather than creating a special committee, the Government and Oversight Committee owes an apology to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, for dragging her through a committee process that was disrespectful, where the chairman of the committee began with a chart that PolitiFact determined was a pants-on-fire misrepresentation. That is the most untrue ranking you can get from PolitiFact, Pants on Fire. That was the gist of that hearing. And now we are learning today possible nondisclosure of certain documents. So what is happening here? As the late Yogi Berra would say, ``This is deja vu all over again.'' They had many committees investigating Benghazi to try to get to the bottom of a tragedy in the House and the Senate, and all those committees concluded there was no wrongdoing. And so what did our Republican colleague do? Spent $5 million on a special committee on Benghazi, which, the Majority Leader just announced the other day on national television, was simply about politics, simply about hurting Secretary Clinton. So that is what this is all about.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, this legislation is the latest attempt to take essential healthcare services away from women. Our Republican colleagues know that none of the Planned Parenthood Federal funds are used for abortion, per the Hyde amendment. They know there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood has violated any Federal laws. They know that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood services go to essential cancer screenings, family planning counseling, pregnancy tests, contraceptive care, and other things. This bill will deny women those services. When this bill fails in the Senate, our Republican colleagues are apparently prepared to shut down the government in order to shut down those women's health services. Madam Speaker, our Republican colleagues are entitled to their views, but they should not harm our economy; they should not harm America's women; they should not shut down the government to try to impose their views on the country. Madam Speaker, I rise to raise my opposition to H.R. 3134, Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015. This bill would prohibit all federal funding for Planned Parenthood health centers for one year. Instead of using their majority to pass a clean budget and govern responsibly, the Republicans are willing to hold our country hostage to further their harmful agenda against women. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act is just another shameful attempt to take essential healthcare services away from women. Republicans are so focused on defunding Planned Parenthood that they are willing to shut down the government again, and cause billions of dollars of damage to our economy. Planned Parenthood has been investigated multiple times and each investigation has shown that Planned Parenthood has not violated any federal laws. Moreover none of Planned Parenthood's federal funds are used to perform abortions, in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. Republicans are ignoring facts and relying on doctored footage to continue their crusade against women's healthcare. This bill will have a devastating impact on women. Approximately one in five American women, in her lifetime, has relied on a Planned Parenthood center for care. It serves a total of 2.7 million patients per year--women and men. More than ninety percent of their much-needed services go toward providing essential health services that includes contraceptive care, family planning counseling, pregnancy tests, prenatal care, and essential cancer screenings. There are not enough community health centers to care for all of those who would lose access to healthcare if this bill is passed. A direct threat would be posed to seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood patients who earn incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less. It is time to focus on this country's real concerns and stop trying to deprive women of essential health services. I strongly oppose this bill and any other efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 758 the so- called ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015'' or LARA. Congress has only seven legislative days left before the government shuts down and vital programs and departments are left unfunded. We should be debating and voting on budgetary measures to make sure that the government can still function and remains open. We are here instead, discussing a bill that has been introduced every Congress since 2011. Instead of voting on ways the government will stay open so we can continue to fund vital national priorities, we are here talking about legislation that does not solve any demonstrated need. This bill seeks to fix the problem of frivolous lawsuits by enacting a law that used to exist and which judges themselves later rejected. A mandatory sanction of Rule 11 violations was an experiment that was tried in 1983 and was dismissed and abandoned just ten years later in 1993. Almost 100 percent of federal judges surveyed by the Federal Judicial Committee state that Rule 11 should not be altered in the way this Act envisions and 86 percent of judges think the existing rule is fine as is. This bill will increase the cost and volume of cases and make it exponentially harder to advance civil rights suits. Landmark civil rights cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. Texas would not have survived if Rule 11 existed as this bill envisions. We should not put up barriers to continuing civil rights progress through the courts. This bill is opposed by The American Bar Association, The Federal Judicial Center and countless other legal organizations. Their voices are clear: leave Rule 11 and judicial autonomy alone. Congress does not need to ``fix'' a problem that simply does not exist. The Judiciary Committee report says that this law would ``dispel the culture of fear that has come to permeate American society.'' American society does not fear the existing process for Rule 11 sanctions. The American public is concerned about roads not being built, about the government shutting down, and about losing their health care coverage. The American public does not want the government to shutdown. They have been there and done that. The last government shut down costs the American people $24 billion dollars in lost economic output. That is why I introduced the Prevent a Government Shutdown Act of 2015. That is what we should be debating and voting on right now, Mr. Speaker. Not a law that was tried and rejected 22 years ago.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the occasion of the visit of Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic to the United States and his meeting with Vice President Biden, to add my voice to the international criticism about human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Serbia. In December 2012, Miroslav Miskovic, the president of Delta Holding was arrested and charged with a crime based on an outdated, internationally discredited provision of the Serbian criminal code that is a relic of the nation's communist past. He was charged with ``abuse of position by a responsible person'' (Article 234) for allegedly receiving market rate interest payments on legitimate commercial loans to a Serbian road construction company that was privatized in 2005. This is not only legal, but common in other European Countries. The State Department and the European Union have criticized Miskovic's arrest as an example of the ineffective judiciary, excessive use of pretrial detention and a denial of fair public trials. The State Department Human Rights Report states that Mr. Miskovic's pretrial detention was ``contrary to the well-established position of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue, that custody must not only be lawful, but also reasonable and necessary.'' The European Union, as part of Serbia's EU accession process, has called on the government to reform the provision of the Serbian criminal code under which Mr. Miskovic and 4,168 other individuals are charged. Mr. Miskovic's arrest is indicative of the Serbian justice system's serious need for reform. With Prime Minister Vucic's visit, the Serbian government is seeking to foster closer ties to the United States as it continues its efforts to join the European Union. While I share the U.S. government's appreciation for Serbia's contribution to Balkan stabilization, I believe any U.S. support for improved relations or for Serbian accession to the EU should depend on that country's commitment to political reform, the addressing of the lack of transparency in the government and genuine efforts to increase the independence of its judiciary. The repeal of Article 234 would go a long way toward establishing those goals.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. Levin. Mr. Speaker, this agreement represents the best path to achieving our goal of preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, and it advances the national security interests of the United States and our allies, including Israel. Mr. Speaker, for years, the Congress, the President, our European partners, and the international community have imposed a series of tough economic sanctions on Iran with the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Those sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and I commend President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the entire team, along with our P5+1 partners, for their efforts to negotiate an agreement to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The question for Members of Congress, who will vote on this agreement, is whether it achieves its stated goals. After the JCPOA was submitted to Congress on July 19, 2015, I carefully reviewed all of its terms, attended the classified briefings and numerous presentations, and reviewed the transcripts of all the hearings that have been held in both the House and the Senate. I also met with opponents and supporters of the agreement before announcing my decision on July 30, 2015, the day after the final hearings before the Congressional August recess. While I respect the opinions of those on both sides of this issue, I concluded that this agreement advances the national security interests of the United States and all of our allies, including our partner Israel. This agreement is the best path to achieve our goal--that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Indeed, I firmly believe that, should Congress block this agreement, we would undermine that goal, inadvertently weaken and isolate America, and strengthen Iran. The benefit of any agreement must be measured against the real-world consequences of no agreement. Many forget that when these negotiations began in earnest two years ago, Iran was a threshold nuclear weapons state and remains so until and unless this agreement is implemented. As Prime Minister Netanyahu warned at the United Nations in 2012, Iran was a few months away from having enough highly enriched uranium to produce its first bomb. Today, prior to the implementation of this agreement, it has a nuclear stockpile that, if further enriched, could produce up to 10 bombs. It currently has installed nearly 20,000 centrifuges that could convert that fuel into weapons material. Indeed, many analysts believe that the combination of Iran's nuclear stockpile and its centrifuges would allow it to produce enough weapons-grade nuclear material for a bomb in two months. In addition, Iran has been enriching some of its nuclear material at its deep underground reactor at Fordow, a very difficult target to hit militarily. Moreover, Iran was in the process of building a heavy-water reactor at Arak, which could generate plutonium to be used for a nuclear weapon. Finally, Iran has been operating for years under an inadequate verification regime that increases the risks of a covert program going undetected. This agreement blocks all of these paths to acquiring weapons-grade nuclear material and puts in place an inspection system that assures the detection of any violation and future dash to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Interim Agreement has already neutralized Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium that Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted in his speech. This final agreement will significantly scale back the remainder of its program. Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium will be cut from 9,900 kg to 300 kg, and that remainder will be limited to low-enriched uranium that cannot be used for a weapon. In addition, the agreement removes two-thirds of Iran's installed centrifuges. No enrichment activities may be conducted at Fordow for a period of 15 years, and the facility at Arak will be permanently converted to one that does not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Taken together, these measures will extend the breakout time from about two months to at least a year and put in place layers of verification measures over different timelines, including some that remain in place permanently. It is generally agreed that these measures would allow us to detect any effort by Iran to use its current nuclear facilities--Natanz, Fordow, or Arak--to violate the agreement. The main criticism with respect to verification is that the agreement does not sufficiently guard against an effort by Iran to develop a secret uranium supply chain and enrichment capacity at a covert place. However, the reality is that the agreement permanently puts in place an inspection mechanism that is more rigorous than any previous arms control agreement and more stringent than the current system. The agreement ultimately requires inspections of any suspected Iranian nuclear site with the vote of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians can block such inspections in the face of a united Western front. Are we really better off without this verification regime than with it? In exchange for rolling back its nuclear program and accepting this verification regime, Iran will obtain relief from those sanctions that are tied to its nuclear program. However, that relief will only come after Iran has verifiably reduced its nuclear program as required. Moreover, if Iran backslides on those commitments, the sanctions will snap back into place. The snapback procedure is triggered if the U.S. registers a formal complaint against Iran with the special commission created for that purpose. In addition, those U.S. sanctions that are not related to the Iranian nuclear program will remain in place, including U.S. sanctions related to Iran's human rights violations, support for terrorism, and missile program. There are some who oppose the agreement because it does not prevent Iran from engaging in adversarial actions throughout the Gulf, the Middle East, and elsewhere. That conduct, however, was never within the scope of these negotiations nor the objective of the international sanctions regime aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. President Reagan understood the distinction between changing behavior and achieving verifiable limits on weapons programs. He negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, not because he thought it would change the character of ``the Evil Empire'' but because limiting their nuclear arsenal was in the national security interests of the U.S. and our allies. That reality is also true today. An Iranian regime with nuclear capability would present a much greater threat to the region than an Iran without one. In fact, today, as a threshold nuclear weapons state, Iran wields more influence than it will under the constraints of this agreement. That is why our focus has appropriately been on reining in the Iranian nuclear program. The lifting of the sanctions will certainly give Iran additional resources to support its priorities. Given the political dynamic in Iran, some of those additional resources will likely be invested to improve the domestic standard of living. But even if all the resources were used to support their proxies in the region, respected regional observers agree that they are unlikely to make a significant strategic difference. Moreover, any effort by Iran to increase support for its proxies can be checked by the U.S. and our allies through countermeasures. Finally, it is clear that any alternative agreement opponents seek would also result in the lifting of the sanctions and freeing up these resources. In my view, opponents of the agreement have failed to demonstrate how we will be in a better position if Congress were to block it. Without an agreement, the Iranians will immediately revert to their status as a threshold nuclear weapons state. In other words, they immediately pose the threat that Prime Minister Netanyahu warned about in his U.N. speech. At the same time, the international consensus we have built for sanctions, which was already starting to fray, would begin to collapse entirely. We would be immediately left with the worst of all worlds--a threshold nuclear weapons state with diminished sanctions and little leverage for the United States. I disagree with the view that we can force the Iranians back to the negotiating table to get a better deal. All of our European partners have signed on to the current agreement. Consequently, the U.S. would be isolated in its quest to return to negotiations. And in the unlikely event that we somehow returned to negotiations, the critics have not presented a plausible scenario for achieving a better agreement in a world where fewer sanctions means less economic pressure. The bottom line is that if Congress were to block the agreement and the Iranians were to resume nuclear enrichment activities, the only way to stop them, at least temporarily, would be by military action. That would unleash significant negative consequences that could jeopardize American troops in the region, drag us into another ground war in the Middle East, and trigger unpredictable responses elsewhere. Moreover, the United States would be totally isolated from most of the world, including our Western partners. The folly of that go-it-alone military approach would be compounded by the fact that such action would only deal a temporary setback to an Iranian nuclear program. They would likely respond by putting their nuclear enrichment activities deeper underground and would likely be more determined than ever to build a nuclear arsenal. We don't have to take that path. This agreement will give us a long period of time to test the Iranians' compliance and assess their intentions. During that period, it will give us a treasure trove of information about the scope and capabilities of the limited Iranian nuclear program. Throughout that period and beyond, we reserve all of our options, including a military option, to respond to any Iranian attempt to break out and produce enough highly enriched material to make a bomb. But we will have two advantages over the situation as it is today--a more comprehensive verification regime to detect any violation and a much longer breakout period in which to respond. As former Secretary Clinton has indicated, the fact that we have successfully limited the scope of Iran's nuclear program does not mean we have limited its ambitions in the region. We must continue to work with our friends and allies to constantly contain and confront Iranian aggression in the region. The United States and Israel must always stand together to confront that threat. The fact remains that Iranian support for their terrorist proxy Hezbollah continues to destabilize Lebanon and poses a direct threat to Israel, as does its support for Hamas. We must do all we can to ensure that our ally Israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region, including providing increased funding for Israel's Arrow anti-ballistic missile and Iron Dome anti-rocket systems. Consideration should also be given to previously denied weapons if a need for such enhanced capabilities arises. We must always remember that some of Iran's leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and we must never forget the awful past that teaches us not to ignore those threats. The threats Iran poses in the region are real. But all those threats are compounded by an Iran that is a threshold nuclear weapons state. This agreement will roll back the Iranian nuclear program and provide us with greater ability to detect and more time to respond to any future Iranian attempt to build a nuclear weapon. For all of the reasons given above, I've concluded that this is an historic agreement that should be supported by the Congress.