Lee Zeldin

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the service an sacrifice of James (Jimmy) Rizzo. Growmg up in Brooklyn, New York, in the shadow of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, his draft notice arrived in 1942. Mr. Rizzo was sent to Camp Crowder in Neosho, Missouri for basic training, and upon completion of his training, he was assigned to the 96th Battalion and transferred to Louisiana. In 1943, he arrived in the Burmese theater, where he would be stationed to serve. Mr. Rizzo was constantly on the move in Burma. His duty was retrieving supplies and packages by airdrop from dangerous jungles and terrains, ensuring these supplies arrived at their military and medical destinations on time and intact. The job was a dangerous one, and during his time in Burma he faced two near-death situations. Having been promoted from Private to Corporal and then to Sergeant, he was awarded the African and Burma Stars. For his service and sacrifice, our nation will always be indebted to Sergeant Rizzo, and his bravery and selflessness then and now continues to inspire us all.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my important bipartisan amendment to halt the sale and marketing of Plum Island, New York, by the General Services Administration. Situated at the gateway of the Long Island Sound, Plum Island is a treasure for our local community in both New York and Connecticut. As a critical resource for research, approximately 90 percent of the land on Plum Island has been sheltered from development, protecting the diverse ecosystem of Long Island Sound and critical habitat for migratory birds, marine mammals, and rare plants. With recorded history dating back to the 1700s, Plum Island is also an essential cultural and historical resource. Since World War II, Plum Island has been utilized as a resource laboratory. The facility, which has been under Federal jurisdiction since 1899, has since grown to become what is known today as the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, which currently has jurisdiction over the island, announced that the Animal Disease Center would be moved to a new Federal facility in Kansas. To offset the cost of this relocation, a law was enacted in 2008 that called for the private sale of Plum Island to the highest bidder. The traditional interagency consultation process regarding the disposal of Federal property was bypassed, fast-tracking the potential sale of this island without consulting the local community or other Federal agencies. This statutory mandate was also based on a false assumption that a sale could offset the cost of the new facility, when the true value of the island, including cleanup costs, still are not clear. The town of Southold, New York, has local jurisdiction over the island and has passed ordinances preventing any private development. This factor, coupled with the significant cleanup and environmental mitigation costs associated with closing this facility, gives Plum Island little to no commercial value. Furthermore, according to a DHS report issued in April of 2016, the new site in Manhattan, Kansas, is already fully paid for through a combination of Federal appropriations and State funding. Allowing for continued research, public access, and permanent preservation of the island is a priority shared by elected officials, conservation groups, and local residents on both sides of the sound. The GSA must stop advancing the sale of this island and stop wasting taxpayer money on retaining expensive real estate firms in violation of the will of the people and in spite of pending litigation over this proposed sale. This amendment allows Congress to use the power of the purse to stop the GSA from marketing or selling the island while we continue the fight for a permanent solution that will preserve the island for conservation and education. Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House on a bipartisan vote in 2016 as part of Financial Services and General Government Appropriations. My similar stand-alone bill, the Plum Island Preservation Act, has also passed with unanimous support in the House now in two consecutive Congresses. Mr. Chairman, I once again urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank my partners from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro and Joe Courtney, for once again introducing this amendment with me. I also thank my additional cosponsors from New York, Kathleen Rice, Tom Suozzi, and John Faso. The broad range of bipartisan support for this effort throughout our region shows what an important gem Plum Island is for our environment and for our history. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Young for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, it has been said during this debate that recreational fishermen aren't being disadvantaged under the current system. Our fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are absolutely being disadvantaged, and that is exactly why we must pass this bill. I will give you one example. If you are a commercial fisherman in New York, you could catch 50 pounds of fluke once per day for 7 days. You have to go out. You can catch 50 pounds. That is 350 pounds for the week. Now, it would make more sense if we were able to have a system in place where they were catching 350 pounds maybe in 1 day, like maybe New Jersey, where you could do 500 pounds for 3 days. Or if we want to talk about the science where you have black sea bass, 240 percent over the target biomass, yet we are seeing a quota reduction, compared to other States, in New York. Our fishermen are getting disadvantaged under the current system. Or the NOAA observer program, where you have a fisherman who is taking someone out to go to an area where they know there is not going to be any fish and they end up collecting flawed data that is sitting on a shelf and not even ending up getting used. The reality right now is that we have fishermen in my district who are desperate to survive 365 days of the year, from early in the morning until late at night, barely making ends meet, on a boat that barely works, with overhead where they are having trouble being able to pay their own bills to get by. They are looking for people to fight for them in this Chamber, to fight for that business owner, to fight for them so that they can make ends meet. It is about protecting the fishery as those very fishermen care so much about. But they know that the system could get better, and that is why we are here, fighting for them. That is why I thank Don Young for his leadership, because they are watching right now on C-SPAN. In my district, those fishermen are watching on the internet, they are watching on TV, and they are looking for people to fight for them because they have been struggling for years and decades, and they are desperate to get this passed so that they can afford to pay their bills, so that when they are going out at 3 a.m. tomorrow and they are going to come back late at night, that they know that things are going in the right direction, that their government is going to start working for them at the Federal level, the State level, the regional level, we are doing our part. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, for his bipartisan cooperation on this and so many other issues that are important to the hardworking men and women who make their living on the Long Island Sound, a precious waterway we are both so fortunate to represent. This amendment creates an industry-based trawl survey program for the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. Improving survey data so that the quotas and regulations imposed on our fishermen are transparent, equitable, and fair is a critical goal of the underlying bill, and it is the purpose of this important bipartisan amendment. Increasing industry buy-in and cooperation with the NOAA survey program is essential for improving data collection. Without the right data, fishermen in our region will continue to be shortchanged while their counterparts in the Pacific Northwest are already benefiting from increased cooperation between NOAA and the private sector. What we have right now in our region is a massive failure on behalf of NOAA because their vessel has fudged trawl after trawl. The people who work on the water every day have the equipment, the vessels, and the expertise to get this important data collection done, and done right. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and I commend my friend from Connecticut for his hard work on this issue. I look forward to continuing to work together with him and others on bipartisan solutions to help our hardworking commercial fishermen, charter boat captains, and all the small businesses that are a part of the coastal economy. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 200 will provide needed regulatory relief for fishermen from the east end of Long Island and the entire region who are struggling under confusing and arbitrary Federal restrictions on striped bass fishing in the Block Island Sound. The unique maritime geography of our region means that making the 15- mile journey by boat from Montauk Point, New York, to Block Island, Rhode Island, requires passing through a segment of waters considered to be part of the EEZ, known as the Block Island transit zone. For recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial fishermen, this shift in jurisdiction can mean the difference between a nice day on the water and committing a Federal offense. My amendment would permanently restore the right to fish for striped bass in this waterway, ending decades of confusion and arbitrary punishment for local fishermen. These are hardworking men and women who run small businesses either on the commercial, charter, or recreational side, and in my district, they are the backbone of our coastal economy and part of our island's way of life. No other species of fish, besides striped bass, are subject to this confusing ban, which was meant to impact the high seas of the EEZ, not a small segment of local waters situated between two State boundaries. Fishermen should be able to legally fish for striped bass in this limited area just as they currently can in adjacent State waters. We also must lift this unfair ban so that the resources of the U.S. Coast Guard can be focused on their important national security and safety mission, not waste it on the enforcement of an arbitrary ban in a small waterway. A recreational angler or boat captain on the water off of Montauk Point can easily go from fishing legally and responsibly in State waters to violating Federal law once they pass over the 3-mile limit where New York State waters end and the transit zone begins. Many of these individuals lack the expensive GPS technology to know if and when they have crossed the boundary, and there are no buoys to warn them. These are responsible men and women who have the greatest vested interest in preserving the striped bass fishery, but they also desperately need relief from confusing government regulations that are hurting their livelihoods and access to local fisheries. Last Congress, my stand-alone bill to address this issue, H.R. 3070, the EEZ Clarification Act, passed this House with a unanimous vote. I also passed two similar amendments on this topic through the House last September, again, with unanimous support. This amendment is supported by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Montauk Boatman & Captains Association, and the newly formed New York Recreational & For-Hire Fishing Alliance. On behalf of the hardworking men and women of Long Island who rely on fishing as a way of life, I ask for all my colleagues' support on this commonsense amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, this should not be treated as Federal waterways. It should be treated as a small local waterway in between two State boundaries. It shouldn't have been designated EEZ in the first place. This amendment doesn't declare open season on striped bass fishing. It is still going to be subject to the same management that currently exists for surrounding waterways where striped bass fishing is currently acceptable. The science shows biomass for the striped bass fisheries strong in our area, and, also, a science that is not discussed enough in this debate is the science of my fishermen and those small-business owners who are struggling to make ends meet. So you have the science of the biomass being where it needs to be, plus we have the science that we are not speaking about enough where people right now are desperate for this kind of relief. They want people in Congress representing them in Washington who get it, who are going to fight for them. We can't be lost in this beltway argument where, here, I am a Representative from the east end of Long Island, the First Congressional District of New York, and we have people who represent the other end of the United States of America telling us what is best for us. We are here pleading for people to listen to us, to hear us, to hear from these fishermen, the commercial fishermen, the recreational fishermen, and to fight for them as well, especially when biomass backs it up. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I would say that every level of government needs to get it better than the way that we have the current laws, current rules, current regulations, whether it is the Federal Government, whether it is the regional councils, whether it is the State governments. Earlier on, when we were having a debate on the underlying bill and I was talking about the fluke fishery for commercial fishermen, 50 pounds a day for 7 days, 350 pounds, you are not going to let them catch 350 pounds in 1 day. You will make them catch 50 pounds a day for 7 days, while the neighboring State of New Jersey could do 500 pounds a day for 3 days. Well, guess what happened today. Talk about not getting it at other levels of government. Our Governor in New York State, out of no notice, cuts off the commercial food fishery. These people are struggling to make ends meet. So instead of pointing fingers at other levels of government and regional councils where everyone is making mistakes and no one gets it, how about we do our part? How about we get it? How about we listen to them? we hear from them? we make a difference? We are leaders. We are elected to represent our people. I am elected to represent my people, and I would respectfully urge my colleagues, especially those who are from faraway places several hundred miles away, to do a better job listening and allowing me to represent my folks and stop trying to undercut people who are hardworking business owners struggling to make ends meet, especially when science is on our side. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, throughout the next hour, we will discuss the President's correct decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as well as the urgent need to eliminate Iran's problematic nuclear and nonnuclear activities. Joining me tonight are Members of Congress from across our great country who are deeply passionate about America's best interests and supportive of the President's decision to withdraw from the Iran deal. Mr. Speaker, this first speaker who we will hear from tonight is someone who I was elected with in 2014, who I have had many conversations with about the importance of ensuring that America's foreign policy is strong, consistent, and effective. He has been a strong, consistent, and effective voice for the need to pursue a better path forward with regard to the United States' relationship with Iran and the need to combat their nuclear and nonnuclear activities. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his comments. The people of Arkansas who listened to his remarks this evening, people back in my district who are listening to Congressman Hill, and people from all around America, can tell that he gets it. Unfortunately, as we were negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, we had people who were negotiating from weaker and weaker positions, and, unfortunately, ended up accepting a deal that crossed many of their own red lines that were set. I think we would have been in much better shape if we had more people like the gentleman from Arkansas in the administration at that time. Fortunately, he is here in Congress with us, and I thank the gentleman for participating this evening. Speaking of getting it, we have another leader from the House Financial Services Committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Andy Barr from the great State of Kentucky, an exceptional Member of Congress who understands the financial system of our great country, the leverage that we have with regard to the sanctions, the way that leverage disappeared, and the way that we negotiated away that leverage with the sanctions relief. He understands that we are dealing with an adversary that doesn't respect weakness. They only respect strength. I appreciate the gentleman being here and everything he does in the Financial Services Committee here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for speaking. That was outstanding. For anyone who is trying to get caught up with the 101, 201, or 301 of what has been going on over the course of the last few years and hasn't been paying attention, they can just listen to the gentleman's remarks two or three times over and understand, study, ask questions, and get brought completely up to speed as far as what went wrong and how we go forward from here. So I thank the gentleman for participating, for his leadership, and for his great remarks tonight. When I was first elected, I would be at events, and I would let people know about how I have two titles being both the highest ranking Jewish Republican in Congress and the lowest ranking Jewish Republican in Congress. But then the numbers doubled. We went from one to two in 115th. If you are keeping score at home, that means we are on pace so that in January of 2023 there will be a minyan here in the House of Representatives of Jewish Republicans. So we have a little ways to go, but we are blessed to have a freshman who is joining us here tonight from the great State of Tennessee, David Kustoff, whom I guess I will call the cochair of the Jewish Republican caucus of the House of Representatives. He is my friend from Tennessee, a great Member, a great freshman Member, and a great leader and voice on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. It is so great to have him here not just for tonight's remarks and his leadership on this issue, it is just so great to have him in Congress. I thank the gentleman so much for his friendship and for his important leadership. Mr. Speaker, last month, President Trump correctly withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. Tonight, during this hour, several Members of Congress were speaking here on the House floor regarding the administration's strategy to curb Iran's malign interests in the region and ensure Iran is no longer rewarded for its bad behavior. The Iran deal was fatally flawed for what was in it and fatally flawed for what was not in it. First, it is important to reflect on key lessons that should be learned from the manner in which the United States made several bad errors negotiating this so-called deal. We must learn these lessons to make sure that history never repeats itself. First, the United States signed a preliminary agreement in 2013 that preemptively traded a large portion of our leverage even before formal negotiations began. The Iranians came to the table desperate for sanctions relief. They were not there as freedom-loving, good citizens of the world, nor were they aspiring to be. The leverage was sanctions relief, which was proof that the sanctions were working. Nonnuclear activities weren't also on the table but should have been. Once you negotiate away all the leverage that will bring the Iranians to the table in the first place, you don't have the leverage left to deal with all of Iran's bad activities that you need to deal with. Second, the United States underestimated just how desperate the Iranian leadership was in order to stay in power. There is no reason for the United States to assume the position of weakness that it did in the negotiation. We should have been, by far, the stronger party in the talks. For some very odd reason, the United States continued to negotiate from a weaker and weaker position for no good or acceptable reason. Next, one red line after another was crossed, set by the United States. When they were crossed, there were no consequences, further weakening our negotiating hand. The United States also very much cared about hitting target dates that the Iranians didn't care whether or not were hit. That, too, further weakened our negotiating hand. When the President and his administration gets rolled by a foreign adversary, we all, as Americans, are getting rolled. It is a huge problem. This was made worse by paying a $1.7 billion cash ransom to get our hostages released. Pallets of unmarked cash had to be airlifted and delivered at the same exact time as the releasing of our hostages. Now, there are a lot of people who say it wasn't a ransom. When you have to pay $1.7 billion on pallets of cash delivered at the exact same moment as releasing the hostages, it is kind of hard to cut it any other way. Paying this cash ransom to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism showed the ridiculous lengths the Obama administration was willing to go, at any and all costs, to appease Iran and show weakness to other American adversaries who were witnessing this all play out. Recent reports revealed that the Obama administration misled the American people and granted a license letting Iran access the United States' financial system when U.S. Government officials pledged that they would never allow Iran to access U.S. investments or markets. This Iran nuclear ``deal'' provided Iran with a jackpot of up $150 billion in sanctions relief without even asking for a signature. Secretary Kerry called it ``an unsigned political commitment.'' Ben Rhodes, the White House's taxpayer-funded fiction writer, created an echo chamber to promote a false narrative and sell a devil's bargain of a deal to the American people. Even Democratic Members of this Chamber were feeling the heat from the White House, forced to support what they were privately admitting was an unsigned, unchecked bad deal. Secretary Kerry admitted this deal was never intended to receive congressional approval. He said this wasn't a treaty, because a treaty would have been ``impossible to pass.'' I don't know how anyone out there would define what a legal definition of ``treaty'' is, but I am pretty confident that that wouldn't be it. The U.S. should have never entered this historically bad deal to begin with and really could have done a much better job negotiating it. As I mentioned earlier, the Iran nuclear deal was fatally flawed for what was in it and fatally flawed for what was not put in it. Next, I will discuss some of the reasons why it was fatally flawed for what was in it. The JCPOA isn't a pathway for how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is a blueprint for exactly how Iran attains a nuclear weapon. Two of the biggest issues with what was in it, inside the JCPOA you have a very flawed verification regime and highly problematic sunset provisions. President Obama said this deal wasn't built on trust; it was built on verification. I don't know how you support a deal that is built on verification when you have no idea what the verification regime is. I, as a Member of Congress, still have not received the secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran that outline the verification regime. When Secretary Kerry was before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last Congress, I asked him if he had read it, and he said no. The Secretary of State did not read the verification regime. But the American public was told this was a deal not built on trust, built on verification. We have learned since some of what is in the side deals, like Iran collects some of their own soil samples and is the inspector of some of their own nuclear sites. It is crazy; right? The United States made a slew of permanent concessions in exchange for temporary concessions on the part of the Iranians, a point which comes into much greater focus as the sunset provisions are analyzed. The sunset clause undermines any reasonable justification for the deal, providing Iran the capability to obtain a nuclear weapon within a few years even if it didn't cheat on the deal at all. That, of course, is in addition to the $150 billion of sanctions relief. Under the JCPOA, Iran was still allowed to assemble a limited amount of advanced centrifuges that could enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon within 1 year. However, Iran has even violated those minimal restrictions multiple times. Iran has spun more IR-6 centrifuges than permitted under the JCPOA. It has assembled more IR-8 rotor assemblies than it is permitted to. It has attempted to acquire carbon fiber that it had agreed not to. It has stockpiled more heavy water than what was allowed under the JCPOA. Just think, the people who have said that Iran has not violated the letter of the deal are all examples of the letter of the deal being violated. With regards to verification, the Iranians have said before, during, and after this deal that they would allow no access to their military sites whatsoever. We said that we were going to have access to their military sites. The Iranians said the entire time, before, during, and after: You will never have access to our military sites. On top of it all, the United States agreed that we wouldn't have any of our weapons inspectors participate in any of the inspections. The IAEA, on its own, has failed to conduct a thorough review of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Just one example, in September 2015, when the Iranian officials then granted limited access to IAEA inspectors at the Parchin facility, although environmental samples revealed chemically man-modified particles of natural uranium, the IAEA did not pursue an explanation or even an inquiry. This Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a house of cards. So, what are we doing? Not only was a better deal absolutely attainable, but no deal would have been better than this agreement. Next, I want to discuss in further detail why the JCPOA was fatally flawed for what was not in it. When Secretary Kerry chose to ignore Iran's bad, nonnuclear activities in the region, he negotiated away all of the leverage that brought the Iranians to the table in the first place. You cannot separate Iran's ballistic missile development designed to deliver a nuclear warhead from its nuclear weapons program. Iran has continued to pursue its ICBM development in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran has continued to finance terrorism. It is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism and has continued to work to overthrow foreign governments. Iran supports Assad in Syria, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. They have consolidated massive territorial control, building a land bridge between Tehran and Beirut, a direct threat to the security and stability of regional partners such as Israel and Jordan. By failing to address Iran's nonnuclear activities, the JCPOA has given Iran more resources to pursue its terrorist ambitions in the region. These are, unfortunately, just a few of the examples of Iran's bad activities. Since the JCPOA was entered into, Iranian aggression in the Middle East, including Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, has only increased. Iran has launched as many as 23 ballistic missiles since the conclusion of the July 2015 nuclear deal. They have illegally financed terrorist activities, wreaking havoc in the Middle East. Iran has recommitted to wiping Israel off of the map, calling them the Little Satan. They chant death to America, and they call United States the Great Satan in their parliament, in their streets on their holidays, all while unjustly imprisoning American citizens. In the past 2 years, Iran has blown up mock U.S. warships and seized one of our Navy vessels and subsequently held hostage and publicly embarrassed 10 American sailors. Do you remember Secretary Kerry's reaction to Iran holding hostage and embarrassing those sailors? His response was: Thank you. He was thanking the Iranians. He defended the whole situation as evidence of an improved relationship with Iran. That is living in an alternate version of reality. One fundamental question is often misunderstood, and in many cases it is not even asked: What leverage could we have, moving forward, to tackle all of Iran's threatening actions if we eliminate the sanctions that bring the Iranians to the table in the first place? President Trump is absolutely correct to reimpose the toughest sanctions against Iran's oil and financial sector and IRGC officials, agents, and affiliates. In order to regain the leverage that brought the Iranians to the table, we must increase financial pressure so that Iran does not have the ability to back terrorist groups across the world and keep their economy afloat. With Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton working so closely with our President to counter Iran's aggression, I feel confident when they say: ``No path to a nuclear weapon, not now, not ever.'' The onus is on Iran. If they like the sanctions relief and they want to keep the sanctions relief, then the United States has just a few reasonable requirements: the verification regime needs to be fixed; the sunset provisions need to be lifted; and the other bad and nefarious legal activities must end. If there are any other nations around the world that want to keep the sanctions relief in place, then convince Iran to change its behavior and agree to the United States' very reasonable demands. It is very telling that so many nations in the Middle East are supportive of President Trump's determinations to push back against Iranian aggression. They are the ones that are most impacted, and they support the decision. In 2009, millions of Iranians poured into the streets to protest a fraudulent election of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States and the rest of the world then offered zero support following that undemocratic election. President Obama said it was none of our business, which proved to not only be wrong, but also a huge error in judgment. We must learn from our lesson of 2009 and not repeat that same mistake. The United States must support the millions of Iranians who continue to march in the streets desperate for support to help them turn the tide in Tehran and all throughout Iran. There are millions of people in Iran who want a free, stable, democratic Iran. Now, in 2018, Iranians have once again courageously poured into the streets to protest the brutality of President Hassan Rouhani's regime. Over the last few months, we are witnessing the largest protests in Tehran since 2012. Keep in mind that whenever we hear about how the most moderate candidates get elected in Iran--this is a point I have heard a lot. Iran elects the most moderate candidates, but so often they leave out the important point that the 12,000 most moderate candidates are denied access to the ballot altogether. The only choice has been to pick a pro-regime hardliner. We should be under no illusions otherwise. By withdrawing from the JCPOA, President Trump is sending an important message to the Iranians that America will not accept a regime that tortures its own people, funds terrorist activities, and vows for the destruction of the United States and our great ally, Israel. The United States is a nation that is not even close to equals with Iran. We are the greatest Nation in the world, and when we engage in these negotiations, we must do so from a position of strength and not relinquish that. That is all that this adversary respects. We can't be silent not because we want war, but because we want to prevent it. The good news is, now, in July of 2018, again we are treating Israel like Israel and Iran like Iran. One of my complaints and many other Americans is, for a while, we were treating Israel like Iran and Iran like Israel. It made no sense. I mentioned earlier in this hour how important it is for the United States to be strong, consistent, and effective in our foreign policy; to strengthen our relationships with our friends; to treat our adversaries as our adversaries, understanding that our enemies, our adversaries, do not respect weakness; they only respect strength. I wish that the start of the negotiation had gone down very differently in the first place, but fast forward to today. With President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Bolton, their team, and with other countries aligned with us, especially in the Middle East, we can pursue a better path forward. For all of those who are interested, whether you like the JCPOA or not, if you like the sanctions relief or not; but hopefully all concerned with Iran's bad activities, especially their nuclear and their non-nuclear activities as well, you can help us, putting the onus on Iran and encouraging them to accept our very reasonable demands. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, everyone who participated in tonight's hour. I would like to thank Sara Matar from my team, who has worked very hard on this issue throughout her time in my office. This is an issue that isn't going away anytime soon. It is one that will be passed on from one generation to the next. As our great republic continues to thrive, exist, grow, to be strong, and to protect our freedoms and liberties, we must be strong as a people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 970. I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. First off, from my conversations with members of the Justice Department, I have been very impressed with their feedback of seeing just how high morale has gone over the course of the last year and a half because they are able to do their jobs again. You were seeing prosecution numbers and certain metrics in these different U.S. Attorney Offices going down. Their hands were being tied behind their back. We talked about the military having their hands tied behind their back, the rules of engagement. We saw our Justice Department, our U.S. attorneys, and our FBI with their hands tied between their back. And their morale is going up. Now, I'm not going to subscribe to those in this Chamber and in this country who want to resist, oppose, obstruct, and impeach this President on everything and anything. That is their top priority in life; that is not mine. My priority is, when I see that there is misconduct at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI, as a Member of Congress, taking my oath seriously to my own constituents and to this country, I demand answers. It is about transparency and it is about accountability. I have a 12-page resolution that we introduced, H. Res. 907. It has up to 33 cosponsors. What is interesting about this resolution is it is 12 pages outlining and detailing all this misconduct, calling for a second special counsel, and not one person has been able to poke any hole and a single bullet in this entire 12-page document. I have a problem with it when those in the Justice Department say that they can't provide a document because it risks national security. You read the document and find that nothing in there risks national security. Actually what the problem was is that it might cause embarrassment to someone in the DOJ and the FBI. That is why it wasn't provided. I don't like it when you see FISA abuse that results in a United States citizen being spied on: going to a secret court with secret documents to get a warrant without due process and providing the full story. It is all about justice, transparency, and accountability. Mark Meadows has been leading the fight to get more documents. I support him with it. The Justice Department needs to comply. We have an oversight function, and I do not subscribe to those in this Chamber who want to oppose, obstruct, resist, and impeach. That is not the path forward for America.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Our Lady of Poland Church in Southampton, New York. Since the first Polish immigrants arrived in Southampton in 1895 as farmers, the Polish community has continued to grow and prosper, its culture becoming a hallmark of our community. Our Lady of Poland opened its doors in 1918, and the church became an integral part of Polish immigrants' way of life in their new home. Over the last 100 years, the parishioners of Our Lady of Poland Church have been served by many devoted pastors and priests cultivating a rich history of community service and outreach. Today, Our Lady of Poland Church boasts a respected regional school, working with the church and teachers to ensure their school attains the highest levels of educational excellence. This year, under the leadership of Rev. Jausz Lipski, the parish will celebrate 100 years of service and commitment to the community of Southampton and celebrate the beautiful history of their church and magnificent culture. I thank the parishioners of Our Lady of Poland for their service to our community and wish them many more anniversaries to come.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao) for his incredible leadership introducing this important legislation. This bill expands treatment coverage for those affected by Agent Orange to not only those who served on the ground, but to those servicemembers, who are known as blue water Navy vets, who were affected while serving our Nation at sea. In my home county of Suffolk, which has the highest concentration of veterans in the State of New York, hundreds of Vietnam veterans and their families will now be able to receive the benefits they have earned. These brave servicemembers have put their lives on the line for our great Nation, and they have earned nothing less than the highest quality of care. Additionally, this legislation includes my bill, the Flexible VA Loan Guarantee Act, which expands a veteran's opportunity for homeownership by eliminating the loan limit the VA can guarantee. This is especially critical in districts like mine, where the median home prices are higher. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Roe for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support our Nation's veterans by voting in favor of this commonsense legislation.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas Downs' 51 years of service to the Hampton Bays Fire Department. Thomas was accepted into the Hampton Bays Fire Department on June 14, 1967. Throughout his years of service, he has held many positions within the department, quickly rising to the rank of Captain and placed in charge of nearly every new truck as it was placed into service. Serving as Chief of the Department from 1982 until 1983, Mr. Downs has received many of the Department's top awards, including Fireman of the Year in both 1989 and 2013, Old Timer of the Year on two occasions and the Dave Powers Memorial 110% Award in 2006. To this day, Mr. Downs continues to serve his community as one of our top first responders, sharing his wealth of knowledge and fostering the next generation of firefighters, and today I thank him for his years of selfless service to the community of Hampton Bays and look forward to many more years to come.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize WWII veteran Carlo Verardi upon the occasion of his 100th birthday. Carlo was born on June 8, 1918, in Bernardsville, New Jersey. He was one of 13 children in a proud Italian-American immigrant family. Upon completing basic training, Carlo was assigned to the 9th Division, 60th Infantry, Front Line Medical Battalion as medic. He served with distinction in the European and African Theaters. During his service in the European Theater, Carlo was seriously wounded by a grenade as he rescued a soldier from the field of battle. The blast from grenade was so strong that both Carlo and the wounded soldier were thrown through the air. Miraculously both men survived, but Carlo was paralyzed from the waist down for over a year and was evacuated to London hospital to recover from his injuries. For his actions, Carlo received the Bronze Star Medal. After nearly four years of service, he received an honorable discharge with the Combat Medical Badge, Combat Infantryman Badge, WWII Victory Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with three service stars, Army of Occupation Medal and American Defense Service Medal. Upon returning home, Carlo met and married his wife, Mary. Together they raised five children. Carlo worked for the City of New York in the Parks Department and retired after 30 years. A passion for remembering and honoring those who fought during WWII is a cause that drove Carlo and his wife Mary to contribute greatly to the construction of the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C. A contribution that will serve as an eternal monument to the brave service members, like Carlo, who sacrificed so much in defense of our great nation.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was traveling with the President of the United States to Long Island, NY. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 217; YEA on Roll Call No. 218; NAY on Roll Call No. 219; NAY on Roll Call No. 220; NAY on Roll Call No. 221; NAY on Roll Call No. 222; YEA on Roll Call No. 223; YEA on Roll Call No. 224; NAY on Roll Call No. 225; NAY on Roll Call No. 226; YEA on Roll Call No. 227; and NAY on Roll Call No. 228.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, on May 9th I missed a vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 173.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for an important resolution, S.J. Res. 57. I proudly sponsor the House companion legislation to this Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal ill-founded guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to the dealer-directed auto lending market. Mr. Speaker, only to a group of unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., would it make sense to raise the cost of lending for some of the most vulnerable consumers while, at the same time, claiming you are doing this edict to help them. The indirect auto lending market, also known as dealer-directed financing, is loans offered to car buyers in the dealership where they are purchasing the vehicle, as opposed to direct auto loans which consumers get from banks or other financial institutions. Dealer-directed financing is an important option for consumers and provides them and the dealership they are purchasing the vehicle from with the flexibility to meet a consumer's needs based on their budget and credit score. In 2013, in an attempt to shut down this market, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Richard Cordray, issued this flawed guidance based on questionable ``disparate impact'' statistics. To justify this illegal and secretive edict, the CFPB falsely accused honest automobile dealerships and the financial institutions they work with of unproven violations of fair lending practices. The CFPB, through its own admission, noted a 20 percent error rate in its data, and an independent audit of the data used to justify this ruling showed an error rate as high as 41 percent. If the CFPB had followed the law, most notably, the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment on any pending regulations, they could have been held accountable for their use of deeply flawed data to justify a questionable regulation. To get around the law, however, the CFPB issued the ruling as ``guidance,'' but then proceeded to enforce this mandate as a Federal regulation. Through this flawed attempt to take control of the $1.1 trillion auto lending market by effectively barring dealer-directed financing, this Obama-era CFPB ruling could raise the cost of auto loans by nearly $600 for each consumer. Let's be absolutely clear: discrimination of any kind, whether in lending, housing, or other financial services, is morally repugnant and also very illegal under various Federal and State laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA. But what is also very wrong and illegal is when a rogue Federal agency sidesteps the law and common sense by creating a false claim of unfair lending practices with zero proof, transparency, or accountability. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the hard work of Director Mulvaney in undoing so much of the damage caused by his predecessor, but it is critical we assist him by changing the law. Through passage of this resolution, Congress will use its Article I powers and our authority under the Congressional Review Act to strike down this flawed regulation. Once a regulation is repealed through passage of CRA resolution into law, Federal agencies are barred from issuing a similar regulation in the future. Through this resolution, we can assure that this Warren- Cordray-Obama attack on automobile dealerships and their customers will never be revived by a future administration. Just 2 years ago, a similar measure to rein in a flawed CFPB ruling passed this Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan support. I hope this continues to be a priority on both sides of the aisle, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this important resolution, S.J. Res. 57. I am the House sponsor of the companion legislation to this Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal ill-founded guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to the dealer-directed auto lending market. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Jeb Hensarling for all of his amazing leadership on this very important issue. I also want to commend my Senate counterparts on this legislation: Senators Jerry Moran and Pat Toomey. Mr. Speaker, for so many of my constituents, access to transportation is key to their economic prosperity. And access to affordable credit is what helps them get behind the wheel to get their kids to school, get themselves to work, or to get sick loved ones to medical appointments. That is why the 2013 assault by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the dealer-directed auto finance market is so damaging to the very people this rogue agency is claiming to help. Indirect auto financing, also known as dealer-directed auto financing, are the loans offered to consumers in the dealerships where they are purchasing a vehicle. Dealer-directed financing is an important option for consumers and provides them and the dealerships they are purchasing the vehicle from with the flexibility to meet a consumer's needs based on their budget and credit score. The CFPB, under the leadership of Richard Cordray, in their classic government-knows-best approach, decided in 2013, without consulting Congress or following the law, that they had a problem with this well- known form of auto financing. They launched an unconstitutional and illegal assault on honest car dealerships and the financial institutions they work with, falsely claiming discrimination and unfair lending practices. The data to back up these egregious claims, through the Bureau's own admission, was deeply flawed and had an error rate as high as 41 percent. That was according to an independent audit. Let me be absolutely clear that any form of lending discrimination--whether based on race, religion, gender, orientation, or creed--is absolutely unacceptable and also totally illegal under various Federal and State laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA. What is also illegal and wrong is how the CFPB went about issuing this flawed mandate, labeling it as benign guidance, yet enforcing it as if it was a true Federal regulation, all in violation of the transparency and public comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Through passage of today's joint resolution, we will permanently strike down this flawed CFPB mandate that attempted to virtually outlaw indirect auto lending in the United States. Today's fight over this important resolution may sound like a wonky policy debate, but to my constituents, permanently repealing this flawed CFPB ruling may make the difference between being denied or approved for an auto loan they desperately need. This CFPB decree is estimated to raise the cost of auto lending by as much as $600 per consumer. That is not crumbs. And through passage of S.J. Res. 57, we can also ensure that no future CFPB Director or administration can revive it without the express permission of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I commend Director Mulvaney for working so hard to repair the serious damage done by his rogue predecessor at the CFPB. But at the end of the day, Congress must do its job by changing the law. This has been a bipartisan priority in the past, and I hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of S.J. Res. 57.