The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF IRAN'S ACCESS TO FINANCE ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H9880-H9891 on Dec. 13, 2017.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF IRAN'S ACCESS TO FINANCE ACT
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 658, I call up the bill (H.R. 4324) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to make certifications with respect to United States and foreign financial institutions' aircraft-related transactions involving Iran, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 658, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-48 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4324
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), informally known as the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration agreed to license the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran, the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.
(2) In April 2015, prior to the adoption of the JCPOA, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, in publicly advocating for its provisions, stated: ``Make no mistake: deal or no deal, we will continue to use all our available tools, including sanctions, to counter Iran's menacing behavior. Iran knows that our host of sanctions focused on its support for terrorism and its violations of human rights are not, and have never been, up for discussion.''.
(3) In March 2016 remarks to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Secretary Lew, in reference to U.S. commitments under the JCPOA, stated: ``While we have lifted the nuclear sanctions, we continue to enforce sanctions directed at support for terrorism and regional destabilization, and missile and human rights violations.''.
(4) In an April 2016 forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Lew stated that, under the JCPOA, the U.S. committed to lifting its nuclear sanctions, ``but the U.S. financial system is not open to Iran, and that is not something that is going to change''.
(5) In September 2016, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued licenses permitting the export of up to 97 aircraft for use by Iran Air, the Islamic Republic of Iran's flagship state-owned carrier. These licenses included authorization for U.S. financial institutions ``to engage in all transactions necessary to provide financing or other financial services'' in order to effectuate the sales. In November 2016, OFAC licensed an additional 106 aircraft for purchase by Iran Air, which are also eligible for financing authorized by OFAC.
(6) The Department of the Treasury had sanctioned Iran Air in 2011 for its use of commercial passenger aircraft to transport rockets, missiles, and other military cargo on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, both of which had been designated under Executive Order 13382 for weapons proliferation-related activities. In October 2017, the IRGC went on to be designated under Executive Order 13224 for its support of the IRGC-Qods Force, which has provided support to terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and the Taliban.
(7) Among Iran Air's sanctionable activities, the airline delivered missile or rocket components to the Assad government in Syria, which like Iran is classified as a state sponsor of terrorism.
(8) The Assad regime is responsible for a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 400,000 lives, including through the government's deployment of chemical weapons and barrel bombs against unarmed civilians and children.
(9) Despite being delisted in 2016, Iran Air has continued to fly known weapons resupply routes to government-controlled areas of Syria. According to research by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, between Implementation Day of the JCPOA on January 16, 2016, and May 4, 2017, Iran Air operated at least 134 flights to Syria, which included stops in Abadan, Iran, a suspected IRGC logistical hub for airlifts to the Assad regime.
(10) In November 2016 correspondence to the Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, the Department of the Treasury noted that the commitment to delist Iran Air under the JCPOA ``does not affect our ability to designate, or re-designate, any Iranian airline that engages in sanctionable activity. The United States retains the ability to designate any individual or entity that engages in sanctionable activities under our authorities targeting conduct outside the scope of the JCPOA, including Iran's support for terrorism, human rights abuses, ballistic missile program, and other destabilizing activities in the region.''.
(11) In April 2017, Iran announced a deal for Aseman Airlines to purchase up to 60 commercial aircraft, a transaction that would require authorization by OFAC. Aseman Airlines' chief executive officer, Hossein Alaei, has for decades served as a senior member of the IRGC.
SEC. 3. CERTIFICATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT-RELATED TRANSACTIONS BY
UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after authorizing a transaction by a United States or foreign financial institution in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger aircraft to Iran (or, for an authorization made after January 16, 2016, but before the date of the enactment of this Act, not later than 60 days after such date of enactment), and every 180 days thereafter for the duration of the authorization, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the report described under subsection
(b) to the appropriate congressional committees.
(b) Report With Respect to Financial Institutions' Iran-related Transactions and Due Diligence.--With respect to a financial institution and a transaction described under subsection (a), a report is described under this subsection if it contains--
(1) a list of financial institutions that, since January 16, 2016, have conducted transactions authorized by the Secretary in connection with the export or re-export of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran;
(2) either--
(A) a certification that--
(i) the transaction does not pose a significant money laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States financial system;
(ii) the transaction will not benefit an Iranian person that, since the date that is one year preceding the date of the certification--
(I) has knowingly transported items used for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including systems designed in whole or in part for the delivery of such weapons; or
(II) has knowingly provided transportation services or material support for, or on behalf of, any person designated under Executive Orders 13224, 13382, or 13572; and
(iii) any financial institution described under subsection
(b)(1) has had since the date such authorization was made, or, if the authorization is no longer in effect, had for the duration of such authorization, appropriate policies, procedures, and processes in place to avoid engaging in sanctionable activities that may result from the financial institutions' exposure to Iran; or
(B) a statement that the Secretary is unable to make the certification described under subparagraph (A) and a notice that the Secretary will, not later than 60 days after the date the determination is submitted to the appropriate congressional committees, issue a report on non-certification described under subsection (c) to the appropriate congressional committees.
(c) Report on Non-certification.--With respect to a financial institution and a transaction described under subsection (a), a report on non-certification is described under this subsection if it contains--
(1) a detailed explanation for why the Secretary is unable to make the certification described under subsection (b)(2);
(2) a notification of whether the Secretary will--
(A) not amend the authorization of the transaction with respect to a financial institution, notwithstanding such non-certification;
(B) suspend the authorization until the Secretary is able to make such certification;
(C) revoke the authorization; or
(D) otherwise amend the authorization; and
(3) an explanation of the reasons for any action to be taken described under paragraph (2).
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive, on a case-by-case basis, the provisions of this Act for up to one year at a time upon certifying to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) the Government of Iran has--
(A) made substantial progress towards combating money laundering and terrorism financing risk emanating from Iran; or
(B) has significantly reduced Iran's--
(i) destabilizing activities in the region; or
(ii) material support for terrorist groups; or
(2) such waiver is important to the national security interests of the United States, with an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(e) Termination.--This section shall cease to be effective on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1)(A) the Secretary does not find, under section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that Iran is a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern; and
(B) Iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism; or
(2) terminating the provisions of this section is vital to the national security interests of the United States, with an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the committees on Financial Services and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial institution'' means a United States financial institution or a foreign financial institution.
(3) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign financial institution'' has the meaning given that term under section 561.308 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) Knowingly.--The term ``knowingly'', with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(6) United states financial institution.--The term ``United States financial institution'' has the meaning given the term
``U.S. financial institution'' under section 561.309 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part B of House Report 115-463, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
{time} 1730
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4324, which is a commonsense piece of legislation sponsored by my good friend and fellow Texan, Mr. Williams. His work as a member of the Financial Services Committee and as vice chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee has been invaluable.
Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues know, under the Iran nuclear bill, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the U.S. to license the sale of aircraft to Iran.
In addition to authorizing the sales, these licenses have authorized banks to engage in financing, even though Iran remains classified by the Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. On top of that, the State Department continues to label Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
The recipient of these aircraft would be Iran Air, the state-owned airline that was sanctioned as recently as 2011 for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which itself has been designated by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization. So, Mr. Speaker, so far, so bad.
And yet, while I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle find these aircraft sales and their financing deeply disturbing, Mr. Williams' bill is about something far, far simpler. All his bill would do is bring about the implications of the aircraft finance for Iran out into the sunlight. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is a reporting requirement--nothing more, nothing less.
It would simply require Treasury to help Congress understand who is involved in these transactions. If it is an airline, has that airline stopped supporting terrorists or other sanctioned persons. If it is a bank, does that bank have the due diligence in place to guard against the immense illicit finance risk endemic to Iran.
All this legislation does is have Treasury certify this information for Congress. And, if Treasury can't make those certifications, it simply has to notify us what plans it has in response, even if it has no plans in response.
So, when we hear today from the other side of the aisle how this bill may impose new conditions on Iran or somehow stand in the way of commitments under the JCPOA, I suggest, again, everyone read the bill. It is simple. It is common sense. In fact, we should be considering this under the expedited process of the suspension calendar.
This legislation provides, again, for a simple reporting requirement, Mr. Speaker; that is it, a reporting requirement.
If my friends who oppose this bill don't care enough to even request the information from the executive branch, especially information that may reveal the use of their constituents' bank deposits for the benefit of enablers of terrorism, well, Mr. Speaker, that is a sad, sad day for congressional oversight and a sad day for the United States Congress.
But there are people who have read the bill, if everybody in this institution hasn't, people, for example, associated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who wrote recently in a November 22 policy brief for the Foundation's Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance:
``The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing approval process by codifying steps that are likely already central to the Department's evaluation process.''
They go on to write, Mr. Speaker: ``While not imposing any new standards for the approval of sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law through this bill makes the licensing process more transparent and gives the American people--through their elected representatives--a clear picture of a significant component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the nuclear agreement.''
Mr. Speaker, I include this report in the Record.
Congress Supports Financial Transparency for Iranian Transactions
(By Annie Fixler, Tyler Stapleton)
The House Financial Services Committee approved last week the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which codifies in law a set of conditions that the U.S. Treasury must use to evaluate licenses for the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran.
The bill requires the secretary of the Treasury to report within 30 days whether transactions related to the export and re-export of aircraft to Iran pose a ``significant money laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States financial system.'' The secretary must also determine whether the transactions benefit any Iranian person that has knowingly transported or otherwise supported the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or provided material support to persons included on Treasury's sanctions lists. If the secretary cannot certify that the transaction meets these conditions, he must explain whether the licenses authorizing the transaction will be revoked, modified, or remain valid despite the potential for illicit transactions or benefits going to sanctioned persons.
Under the July 2015 nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the United States committed to allowing the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran provided the planes are used ``exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.'' The JCPOA specifically states that if aircraft are either used for a prohibited purpose or transferred or re-sold to individuals or entities on Washington's sanctions lists, the U.S. would view this as grounds to cease its approval of aircraft sales--but, by implication, not abrogate the nuclear deal in full.
Upon the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016, Treasury issued a Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) and additional guidance reiterating and expanding on the relevant language from the nuclear deal. The SLP and related guidance indicate that Treasury would view license applications favorably but would review applications on a case-by-case basis and ``include appropriate conditions to ensure'' that no sanctioned persons were involved in the transaction.
The SLP and related guidance are clearly consistent with the JCPOA, which does not require the United States to issue licenses for aircraft sales without conditions. Accordingly, the SLP does not guarantee that all applications will be approved. If Washington determines that certain criteria are necessary in order to ensure that commercial aircraft are used appropriately, it is permitted to reject an application that does not meet those criteria.
The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing approval process by codifying steps that are likely already central to the department's evaluation process. First, for more than two decades, Treasury has been at the forefront of efforts to implement global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing standards. The bill emphasizes that these standards should be a critical component in the evaluation of licenses vis-a-vis Iranian aircraft transactions. Second, the bill's requirement that no persons knowingly supporting proliferation benefit from the deal mirrors Treasury's statement that no persons on sanctions lists be involved in the transactions.
While not imposing any new standards for the approval of sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law through this bill makes the licensing process more transparent and gives the American people--through their elected representatives--a clearer picture of a significant component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the nuclear agreement.
The most novel component of the bill is that it requires the secretary of the Treasury to issue a report listing all U.S. or foreign financial institutions that have conducted authorized transactions in connection with the export or re-export of commercial aircraft to Iran. While not classified, this information is not currently part of the public record. Objections to the publication of a list of companies and banks involved in aircraft sales revolve around exposing businesses to reputational risks for transacting with Iran. Yet it is unavoidable for there to be reputational risk for doing business--even legal business--with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Mr. HENSARLING. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my fellow Texan, has given all Members an opportunity, no matter what their views on the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, to simply support transparency and Congress' right to basic information. I hope that my colleagues will seize that opportunity.
And, again, I thank Mr. Williams from Texas for his leadership and his excellent work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. This is not simply the gathering of information. This is not simply oversight.
Under H.R. 4324, a condition would be imposed on the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was very clear. It is broadly committed to ``allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran.'' The only condition on the U.S. commitment is that ``licensed items and services be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.''
H.R. 4324 would impose a new condition, a new condition which would require certification by the Secretary of State and all of the process that would ensue.
It is not a stretch--in fact, it is fairly clear--that if H.R. 4324 were to pass, the Iranians and others could credibly claim that we have violated our obligations under the JCPOA. Now, nobody should be surprised by that.
Despite the advice of his National Security Advisor, despite the advice of the Secretary of Defense, despite the advice of pretty much everyone around him, President Trump chose not to recertify Iranian compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.
We have seen bill after bill, including the bill just voted on, attempting to reverse the Iran nuclear deal, and we have heard this since this deal first came to the floor.
Let's reflect for one second on what the implications are:
This bill puts the Iran nuclear deal at risk. It arguably takes American aircraft manufacturers out of competition for lucrative contracts. My colleague from Washington will address this shortly.
I don't understand how putting American jobs at risk and taking American manufacturers out of contention in favor of companies like Airbus is about keeping America great again. I don't understand why, when we focus on jobs, this should be an action we should take.
However, I will say something, and I speak as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to the passage of the Iran nuclear deal, it is not an exaggeration to say I didn't worry every night in a way that we worry today about North Korea. I went to bed every night thinking about Iranian centrifuges spinning, about military technology being created that could ultimately deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel or to Europe or to the United States, and our intelligence community believed that we were 2 to 3 months away from an Iranian nuclear weapon, kind of where we are today on North Korea.
I suspect everybody in this Chamber doesn't want to be where we are on North Korea with another state, with Iran.
I understand the skepticism on Iran, and I agree with everything that the chairman said with respect to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, with Iran being a location of money laundering, and I could go on, with Iran being an absolutely appalling regime.
But I speak as a member of the Intelligence Committee for a lot of people in this room when I say that, for the first time in a long time subsequent to the passage of the Iran deal, whatever you think of Iran--and not many of us think much of Iran--we don't go to bed every single night worrying about the possibility of waking up to a nuclear-
weaponized Iran.
Why would we put that at risk?
I agree with the chairman that transparency is important, and I agree with everybody that Iran needs to be watched very, very skeptically. But why would we want to be with Iran exactly where we are today with North Korea?
Is this effort, which, in my opinion, is simply a continuation of the efforts to end the Iran deal, to reverse President Obama's legacy, is it worth going to bed at night not just worried about North Korea, but worried about Iran? I would suggest that it is not.
I don't want to go back to the pre-Iran deal era when I became an expert on centrifuges, on Uranium-235, on hardened bunkers and the weaponry that we produced to penetrate hardened bunkers and to the realization that, if we had to go to war against Iran to prevent a nuclear Iran, the consequences would be as awful as if we went to war with North Korea to prevent a North Korea nuclear-weaponized state.
Why would we do this? Why would we put at risk a deal that has given comfort to a lot of us for some period of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, this deal is not a perfect deal. I don't know that there are perfect deals in this realm. But I do know that, for the next 7, 8, or 9 years, we are not going to have the worry that so many of us had before the Iran deal.
Let's engage on that. Let's figure out what comes behind the Iran deal. Let's figure out other ways to address the behavior of Iran with respect to terrorism and the money laundering. Let's remember that this deal was about removing the existential threat, not making Iran a perfect regime, but removing the existentia threat to the United States of America, and let's not put that deal at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I urge a strong ``no'' vote against this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend, the sponsor of this legislation, and a great member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 will improve congressional oversight of any financing that Treasury authorizes for aircraft sales to Iran.
Every 6 months, Treasury would need to certify to us that finance authorizations would not benefit an Iranian person who is transporting items for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction nor providing transportation for sanctioned entities. Treasury would also have to certify to us that those authorizations don't pose a significant money laundering or terrorism finance risk to the U.S. financial system, and that any banks engaging in this business have appropriate due diligence procedures in place. If the Treasury Department cannot make this certification, the Department must tell us why, and it must explain to Congress the course of action it intends to take.
I note that my bill was reported out of the Financial Services Committee last month by a vote of 38-21, with five of my Democratic colleagues voting in its favor.
{time} 1745
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will label this bill as a simple attempt to dismantle the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal. We have already heard it.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about U.S. commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It is not about reimposing nuclear sanctions. It is not about prohibiting these aircraft sales or the financing of these sales.
What this legislation is about is providing Congress with information on the implications of these deals so that we can better understand their impact on the integrity of our financial system.
I would like to take a step back and discuss how we got to this point and why this legislation is necessary. As most of you know, under the JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the United States to license the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. In addition to providing licenses for aircraft sales, the licenses also allowed for banks to engage in the financing of these aircraft.
All of this was permitted, despite the fact that Iran remained classified as a jurisdiction to primary money laundering concern by the Treasury Department and as the world's foremost state sponsor of terror by the State Department.
Let us be abundantly clear on the facts. It was the Obama Treasury Department that highlighted the role that Iran and Iranian aircraft played in the destabilizing activity across the Middle East and in supporting the atrocities committed by the rogue Assad regime in Syria.
On September 9, 2012, David S. Cohen, the Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence under President Obama, released the following statement:
``The identification of Iranian aircraft also further highlights Iran's ongoing effort to support the Assad regime's weapons of mass destruction programs and crackdown against the Syrian people.''
This quote followed the Treasury Department's announcement to impose sanctions against entities that support the Assad regime in Syria.
So quoting from the same September 9, 2012, Treasury statement: ``As a result of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, foreign financial institutions that knowingly engage in significant transactions with . . . Iran Air, Mahan Air, or Yas Air, including any of 117 aircraft operated by these airlines, risk losing access to the U.S. banking system.''
Mr. Speaker, this week I received a memo from the National Iranian American Council urging members to oppose my bill. This is the same council that opposes President Trump's travel ban, which was recently upheld by a Supreme Court decision of 7-2, and the same organization that took concern with new sanctions imposed on Iran's support for Hezbollah.
This memo and the pro-Iran principles that it represents could not be a better endorsement for the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act.
I would ask this to my colleagues on both sides: At what point did we relegate ourselves to negotiating with those who wish us harm? At what point did we prioritize the interest of a rogue government that paints their bombs with sayings like ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America''? When did that happen?
There are simply two sides to this issue. You can either protect the interests of the United States, her citizens, and the U.S. financial institutions, or you can make important the wishes of the Ayatollah and his revolutionary guard.
Which side do you choose to be on? That is the question.
I represent the red, white, and blue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My commitment to the safety and well-being of these United States is unwavering.
I urge my colleagues to do the same: support the red, white, and blue, and support H.R. 4324.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, would impose a new and unilateral certification requirement on the administration in order to meet current U.S. obligations under the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, with respect to the sale and financing of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran.
This certification requirement would call for the Treasury Secretary to consider factors that fall well outside the scope of the nuclear deal and beyond the specific conditions that the U.S. is allowed to place on the license of commercial aircraft to Iran under the nuclear accord.
By moving the goal posts on our commitments under the deal, H.R. 4324 clearly aims to force the United States into a violation of the agreement. Under the Iran nuclear deal, the United States is broadly committed to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran. This involves licensing the sale of aircraft and related parts and services to Iran, including the financing for such sales.
Under the JCPOA Annex II, the only condition on the U.S. commitment is that licensed items and services must be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation. Moreover, the only allowable conditions the U.S. can place on authorizations for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran apply to the licensed aircraft themselves and the use of such licensed aircraft, not on activities or services provided that have no relationship to the licensed aircraft or related goods or services.
Yet, H.R. 4324 would impose new conditions on the licensed sale of aircraft to Iran, including, notably, the condition that the recipient airline has not used nonlicensed aircraft for purposes other than commercial passenger aviation. That is, under this bill, the administration would have to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain activity unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct but also unrelated to the use of the aircraft itself. If the Treasury Secretary is unable to make such a difficult certification, the Secretary must then report to Congress as to whether the Secretary intends to suspend, revoke, amend, or approve, notwithstanding such noncertification, any license facilitating the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran.
Supporters of the bill will likely note that the bill will not require the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend or revoke an authorization in the event that the Secretary is unable to make the necessary certification, but the obvious political conclusion is that the Secretary will be forced to revoke such license if the Secretary is unwilling to make the certification.
As we have now seen, the President detests the fact that his administration has to take affirmative steps to keep the deal in place, and he refused to do so. In the case of the last recurring 90-day congressional certification requirement, proponents of this bill undoubtedly hope Trump will react the same way to these additional certifications and block the sale of commercial aircraft, which is a key element of the deal.
In a break from reason and logic, this legislation plays directly into the hands of the President, who is desperate to find any pretext to say that Iran is in violation of the deal or to force Iran to walk away, and thereby, avoid having to take the blame for pulling the plug on the deal.
But let me be clear. By seeking to render impermissible that which is expressly permitted by the JCPOA, the legislation is clearly intended to undermine the nuclear agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).
Since the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and the taking of 66 American hostages during the 1979 revolution, Iran has taken a long view on its global ambition, supporting terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen.
From 1983, when Iran-supported Hezbollah bombed a U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, killing 243 servicemembers, to the killing of over 500 soldiers in Iraq by the elite Quds Force leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iran has earned its reputation as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Most recently, Iran Air, an Iranian state-owned airline, was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2011 for using its commercial passenger aircraft to transport weapons to terrorists helping the Assad regime in Syria and for transporting military cargo to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is in addition to what the world already well knows, that the Iranian regime has covered up and lied about its nuclear program for decades, deceiving international inspectors, agreeing to intrusive inspections, and then allowing those inspections to be implemented only provisionally and selectively.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, regularly chants ``Death to America'' and ultimately calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people.
In 2015, the Obama administration made a historic mistake by agreeing to the ill-conceived Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or as it is also called, the Iran nuclear agreement or JCPOA. The agreement removed financial sanctions on Iran, enabling greater financial resources for Iranian-funded terrorism.
Adding insult to injury, later, in 2016, due to the agreement, the Obama Treasury Department authorized the sale of more than 200 planes to Iran, the same Iranian airline that was sanctioned in 2011, and the Department also authorized U.S. banks to finance these transactions. But there is evidence that the carrier has continued its illicit behavior.
According to an April 2017 hearing in our subcommittee, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified that Iran Air operated at least 114 flights to Syria between January 16, 2016, which was Implementation Day of the JCPOA, and March 30, 2017. These flights are known as weapons resupply routes and stopovers in Iran with a suspected IRGC logistical hub that supports airlifts to the Assad regime.
In communications with the committee, Dr. Ottolenghi later confirmed that Iran Air had run at least 134 such flights between Implementation Day and May 4, 2017, which means the Iran nuclear agreement facilitated Iran helping the brutal murderous regime of Assad.
In exchange, what did the United States get out of this?
Only managed access to suspect nuclear sites in which international inspectors must appeal to Iran, Russia, and China in a bureaucratic process that takes at least 24 days, during which Iran can remove anything covert and in violation of the agreement.
International inspectors have also been denied access to military sites, the most likely places in Iran where illicit nuclear activity is occurring. But even if the JCPOA was delivering on its core promise of a denuclearized Iran, the agreement was sold with specific assurance that the JCPOA would not limit the United States' ability to stop Iran's nonnuclear activities and their support of terror activities.
Then Secretary of State John Kerry, in defense of the agreement, selling the agreement to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, testified that:
``If we catch them funding terrorism, they are going to have a problem with the U.S. Congress.''
Mr. Speaker, apparently not, because Members of Congress don't have a problem with this evidence that Iran is funding terrorist proxies and the Assad regime.
For these reasons, it is imperative that Congress pass the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which would require the Treasury to provide a report to Congress describing these connections. This is a reporting bill. Even if you support the JCPOA, you should support congressional oversight.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee, so he can clear up some of the information that we just heard.
Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a question.
Why is this bill so long?
Last year, we had a bill, H.R. 5729, to block the sale of Boeing aircraft to Iran. It was short and clear. It was only 2 pages long. I didn't like it and I didn't support it; but the truth is, I always respect people putting forth their honest beliefs.
H.R. 5729, last year, blocked the licenses to sell U.S. planes--
straightforward. Torpedoing the plane sales endangered the JCPOA because, as we have indicated, it is an affirmative requirement and an obligation on the U.S. to approve plane sales if a sales agreement is reached. That was part of the deal: You won't build or continue to develop nuclear weapons, we will do certain things, including sell you planes.
Everyone knew what the bill would do and they could decide if they thought that was a good idea or a bad idea. It was very straightforward. It was effectively a proxy on the JCPOA.
This year, we have another bill to block the sale of aircraft to Iran. It is neither short nor clear. In fact, it is six times as long as last year's bill.
{time} 1800
It subjects the licenses to an ongoing and complex certification requirement. It literally names and shames U.S. banks providing financing. And, again, it does this purposefully so that it might deter the sale of airplanes so that it might undermine the JCPOA.
Frankly, what I interpret, what I have heard this evening, is tantamount to that. This is, yet again, a proxy on the JCPOA. If you are against the JCPOA, vote ``yes.'' If you are for it, vote ``no.''
This bill, however, obscures its end purpose, that objective of undermining the JCPOA behind process and ambiguity. Why?
If you oppose the sale of aircraft, oppose it. Have the courage of your convictions. Don't just engage in this fearmongering. No matter how many times you say that people in Iran chant ``Death to Israel, Death to America,'' and whatever other form of fearmongering you engage in, at least have the courage of your own convictions. You did last year.
Stand up for what you believe in. If you want Iran to buy Airbus aircraft instead of Boeing aircraft, then say that. Stand up for yourself. Stand up for what you believe.
But let's be clear. That is what this bill will do. Don't dance around.
For my part, I think blocking the sale of American planes is a big mistake on so many levels. Let's be clear. It doesn't deny Iran the use of aircraft; it just will deny them American-made aircraft. It will deny American machinists jobs to work on them.
And need I remind anybody here what it means to be an engineer or a machinist at an aircraft company in this country? It means the kind of jobs that we all aspire to for our constituents. You know the kind; the kind that pay enough that you can buy a home, have decent healthcare, save enough money to send your kid to college if you want to, have regular vacations, and have a secure retirement. Those are the kinds of jobs we are taking away if we pass this bill.
It doesn't just prevent Iran from misusing aircraft, as has been suggested. It just prevents Americans from having maintenance and service agreements that keep eyes on the aircraft because, you see, if Airbus sells them these planes, we have no idea. If they are American-
made planes, they come with after-sale maintenance and service agreements. We will have eyes on the planes.
It doesn't force Iran back to the bargaining table. It just jeopardizes and cuts the legs out from under the gains we have made in the JCPOA that I thought my colleague and friend from Connecticut spoke about so eloquently. We don't go to sleep at night worried that Iran is getting closer to a bomb, as we would have, as North Korea has.
So my friends, in summary, passage of this legislation will do three things:
Number one, it will cost America jobs, and good-paying jobs;
Number two, it will make us less safe because it will undermine the JCPOA and, in so doing, not allow us to ensure that these planes are not being used for a nefarious purpose;
And number three, it will actually make us less safe as well, in the sense that if it does, in fact, defeat the purpose of JCPOA-- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walberg). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HECK. If it does cut the legs out from JCPOA, as is its purpose, as is clear, then, of course, we are back on the track of Iran developing nuclear weapons as North Korea has. Fewer jobs and less safe; not sure what it is about that proposition that would be appealing to anyone.
So, my friends, I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, be for American jobs. Be for America being safer. Be for us living up to our commitments, and vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4324, which I cosponsor, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, introduced by Congressman Roger Williams.
I stand with the courage of my convictions while I listen to others stand with the courage, apparently, of a conviction to coddle the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.
I have a problem, and I am not going to apologize for it, and my colleagues aren't going to apologize for it; when we have an adversary of our Nation overthrowing foreign governments, financing terror, developing intercontinental ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, calling Israel the Little Satan and America the Great Satan, pledging to wipe Israel off the map, chanting
``Death to America.''
Just a few weeks ago, the CIA dropped 470,000 documents collected in May of 2011, in the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound. In those documents, it shows a strong relationship between Iran and al-Qaida, and Iran offering finance and arms for carrying out attacks against America.
I signed up to run for the United States Congress and take an oath to protect this country, and, right now, while we are here this holiday season--tonight is the second night of Hanukkah. We are about to have Christmas, New Year's--we have people who are overseas, sometimes on their 8th, 9th, 10th deployment, willing to risk everything in defense of our freedoms and liberties, putting themselves in harm's way.
So when 10 Navy sailors end up getting held hostage and embarrassed with photography and videography, being shamed by the Iranians, and then we say, as a matter of response, thank you? That was our response when they released our 10 detained Navy sailors.
And you want to question the conviction of Congressman Williams introducing legislation that is incredibly important for protecting the United States and our servicemembers and our allies; and you want to mock us for having a problem with them chanting ``Death to America?'' Whose side are you on?
For anyone who has the courage of conviction to coddle the world's largest state sponsor of terror.
Since the U.S. entered the JCPOA, Iran's state-owned airline, Iran Air, has used its access to the U.S. aviation industry to purchase planes that aided the Assad regime in carrying out its war crimes in Syria against its own citizens, innocent women and children.
Courage of convictions to stand with the United States, with our allies, and on behalf of the women and children being targeted by the Assad regime in Syria. We have a problem with that, and we want to do something about it.
Don't try to shame us into being apologetic and unwilling and afraid to stand up for all of those right principles. That is the courage and conviction that I stand up with today, with Congressman Williams, with Chairman Hensarling, and all the others who are encouraging a strong
``yes'' vote for more accountability, for a stronger national defense, for a better future.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody to know we are not trying to shame anybody. If we were going to shame someone, we would shame them and that party about connection to Russia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price), an ardent supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this bill. The Iran nuclear agreement stands as a major diplomatic achievement that has destroyed Iran's capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.
Detractors point to Iran's bad behavior in other realms--ballistic missiles, support for Hezbollah, violations of human rights. We acknowledge these problems. Nobody is talking about coddling Iran or apologizing for Iran. I resent that implication by the last speaker.
The fact is, we take these problems and these challenges very, very seriously; but we also note that there is not a one of them that wouldn't be much more serious if we were dealing with a nuclear-capable state. So we have got to protect this agreement. We have got to be wary of any proposals that would directly or indirectly threaten it.
And that brings us to the bill before us, H.R. 4324, the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which would make it much more difficult for Iran to purchase commercial aircraft from firms that do business with the United States.
Now, as we all know, Iran's ability to replenish its aging civil aviation fleet, which was depleted by decades of sanctions, was a key incentive for Tehran to sign on to the JCPOA.
Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service said: ``Iran would view the bill's enactment into law as a breach of the JCPOA. The agreement contains a clear U.S. commitment to undertake such sales to Iran.''
But this bill imposes reporting and certification requirements that could well prompt the Treasury Department to cease issuing licenses allowing for such sales if this certification were to be contingent on non-nuclear factors, factors outside the deal.
Richard Nephew, the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. negotiating team, put it this way. He said: ``My take on this bill is that, if implemented the way I expect, it probably would violate the JCPOA.''
Now, I suppose we have to entertain the possibility that that actually is what the authors of this bill have in mind. Maybe that is the idea, to give the Trump administration and the Iranian hardliners a way of sabotaging the agreement.
Already, President Trump has tried to undermine the JCPOA by refusing to certify Iran's compliance with the deal when, by all accounts, Iran is, in fact, complying.
Now, by directly blocking a specific provision of the agreement, namely, the permissible sale of commercial passenger aircraft, this legislation would send a clear message to Iran that the United States does not negotiate in good faith. It would imply that we expect to have it both ways, with Iran dismantling its nuclear facilities and getting nothing in return.
The bill before us today would also break faith with our P5+1 negotiating partners in a reckless and dangerous way.
Because of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, the breakout time for Iran to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon went from 2 or 3 months to more than a year.
Because of this agreement, the international community has 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear sites, an unprecedented degree of access, intrusive inspections.
And because of this agreement, we possess an enforcement mechanism to ensure Iran's compliance. Why on Earth would we give up these capabilities by failing to uphold our end of the bargain?
That is the way agreements work. We uphold our end of the bargain. We don't sabotage agreement by deceptive legislation like that bill before us.
So, in light of renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula, now is especially not the time for the United States to go back on its word to our allies and to the international community.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4324.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Williams, for introducing H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act. This act is needed.
Tonight, we are not here to rehash the failings of the JCPOA, but we are really here to honor Secretary Kerry's commitment of oversight of Iran outside that agreement. He made it quite clear to Congress in his briefings that we would monitor the world's largest exporter of terror around the world; that we would do everything outside the agreement to enforce sanctions; that we would not stop reviewing their behavior.
This piece of legislation comes at an important time, as the Trump administration is taking significant steps to protect our homeland by reviewing actions around rogue regimes and sponsors of terror around the world, including Iran.
Now, my friend from Washington brought up the subject of the American worker, and, of course, we all are blessed by the brilliance and success of Boeing. We couldn't come to our jobs without them.
But there are 5,000 airlines in the world, Mr. Speaker. There are 10,000 Boeing aircraft in service, and there are 5,700 airplanes on order from the Boeing corporation to help make up that $41 billion of annual revenue.
The question here is not about selling airplanes, the question here is about protecting the homeland and interests of our country around the world.
Unfortunately, civil aviation is commingled with military Quds Force action; not just in what has been said tonight about transporting military action to Syria, supporting a war that has killed some 500,000 people, but what about Boeing transport from Damascus to Caracas?
{time} 1815
What about the Boeing aircraft operated by the Iranian regime back and forth between Russia and Iran, back and forth between Tehran and Damascus, between Damascus and Venezuela?
It is not just the civilian aircraft, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we want to be alert, and our American citizens need to know if their bank deposits are being used to extend credit to a regime that seeks pleasure in murdering innocent people, murdering our men and women in uniform and even innocent civilians in their own country.
We may differ on our views on the JCPOA, but we can all agree that nothing in the nuclear deal prevents the sharing of information between an administration and this Congress about financing aircraft for the world's largest state supporter of terrorism. That is what this piece of legislation is trying to achieve. That is what Mr. Williams' point is in bringing it to the floor, and I appreciate his thoughtful work to implement this much-needed policy and to help keep the citizens in my district safe from Iran's global terror advance.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter addressed to the Members of Congress from a highly respected organization that is pro-Israel and pro-peace advocacy. I am a member, and I look to the recommendations, the advice, and the assistance of this organization on all issues related to the Middle East and related to Iran and related to Israel. It is known as J Street, and I am a proud member and a proud participant.
J Street urges Members:
Oppose the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, that is H.R. 4324, which is clearly intended to lead to a U.S. violation of the JCPOA.
This bill would impose additional certification requirements on the administration in order to carry out current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales under the JCPOA.
These new obligations require the administration to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain nonnuclear activity or issue a national security waiver saying they will allow the planes to be sold anyway. In other words, it imposes new unilateral terms for a continuation of the JCPOA that are unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.
It has been widely reported in connection with the President's recent refusal to make the necessary certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that the President resents having to undertake official actions to keep the United States in compliance with the JCPOA.
Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to make use of the President's apparent resistance to taking such steps by adding a new certification requirement that they hope he will also fail to meet, thereby blocking the sale of commercial aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of the agreement.
Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need look no further than the first finding, which makes clear that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA vehicle and not a serious attempt to legislate on a bipartisan basis on threats emanating from Iran.
No one who wants to see the JCPOA continue to be implemented should support this bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dylan Williams, the vice president of government affairs who signed this bill, said:
Congress just gave the administration powerful tools to conquer other countries, support of the Assad regime when it passed new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea a few months ago that the President signed into law. Implementation and assessment of the impact of that law should occur before consideration of any new sanctions legislation.
Again, in addition to the supporters of this body who have worked very hard to try and convince the Members of this body to be on the side of peace, to try and get the Members to understand the seriousness of undermining the JCPOA, the Members of this body who work very hard for peace and who join with groups like J Street and advocate for peace are trying to make sure that the United States stands up to its agreements, understanding how this undermines our leadership in the world.
If we sit down and we negotiate with other countries, as we have done on the JCPOA, and they expect us to live up to the agreements and then they hear that we have various Members of Congress with ideas of their own putting together legislation that is supported by the opposite side of the aisle, coming in not with one piece of legislation, not with two pieces of legislation, but we don't know how many will continue if they are successful in passing the legislation that they are putting before us, if this continues, then I am certain that our allies will not trust us. They will not want to negotiate with us on other deals that are important to peace in this world. I would simply ask the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to pay attention to highly respected, credible organizations like J Street and take their advice about how to give support to the JCPOA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Williams' legislation, H.R. 4324. I want to thank him for his leadership on this front.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that much of the terror funding and the civil unrest that we see in the Middle East can be traced directly back to Iran.
Since we have lifted sanctions on that regime--and, in particular, against state-owned entities like Iran Air--we have opened up ourselves to potentially financing Iran's destabilizing activity in the region.
Congress has a right to know if banks are linked to financing or doing business with Iran, again, the world's largest state sponsor of terror.
This bill is significant, considering what we have recently seen with Iran Air. As recently as 2011, Iran Air was transporting weapons and missiles on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; and even this year--not 2011, but this year--we have seen Iran Air continue to fly well-known weapons resupply routes to pro-Assad-controlled areas of Syria.
Iran will always continue to find new and creative ways to bypass sanctions and to fund their worldwide terror network. We have to be on constant alert. Mr. Williams' legislation gives us the tools to do exactly that.
His bill gives the people's House, this House, more oversight on business that the Treasury Department authorizes with Iran. This is important because it conveys the importance of staying alert about our financial institutions when they get involved financially with Iran.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague and my friend, Mr. Williams, for his leadership on this issue, and I urge adoption of this bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our esteemed leader for this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, authored by our good friend Mr. Williams of Texas, who is swinging for the fences.
When the Obama administration signed this terrible Iran nuclear deal, in addition to the lifting of sanctions and sending billions of dollars to this hideous regime, it also authorized licenses for the export of commercial passenger planes to Iran.
After selling the world a bill of goods, the administration then turned around and agreed to allow the sale of planes to the world's biggest exporter of terror. Not only that, but U.S. financial institutions would be needed to finalize these sales, meaning American taxpayers' dollars could be used to finance these sales.
The results were predictable, Mr. Speaker. Iran has been using its commercial planes to transport fighters, to transport weapons, to transport material to Hezbollah in Syria, just to mention one. The list could go on and on, many illicit activities.
This is not something that Americans would be supporting, let alone underwriting. That is why Mr. Williams' bill is so important, and I thank Mr. Hensarling for bringing it to the floor. It protects the U.S. financial system, and it protects the taxpayers by giving us in Congress greater oversight. That is what this bill is about: oversight over business that the Treasury authorizes with Iran.
As we have heard speaker after speaker, Iran is the number one leading state sponsor of terror. It is responsible for the deaths of countless brave American men and women fighting overseas. It is the destabilizing force in Syria, to name just one of the countries.
The Supreme Leader calls for the destruction of our most trusted ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel; and the calls for ``death to America,'' Mr. Speaker, they go on and on, and it is written on walls.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the JCPOA was flawed. We all know that. It was weak and it was dangerous.
Let's ask our constituents, our taxpayers, if they want their dollars to fund the purchase of planes for the number one state sponsor of terror. I think that the answer would be ``no.''
We are actually being asked to supposedly support American jobs by helping Iran, the number one terror state, to buy planes so this horrid human-rights abuser of a country, this killer of Americans can use these very planes to continue exporting its terror activities throughout the world.
This is preposterous. It is a false choice.
Mr. Speaker, this bill protects the American consumer; it protects our constituents; it protects the taxpayer; and it gives us in Congress the proper oversight. Let's pass what this is: a commonsense bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that,
``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with its JCPOA commitments.
The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re-
introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress did not do so.
Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program.
As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful.
{time} 1830
Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for.
But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to violate an existing one with the same partners.
The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic, given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to changing its terms while Iran remains compliant.
If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean nuclear missile challenges.
But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges become even more daunting.
I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me in rejecting this terrible bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for yielding. This really isn't that complicated. The JCPOA is a failed policy that was put up by a President who had no interest in protecting this country as it should be. President Trump is finally bringing this back to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act. This important legislation is critical to hold Iran accountable and ensure the integrity of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Roger Williams for his great work on this legislation. The Iran deal allows the United States to license the sale of passenger aircraft to Iran to update their civilian commercial airliner fleet. Despite the deal, Iran's behavior has not changed, and they still remain a principal state sponsor of international terrorism, a direct contributor in propping up the Syrian regime, and a major facilitator of money laundering.
However, enabling commercial aircraft sales could only fortify Iran's rogue behavior. Many, including the Department of Treasury, are concerned that commercial aircraft could be used for noncivilian purposes, considering the state-controlled airline, Iran Air, has facilitated Iran's destabilization of Syria by transporting missile and rocket components to the Syrian regime.
Justice Louis Brandeis once stated that, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' and that is what this legislation seeks to do. It simply adds a crucial layer of reporting requirements, certifying that the sale of passenger aircraft does not pose a money laundering risk or violate U.S. sanctions.
Iranian continues to threaten the stability of the Middle East, and it poses a threat to U.S. national interests. Holding Iran accountable and preventing them from continuing to destabilize Syria should not be controversial at all.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time in my Congressional career I come to the House floor, and I have a surreal moment. Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle saying: Well, we shouldn't learn anything about them. We shouldn't learn about who is financing their aircraft. We shouldn't learn whether or not aircraft will be converted for military purposes.
Iran is a regime where every day the leadership wakes up shouting:
``Death to Israel, Death to America.'' Yet I have friends on the other side of the aisle who say: Well, we shouldn't have any reporting on Iran because it might hurt their feelings.
This is a surreal moment, Mr. Speaker, an absolute surreal moment. We have been told over and over that somehow this stops the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran. I wish it did, but it doesn't. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they actually read the bill, it is 10 pages long, 6 pages of findings. You can put the findings aside and read the 4 pages. It is a reporting bill.
It has certifications. And guess what the implications are if the administration can't give the proper certifications? Nothing. The deal continues to go on. It is perhaps the single worst foreign policy agreement in the history of America that legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and, on its best day, slows up their nuclear weapons by maybe a few years, at best, on its best day.
When the JCPOA was sold to us by the previous administration, we were told: This would be for civilian aircraft use only. Don't worry about it. This is not going to exacerbate terrorism in any way. But we know Boeing itself says their aircraft, which are being sold to Iran, can be used for combat purposes, and, in fact, have been. Iran Air was cited in 2011. It was sanctioned for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been designated as a terrorist organization.
This isn't just theory, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. Then we had my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, say: Well, it is important that we sell aircraft to Iran so companies can make profits. Well, using his logic, maybe we ought to sell weapons to North Korea if some company can make a profit. I think not, Mr. Speaker.
There are some things that are more important. Our security is even more important than the profit of any one particular company. So, again, this is a simple reporting requirement.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his leadership here. It is incredibly important that we understand from those who sold us this terrible Iranian deal, they need to make good on their promises.
We need to make sure that civilian aircraft are being used for civilian purposes. We need to make sure that the banks who are financing these deals are not financing terrorism. Yet those on the other side of the aisle say: No, let's put our heads in the sand. Let's just trust--let's trust the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. They will do the right thing. Let's just ignore this terrorism thing.
No. No, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4324, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is important to America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, introduced by my friend Roger Williams. This bill is critical to Congress' sustained effort to roll back the most egregious concessions from the Obama Administration's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times about how the Iran deal endangers our national security, namely by acquiescing to Iran's ambition to become a nuclear threshold in less than a decade. As if this concession--and the woefully inadequate inspections regime President Obama agreed to--were not troubling enough, the deal came with dozens of additional sweeteners for Iran that were folded into the main text of the agreement and an unknown number of side-deals.
These inducements were wrong on principle and they are downright dangerous in practice. On principle, Iran should not be gently incentivized to come clean about its nuclear program--it should be strictly compelled to comply with international norms. In practice, these numerous U.S. concessions to Iran effectively handed the world's largest sponsor of terrorism more resources to advance its campaign for regional hegemony. By providing $115 billion in sanctions relief, a
$1.7 billion ransom payment, and an $8.6 million payment for excess heavy water that violated the terms of the deal, the Obama Administration's calamitous deal generated a windfall for the Iranian regime.
Mr. Speaker, one especially troubling concession was the Obama Administration's agreement in the text of the deal to sell commercial passenger aircraft to Iran while at the same time lifting sanctions on Iran Air, a national carrier notorious for ferrying Iran's military manpower and materiel around the region. Iran Air was sanctioned by the United States in July 2011 under Executive Order 13382 for ``for providing material support and services to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.'' Lest we believe Iran Air has straightened up its act since 2011, the Washington Free Beacon reported in August on images from this summer showing Iranian militiamen flying Iran Air to join the civil war in Syria.
Mr. Speaker, it's also clear that Iran has never had a greater incentive than it does today to double down on its hegemonic schemes as it expands its footholds in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region. We have long known of Iran's genocidal intentions toward our critical and democratic ally, Israel. For years Iran has poured money and resources into Hizballah and Hamas to develop proxies that can threaten Israel on its borders. Today, however, Iran is closer than ever to achieving its own toehold near the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights from which to menace Israel and terrorize its people.
Why, in this context, would the United States knowingly furnish Iran with aircraft it needs to move its military assets around the region? Yet, as we speak, a sale of 80 Boeing aircraft to Iran Air, worth as much as $16.6 billion, is on track to proceed unless the Administration wisely intervenes or Congress hits the brakes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 is crucial to applying necessary and thorough scrutiny to this deal or others like it. This bill will require the Department of the Treasury to certify that the beneficiaries of any such deal do not include Iranians known to be involved in transporting materiel or other resources for designated individuals or groups. Given Iran Air's sinister past, it is only logical to demand this sort of certification.
Furthermore, the bill would require the Treasury to certify that any such transaction does not pose a ``significant money laundering or terrorism financing risk to the U.S. financial system.'' Again, considering that Iran remains the world's largest financier of terrorism and on the Financial Action Task Force's blacklist of countries that pose a high risk of money laundering, it is only responsible to establish this sort of standard for major U.S. transactions with Iranian companies.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to support H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, introduced by my friend Bruce Poliquin. This bill requires common sense reporting to Congress on the terrorism financing and money laundering threat posed by Iran to help us address it more effectively.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these timely and critical measures.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gaetz
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Banks of Indiana). The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 18, strike ``or''.
Page 6, after line 18 insert the following (and redesignate the subsequent subclause accordingly):
(II) has knowingly transported items used to establish in Syria a permanent military presence of either Iranian military forces or Iranian backed militia; or
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 658, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hensarling, for his guidance and leadership in assisting me with this amendment. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for ensuring this Congress takes the strongest possible position as it relates to Iran and ensuring that we use every arrow in the proverbial quiver, financially speaking, so that U.S. assets and U.S. resources are not used to proliferate terror in a way that is consistent with Iran's paradigm and their budding hegemony.
Across the Middle East, we see Iran funding terrorist proxies, destabilizing the region, threatening their neighbors, and functioning as an eyesore for the world. So I am glad to be here offering an amendment to ensure that, as we use the tools at our disposal to limit Iran's power to be a destabilizing sponsor of terror, we pay particular focus to the activities going on currently in Syria.
In Syria now, a ceasefire has had an unintended consequence of giving Iran space to be able to move in and make attempts to harden long-term military assets, installations, so that troops could be housed and potentially launch other attacks and fund and equip Iran's terrorist proxies throughout the area.
It is no surprise that the facility that Iran most recently worked on would have housed upwards of 5,000 soldiers. It is believed that, potentially, Israel took action to ensure that the construction did not continue on that particular facility.
My amendment, Mr. Speaker, conditions the provisions of this bill on an attestation that Iran has not set up permanent, present military in southern Syria. I think that is critically important.
In the last conversation I had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he indicated that Israel was most concerned, in all of the world, about the risks posed by Iran setting up a permanent military presence in southern Syria, and that that would cause potentially kinetic conflict, war, and even more dramatic, catastrophic outcomes.
Again, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Mr. Williams for their strong leadership. I offer this amendment to back our ally, Israel, and to ensure that Iran does not have the capability to establish a permanent military presence in southern Syria.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Swalwell of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4324 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Page 6, line 23, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 7, add ``and'' at the end
Page 7, after line 7, insert the following:
(iv) no financial institution participating in such transaction is engaged in business with a foreign entity that has been found by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to have engaged in or authorized cyber-attacks targeting any election held in the United States;
{time} 1845
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to a final passage vote, as amended.
My amendment would add an additional certification requirement from the Treasury Secretary for financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues across the aisle. Iran is a threat to our national security, and we should seek to hold them accountable, protect Americans, and defend our allies. The first major step in the last decade to do so was with the Iran nuclear agreement taking a nuclear power off the table. But we should also seek to hold accountable Iran's chief enabler and best friend in the world, Russia, which my amendment will seek to do.
My amendment would add a requirement that the Treasury Secretary certify that an institution financing the export of commercial aircraft to Iran did not engage in business with any foreign entity which engaged in or authorized cyber attacks targeting American elections. This is a commonsense provision to ensure that companies are aware of the effects their financial dealings have on supporting those who engage in election interference.
We should think carefully about letting financial institutions do business with countries that choose to conduct this new cyber warfare. While it may have been unthinkable before 2016 that a foreign adversary would interfere in one of our elections, we know now that the threat is all too real.
Our intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in our 2016 elections; and it also concluded that this was ordered by President Vladimir Putin, with the goal of helping its preferred candidate, Donald Trump. Why this is something that the President and some of my colleagues across the aisle still question is beyond shocking. It is also a slap in the face of the dedicated men and women who serve and toil for our intelligence communities.
The 2016 election, Mr. Speaker, is behind us. We shouldn't relitigate it. We should learn, though, from how a foreign adversary, a friend of Iran, sought to influence the American voter. This is not a Democratic Party or Republican Party issue. It is about our freedom of choice: who gets to choose when we go to the ballot box.
Iran is not our friend. Guess who else is not our friend? Iran's friend Russia. But if you don't believe me, if you are cynical enough, as the President is, to dismiss the findings of our intelligence community, then believe the Russians. Believe their own declarations.
In September, a Duma parliament member, Nikonov Vyacheslav, stated that the United States intelligence community slept while Russia elected a new United States President of the United States.
Does anyone in this House want to do something about that?
In this attack, did Russia work with the Trump campaign?
That is a serious question that remains outstanding. Every day seems to bring new revelations about the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. We must do all we can to allow Bob Mueller and his team to pursue that evidence unimpeded by Presidential obstruction.
We also must be able to conduct our investigations on the House Intelligence Committee to do all we can to get to the bottom, to tell the American people how we were so vulnerable, who in the United States was responsible, whether the U.S. Government response was adequate, and what we can do to make sure it never happens again.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the President and many of his own enablers in Congress are seeking to fire Bob Mueller, which would set us back and greatly affect our ability to prevent another attack by Russia. But what we can do with this amendment today is not only stand up to Iran, but also stand up to their chief enabler, someone who finances them and assists the terror that they enact across the globe.
Vote for this motion to recommit, and, by doing so, Members will show their concern not only about Iran, but also about their chief enabler. Members will show their concern for our democracy and the interference that Iran's best friend, Russia, carried out in our last election.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be schizophrenic. They can't seem to figure out whether they want to coddle Iran or to ``stand up to'' Iran. We were also told that H.R. 4324 was designed to ``blame and shame'' financial institutions, and now they offer a motion to recommit to blame and shame financial institutions.
So here is what is going on, Mr. Speaker: What we have is a regime that wakes up every morning shouting ``Death to America; death to Israel,'' and yet we have a motion to recommit trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.
We have a regime which has been certified as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism whom we are trying to hold accountable and from whom we are trying to get information, and our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.
We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supports the Assad regime in Syria. According to the U.N., the Assad government, with the help of Iran, has now carried out 27 chemical weapon attacks since the start of the Syrian conflict, including an April 2017 sarin gas attack that killed more than 80 people, including scores of women and children, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.
Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to imprison foreign nationals, including Americans--including Americans--including 81-year-old Baquer Namazi, who has lost his teeth in prison due to malnutrition. We have had another American prisoner, a student at Princeton, who has suffered health problems, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle, with their motion to recommit, want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.
This is a serious moment, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4324 by the gentleman from Texas is an important piece of legislation to ensure that civilian aircraft sales to Iran remain civilian aircraft and that our financial institutions are not unwittingly helping to finance this rogue terrorist regime, and it is no time to relitigate an election that my friends on the other side of the aisle lost.
We need to reject the motion to recommit, and we need to enact H.R. 4324.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
