[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H346-H355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  IRAN TERROR FINANCE TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 583, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3662) to enhance congressional oversight over the 
administration of sanctions against certain Iranian terrorism 
financiers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 3662

       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 ``Iran Terror Finance 
     Transparency Act''.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF FOREIGN 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING IRANIAN 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, FROM THE LIST OF 
                   SPECIALLY DESIGNATED NATIONALS AND BLOCKED 
                   PERSONS.

       (a) In General.--On or after July 19, 2015, the President 
     may not remove a foreign financial institution, including an 
     Iranian financial institution, described in subsection (b) 
     from the list of specially designated nationals and blocked 
     persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of 
     the Department of the Treasury unless and until the President 
     submits to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     certification described in subsection (c) with respect to the 
     foreign financial institution.
       (b) Covered Institutions.--A foreign financial institution, 
     including an Iranian financial institution, described in this 
     subsection is a foreign financial institution listed in 
     Attachment 3 or Attachment 4 to Annex II of the Joint 
     Comprehensive Plan of Action.
       (c) Certification.--The President may remove a foreign 
     financial institution, including an Iranian financial 
     institution, described in subsection (b) from the list of 
     specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained 
     by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of the Department of 
     the Treasury if the President submits to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a certification that the foreign 
     financial institution--
       (1) has not knowingly, directly or indirectly, facilitated 
     a significant transaction or transactions or provided 
     significant financial services for or on behalf of--
       (A) Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents 
     or affiliates whose property or interests in property are 
     blocked pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
       (B) a foreign terrorist organization for or on behalf of a 
     person whose property or interests in property have been 
     blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 
     49079; relating to blocking property and prohibiting 
     transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or 
     support terrorism); and
       (C) a person whose property or interests in property are 
     blocked pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass 
     destruction, or to further Iran's development of ballistic 
     missiles and destabilizing types and amounts of conventional 
     weapons; and
       (2) no longer knowingly engages in illicit or deceptive 
     financial transactions or other activities.
       (d) Form.--A certification described in subsection (c) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign 
     financial institution'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 1010.605 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Foreign terrorist organization.--The term ``foreign 
     terrorist organization'' means any organization designated by 
     the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization in 
     accordance with section 219(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
       (3) Iranian financial institution.--The term ``Iranian 
     financial institution'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 104A(d)(3) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
     Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 
     8513b(d)(3)).

     SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN PERSONS FROM THE LIST OF SPECIALLY 
                   DESIGNATED NATIONALS AND BLOCKED PERSONS.

       (a) In General.--On or after July 19, 2015, the President 
     may not remove a foreign person described in subsection (b) 
     from the list of specially designated nationals and blocked 
     persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of 
     the Department of the Treasury until the President submits to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a certification 
     described in subsection (c) with respect to the foreign 
     person.
       (b) Covered Persons and Entities.--A foreign person 
     described in this subsection is a foreign person listed in 
     Attachment 3 or Attachment 4 to Annex II of the Joint 
     Comprehensive Plan of Action.
       (c) Certification.--The President may remove a foreign 
     person described in subsection (b) from the list of specially 
     designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the 
     Office of Foreign Asset Control of the Department of the 
     Treasury if the President submits to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a certification that the foreign 
     person--
       (1) has not knowingly assisted in, sponsored, or provided 
     financial, material, or technological support for, or 
     financial or other services to or in support of terrorism or 
     a terrorist organization; and
       (2) has not knowingly engaged in significant activities or 
     transactions that have materially contributed to the 
     Government of Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction or their means of delivery (including missiles 
     capable of delivering such weapons), including any efforts to 
     manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, 
     or use such item.
       (d) Form.--A certification described in subsection (c) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person''--
       (A) means--
       (i) an individual who is not a United States person;
       (ii) a corporation, partnership, or other nongovernmental 
     entity which is not a United States person; or
       (iii) any representative, agent or instrumentality of, or 
     an individual working on behalf of a foreign government; but
       (B) does not include a foreign financial institution, 
     including an Iranian financial institution, described in 
     section 2(b).
       (2) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence to the United States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity.

     SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DESIGNATION 
                   OF IRAN AS A JURISDICTION OF PRIMARY MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING CONCERN.

       (a) In General.--The President may not remove the 
     designation of Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money 
     laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A of title 31, 
     United States Code, unless the President submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a certification 
     described in subsection (b) with respect to Iran.
       (b) Certification.--The President may remove the 
     designation of Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money 
     laundering concern if the President submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a certification that the 
     Government of Iran is no longer engaged in support for 
     terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and any 
     illicit and deceptive financial activities.
       (c) Form.--The certification described in subsection (b) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--

[[Page H347]]

       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN 
                   AGENCY RULEMAKING RELATING TO IRAN.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any rule to amend or otherwise alter a covered 
     regulatory provision as defined in subsection (c) that is 
     published on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be deemed to be a rule or major rule (as the case may 
     be) for purposes of chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and shall be subject to all applicable requirements of 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the head of the applicable department or agency 
     of the Federal Government shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the operation of the 
     licensing system under each covered regulatory provision as 
     defined in subsection (c) for the preceding 2-year period, 
     including--
       (1) the number and types of licenses applied for;
       (2) the number and types of licenses approved;
       (3) a summary of each license approved;
       (4) a summary of transactions conducted pursuant to a 
     general license;
       (5) the average amount of time elapsed from the date of 
     filing of a license application until the date of its 
     approval;
       (6) the extent to which the licensing procedures were 
     effectively implemented; and
       (7) a description of comments received from interested 
     parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures 
     were effective, after the applicable department or agency 
     holds a public 30-day comment period.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     regulatory provision'' means any provision of part 535, 560, 
     561, or 1060 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     such part was in effect on June 1, 2015.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
                   ACCOUNTS HELD BY FOREIGN FINANCIAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 104(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Comprehensive Iran 
     Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 
     U.S.C. 8513(c)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end 
     before the semicolon the following: ``, including Hezbollah, 
     Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and any affiliates or 
     successors thereof''.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 14(2) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
       (2) Joint comprehensive plan of action.--The term ``Joint 
     Comprehensive Plan of Action'' means the Joint Comprehensive 
     Plan of Action, signed at Vienna July 14, 2015, by Iran and 
     by the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, the 
     Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, 
     with the High Representative of the European Union for 
     Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and all implementing 
     materials and agreements related to the Joint Comprehensive 
     Plan of Action, and transmitted by the President to Congress 
     on July 19, 2015, pursuant to section 135(a) of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Iran Nuclear Agreement 
     Review Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-17; 129 Stat. 201).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
submit any extraneous materials on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to recognize Congressman Russell for his work on this 
legislation, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. I think we 
should all reflect on the reason for this resolution, one of the 
reasons, and that is that, since the Obama administration sealed the 
nuclear deal with Iran, Iran has been on a bit of a tear. It has 
accelerated its missile program at the request of President Rouhani. It 
has taken an additional American hostage. It has stepped up the 
slaughter in Syria.
  Days after that agreement was finalized, you had Iranian rockets 
firing 1,500 yards off the U.S. aircraft carrier Truman. And just 
yesterday, Iran detained 10 U.S. sailors, which was not appreciated, 
especially coming on the aftermath of firing those rockets near the 
Truman.
  Now, we are all relieved to learn this morning that the sailors have 
been released. Yet, in what could be a matter of days, Iran will cash 
in with $100 billion-plus in sanctions relief of money which is now in 
escrow. And I am sure it has occurred to many of us that if Iran 
behaves this way now, in a few days, when it gets its hands on this 
bankroll, especially given the fact that that money is going to the 
IRGC, not to the Iranian people, what other actions are we going to see 
from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps?
  We had a story this weekend, front page, in the weekend edition of 
The Wall Street Journal, and the headline of that story is ``Nuclear 
Deal Fuels Iran's Hard-Liners.'' Iran's hard-liners will be the biggest 
winner out of this.
  The Revolutionary Guards, the same radical forces that held these 10 
U.S. sailors, that force and their proxies control many of the 
industries that will benefit from the influx of hard currency and new 
investment. Whether it is energy or construction, they control it. This 
ICBM program, they control it.

                              {time}  1030

  Just as many of us warned prior to this deal about the appetite for 
enforcement, once this deal gets underway, there is no pushback from 
the administration on this. Since the nuclear deal, Iran has tested two 
ballistic missiles. Now, that is in violation of the U.N. Security 
Council resolution. This administration's response was to announce and 
then abandon new sanctions within a very short timeframe, apparently to 
not offend the Supreme Leader, to not risk its flawed nuclear deal.
  When it comes to Iran, we need a policy of more backbone, not more 
backing down, because it was not supposed to be this way with this 
deal. In announcing the nuclear deal, President Obama claimed that 
American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human 
rights abuses, and its ballistic missile program will continue to be 
fully enforced. Those were the President's words, and just after that, 
with Secretary Kerry's argument testifying before the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  This legislation is a first step in holding the administration to 
these commitments. Under the bill, before the President can lift 
sanctions on a particular person or bank or company to implement the 
nuclear deal, he must certify that their removal is related to Iran's 
nuclear program alone. That is who we were told would be getting the 
sanctions relief--not those tied to terrorism, not those tied to Iran's 
ballistic missile or other illicit weapons programs that were under 
sanction from the U.N. resolutions.
  When the Treasury Department sanctioned Bank Melli in 2007, it noted 
that the institution had provided banking services to the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force. The Quds Force is in 
charge of assassinations outside of Iran. As we all know, the 
Revolutionary Guards have committed acts of terrorism and committed 
those missile tests that we just recently saw. Why, then, is this bank 
set to receive sanctions relief in the coming days?
  Bank Sepah, one of Iran's largest banks, will be another big winner 
of sanctions relief in the coming days. When that bank was designated, 
and that was January of 2007, then-Treasury Under Secretary Stuart 
Levey noted with this argument: ``Bank Sepah is the financial linchpin 
of Iran's missile procurement network.''
  What we have to think about here is there is one reason--one reason--
why a state develops ICBMs. It is to deliver a nuclear payload. It is 
to deliver a weapon. So, he says it is the financial linchpin and ``has 
actively assisted Iran's pursuit of missiles capable of carrying 
weapons of mass destruction.''
  Indeed, Iran's ballistic missile program is advancing under President 
Rouhani. He just called for the program to be accelerated. That is what 
we have in the face of this agreement. We should not be letting this 
bank off the ropes, opening it for business from Europe to Asia.
  To be clear, those Iranian banks and individuals not supporting 
terrorism and not supporting ICBMs can be delisted--that was what was 
originally represented to this Congress--but not those threatening our 
national security, and not those making threats to

[[Page H348]]

us while the Ayatollah is saying ``death to America,'' ``death to 
Israel.''
  That is what this legislation does, and it is the policy that the 
administration explained to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2016.
     Hon. Ed Royce,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Royce: I am writing concerning H.R. 757, the 
     North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2015, and H.R. 3662, 
     the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, both of which were 
     referred to the Committee on Financial Services in addition 
     to your Committee.
       As a result of your having consulted with the Committee on 
     Financial Services concerning provisions of the bills that 
     fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our 
     Committee from further consideration of the bills so that 
     they may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. The 
     Committee on Financial Services takes this action with our 
     mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 
     757 and H.R. 3662 at this time, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that our Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as this or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of 
     an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 757 and 
     H.R. 3662 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of 
     letters on this matter be included in your Committee's report 
     to accompany the legislation and in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2016.
     Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs on H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror 
     Finance Transparency Act, and for agreeing to be discharged 
     from further consideration of that bill.
       I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure 
     does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Financial Services, or prejudice its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar 
     legislation in the future. I would support your effort to 
     seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this legislation.
       I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 3662 into the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and 
     look forward to continuing to work with your Committee as 
     this measure moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward R. Royce,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. ENGEL . I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this measure.
  First, I do want to thank my good friend, Chairman Ed Royce. It is 
not very often we find ourselves on different sides of foreign affairs 
issues, which is a credit to the way he runs our committee; but in this 
case, in my view, this bill isn't the right fit or the right approach.
  We should go back to the drawing board, rather than ramming through a 
partisan measure that will never become law. We should go through our 
normal process of drafting legislation in a bipartisan way with input 
from both sides, rather than advancing something that was put together 
without a single Democrat having any input whatsoever. As a result, 
this bill does not have a single Democratic cosponsor.
  If we are going to pass legislation like this, it only works if we do 
it in a bipartisan way--as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans. 
We should come back here with a bipartisan bill that can actually move 
forward, just as we have done again and again and again on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  The question here is not whether Iran is a good player. Iran is a bad 
player. In fact, it is a terrible player. It is important that we do 
act on the challenge of Iran. Like Chairman Royce, I oppose the Iran 
deal, but our side lost the debate. The deal is in place. Now we need 
to make sure that Iran is living up to its commitments under that deal, 
that every word of the deal is enforced, that we crack down on Iran's 
other bad behavior, and that we take steps to shore up the security of 
Israel and our other allies in the region. That is the kind of bill I 
want to support, and we can do it together.
  This bill doesn't address any of the issues. Instead, this bill would 
establish an impossible standard for the President. The bill says that, 
in order to remove a person or a company from the nuclear sanctions 
list, the President would have to certify that the person or company 
never, at any point, engaged in sanctionable behavior, including 
support for Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs. Well, if they 
had never engaged in sanctionable behavior, why would they be on the 
sanctions list in the first place? It just doesn't make sense, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Now, this could be a drafting flaw or it could be just about 
embarrassing the President, but it would make it impossible for the 
United States to meet its obligations under the JCPOA. That worries me 
because, rather than holding Iran's feet to the fire and strengthening 
oversight, we seem to be going down the same path we have taken with 
the Affordable Care Act. Sixty-two times we voted to repeal it. A 
couple of months ago, we had a vote which essentially repeals the 
JCPOA, and now we are doing it a second time. Will we do it 60 more 
times? It is a waste of all of our time. Let's put our heads together 
and come up with a bipartisan bill that really works.
  Now, 62 times to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act; my opinion 
is, those were symbolic votes because we knew the President would never 
repeal his own bill. Today, this is a symbolic vote because we know the 
President is never going to sink his own agreement. My constituents 
don't want symbolic votes, Mr. Speaker. They want results. Symbolic 
votes won't help us crack down on Iran's support for terrorism or their 
other dangerous behavior.
  Again, I am confident that we can work in a bipartisan way to craft 
legislation. We have done it again and again and again on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. Just look at the Iran sanctions bill that Chairman 
Royce and I wrote in 2013. It passed unanimously out of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee--unanimously. And we have people who believe in their 
politics from the right to the left and everywhere in between, but it 
was unanimous because we did it in a bipartisan way and it made sense. 
It came to the floor, and it passed by a vote of 400-8. That is the 
kind of thing we should be doing now on this very serious issue.
  So if we are serious about this issue, that is the approach we need 
to take. I am confident that in the days ahead, I will be working with 
Chairman Royce and all of our Members to bring forward good, bipartisan 
legislation, but this bill is the wrong way to go.
  I don't impugn anybody's motives. I know people worked hard on this. 
But this is just simply, in my opinion, the wrong way to go. So, Mr. 
Speaker, I will vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, 19 August 2015, and I quote the President 
of the United States:

       I made sure that the United States reserved its right to 
     maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy 
     new sanctions to address those continuing concerns, which we 
     fully intend to do when circumstances warrant.
       It is imperative that we take steps to deal with Iran's 
     destabilizing activities and support for terrorism. This 
     involves continued enforcement of international and United 
     States law, including sanctions related to Iran's nonnuclear 
     activities.

  I am quoting the President:

       We will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's 
     support for groups such as Hezbollah, its destabilizing role 
     in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile 
     program, and its human rights abuses at home.

  This was in direct response, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman who is 
saying that he is not for upholding these things today. We had many in 
a bipartisan fashion who voted against this agreement. The President 
has stated clearly that, under the terms of the

[[Page H349]]

Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 
2010, he would not interfere with the terrorist list, that he would not 
interfere with the human rights list.
  But the simple fact is--and I have read every single word of the 
joint agreement--there are hundreds of people in Annex II on that 
sanctions list. Among them are more than 50 that are on the terrorist 
list and the human rights list as violators. The President said that 
they will not be lifted off, and yet there they are. That is what this 
bill does.
  It is interesting that last week--and I quote a letter by our 
esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker--and 
here is the letter that they sent to the President of the United States 
reinforcing why this bill is such a good idea:

       Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region and continued 
     support for terrorism represent an unacceptable threat to our 
     closest allies as well as our own national security. As the 
     international community prepares for implementation of the 
     joint agreement, Iran must understand that violating 
     international laws, treaties, and agreements will have 
     serious consequences. We call on the administration--this is 
     their words, Mr. Speaker--to immediately announce new, U.S. 
     sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Iran's 
     ballistic missile program to ensure Iran is held accountable 
     for its actions.

  I continue to quote this letter:

       Inaction from the United States would send the misguided 
     message that, in the wake of the joint agreement, the 
     international community has lost the willingness to hold 
     the Iranian regime accountable for its support for 
     terrorism and other offensive actions throughout the 
     region--including Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Gaza 
     Strip. This behavior--including ballistic missile tests, 
     as the chairman spoke about--poses a direct threat to 
     American national security interests and those of our 
     allies.

  Mr. Speaker, this was signed by Representative Lowey; our esteemed 
colleague that is at the podium now on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Engel; the leader of the Democratic National Committee for Congress, 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz; and our esteemed colleagues Mr. Sires, Mr. 
Connolly, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Nadler.
  Do you know what? We agree with them. We agree totally with them that 
these sanctions should be upheld, that the law is the law, and that the 
2010 Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is still the 
law. That is what this bill does.
  There have been claims that it was not done in a bipartisan fashion, 
and I find this somewhat puzzling because I personally talked to Mr. 
Engel about this bill. I went item by item through it and what its 
content was. I reached out to the Democratic leadership in August. I 
have been working this bill since July. So, yes, we can do it in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  I regret, because I am a freshman and only have fought on three 
continents and have a foreign affairs and national security background, 
that I am not on the Foreign Affairs Committee. But that doesn't 
denote, Mr. Speaker, a lack of understanding of the way the world works 
and what the threat is in the United States of America when we have 
made a law that says that, if you are a terrorist or a human rights 
violator, we are not going to allow you to have sanctions relief under 
the JCPOA. The President said that that is what he is going to do. 
Democrats and Republicans have said that is what they will uphold. That 
is what this bill does, and yet we see, puzzlingly, opposition to these 
very things.
  Here is what the bill is: Annex II of the joint agreement lifts 
sanctions for hundreds of individuals for nuclear proliferation or 
human rights violation or terrorist violation. More than 50 of these 
individuals and entities have been identified on the joint agreement 
for sanctions relief. This simply requires that, before those are 
delisted, the President certify why. It doesn't say they can never come 
off. Read section 4. It is pretty clear. It says that the President 
must certify justification on why that is the case.
  What this bill is not: a knee-jerk reaction, a partisan ploy that is 
quickly crafted due to recent events. We have been working for months 
on this.
  The bill was crafted without major efforts--not true, as I have 
proven this morning. This is upholding the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we have the discussion. I know my colleagues 
feel deeply about this. I know that they also would like to see this 
continued. Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch), my friend and colleague. He is a very valued 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, Mr. 
Engel, for his leadership today.
  I deeply appreciate the bipartisan way that he and Chairman Royce 
have run our committee when it comes to the goal that we all share of 
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I am also grateful for 
the commitment that my friend Mr. Russell has made to this same issue 
and to his service to our country.
  This legislation, unfortunately, doesn't advance this goal that we 
share, nor does it prevent Iran's other provocative, illegal, and 
destabilizing regional activities.
  I opposed the nuclear deal. I have been clear about my concerns with 
the deal itself and with what Iran might try to do with billions of 
dollars in sanctions relief. I have also been clear about my 
frustration that the ballistic missile tests undertaken by Iran in 
violation of U.S. and international law have not yet resulted in 
sanctions either by the United Nations Security Council or by the 
administration.
  Given the dangerous behavior that we have seen out of Iran in the 
past months and weeks with respect to its illicit ballistic missile 
program and its continued funding of Hezbollah in Syria, we should be 
working together to put forward legislation that strengthens the 
enforcement of the JCPOA and prevents Iran from continuing its 
sponsorship of terror, its illegal missile development, and its gross 
human rights violations. This bill, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, doesn't 
do any of those things.
  Some of my colleagues claim the bill will prevent entities from 
getting sanctions relief under the deal that have ties to terrorism or 
WMD proliferation. I expressed directly to the administration that they 
need to ensure that any entity that is subject to sanctions relief 
under the nuclear deal be carefully investigated and resanctioned if 
they are found to be engaging in support for terrorism or human rights 
abuses, but this bill doesn't do that.
  Instead, it requires certification that the 400 entities named in the 
JCPOA have never engaged in activities related to terrorism or the 
development of weapons of mass destruction. This standard will result 
in the administration devoting significant time and resources to a 
certification that can never be met, while also preventing--importantly 
preventing--implementation of the JCPOA. Instead of devoting the 
necessary resources to sanctioning individuals and entities that 
support terrorism and violate human rights--dangerous activities that 
were never part of the nuclear deal--it devotes enormous resources to a 
process that won't accomplish that. Iran must pay the price for its 
continued bad behavior.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today adds several of 
Iran's terrorist proxies to the banking provisions of the Comprehensive 
Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, one of our most 
important sanctions laws. Of course we want to stop banks from 
facilitating transactions to these terrorist organizations; but, 
unfortunately, some of our European friends attempt to distinguish 
between the military and political wings of terrorist groups. They 
shouldn't. There is no distinction. I have spoken out against this 
policy.
  Nevertheless, because of this discrepancy, by naming these specific 
terrorist groups in CISADA, this bill has the potential to cut off 
European banks from the U.S. financial system. Now is the time, Mr. 
Speaker, for us to be working with our allies to craft the toughest 
international sanctions to crack down on Iran's dangerous activities.
  Mr. Speaker, whether you supported this deal or not, as Mr. Engel 
said, it is going forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 1 minute.

[[Page H350]]

  

  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend.
  We should be looking for bipartisan ways to ensure that it is 
enforced with vigor and with the most stringent verification and 
compliance. If a violation occurs or if Iran continues to engage in 
illegal activities that were never a part of this nuclear deal, we must 
ensure that we have the tools to enact punishing new sanctions, 
hopefully, with the support of our international partners, but 
certainly with the full, bipartisan support of the United States 
Congress.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak about Iran on the floor of the 
U.S. House without making clear that every one of us--435 Members of 
the House of Representatives--stand united in our commitment to 
bringing home from Iran Jason Rezaian, Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, 
Siamak Namazi, and, my constituent, Bob Levinson. They sit in Iran, but 
we look forward to welcoming them home.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Poe), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Nonproliferation, and Trade.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time 
and for his work on this legislation.
  I do want to comment that the ranking member, Mr. Engel, I value his 
wisdom on the issue of Iran, and especially in defense of Israel. We 
happen to disagree on this specific legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the nuclear agreement that the administration made with 
Iran was still a bad deal for America. As a former judge down in Texas, 
I know that when the bad guys do bad things, you don't reward bad 
conduct.
  At a time when the administration needs to be strong and firm, it 
seems to be showing wobbly knees on this deal. Now we are left with a 
deal where the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is only a few 
small steps away from a nuclear bomb. The administration's continued 
leniency with Iran is conceding even more than what is required in the 
deal. The administration is making this bad deal even worse.
  The President promised the American people that this bad deal still 
allows nonnuclear-related sanctions on Iran. Good for the President. 
Great promise.
  Iran, not to the shock of any of us, has violated some of the rules 
that they are to abide by. They violated two U.N. resolutions 
restricting ballistic missile tests last month.
  The Treasury Department told Congress it would levy new sanctions on 
Iran, primarily financial sanctions. That would support the President's 
promise to America. But at the last minute, the State Department got 
involved and said, whoa, no sanctions, not so fast--and no sanctions. 
More shaky knees, Mr. Speaker.
  Why does the administration waffle on calling Iran out for 
violations? America's national security interests seem to take a 
backseat to confronting Iran politically.
  I support H.R. 3662. This is an important bill to ensure the 
President can't lift sanctions on those institutions and individuals 
who are involved in terrorism. Remember, Mr. Speaker, Iran is still the 
number one world state sponsor of terrorism, and they are continuing 
their mischief throughout the world. We don't need to make it easier 
for Iran's terrorist proxies to get even more money than the $150 
billion that they are getting in the deal.
  With this bill, the President must prove to Congress that a person or 
entity has not given financial or materiel support to a terrorist 
organization before removing them from the sanctions list. Sounds 
logical to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Sanctions unrelated to the nuclear deal must remain in place. The 
national security of the United States is at stake.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), my friend and colleague, and a member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  I rise in strong opposition to this deeply misguided legislation.
  Reports from international experts, nuclear watchdogs, and 
representatives of our international coalition make clear that Iran is 
on its way to fully dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Breakout 
times at this moment have already been tripled and quadrupled.
  We need to understand, just because the JCPOA does not deal with all 
of Iran's abuses doesn't mean that we shouldn't solve the nuclear 
issue. We have already had that debate. Iran is still a state sponsor 
of terrorism, and the proposed expansion of its ballistic missile 
program is particularly troubling. These issues must be addressed.
  But a nuclear-armed Iran would only make these abuses more dangerous, 
and it would be wildly foolish to suggest that we must forego our only 
real opportunity to keep a nuclear weapon out of the regime's hands 
just because these ancillary issues remain. This bill would do exactly 
that. It would scuttle the JCPOA, the result of years of international 
negotiation and diplomacy in cooperation with our international 
partners. Absent the nuclear agreement, Iran could resume its nuclear 
program without international oversight, could go back to that 3-month 
breakout time, and, by the way, continue the state sponsorship of 
terrorism, continue its human rights abuses, and continue its ballistic 
missile expansion.
  In short, this bill would snatch the feet from the jaws of victory as 
the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program proceeds. It would be 
reckless in the extreme, and I strongly urge my colleagues to reject 
it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
the cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Chairman Royce, for your leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Russell's initiative.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, there was a murmur throughout the room here 
when the President was giving the State of the Union message. I am 
paraphrasing, but when he made the assertion that essentially the 
United States is perceived well around the world and, in fact, better 
than ever before, there was an audible sense of outcry. People were 
really concerned about that assertion. Then the President went on to 
make his point.
  I think it is an admonition for us all to recognize, as Judge Poe 
said a couple of moments ago, there is a wobbliness in this 
administration. In other words, how many provocations are the Iranians 
able to move forward and the administration is inert? How many 
provocations can the Iranians push and the administration remains with 
no action?
  I will tell you something. This is just off the news. Reuters is 
reporting that the Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, the head of the 
Iranian Armed Forces, says that the naval incident that is being 
reconciled today, that this should be a lesson to whom? To 
troublemakers in Congress--troublemakers in Congress--who oppose 
Iranian aggression.
  I think Mr. Russell's approach here is very commonsense. It says 
those who have been complicit in sponsoring terror in the past ought 
not be getting the benefit of the sanctions regime being raised; they 
don't get the benefit of participating in that. This has to be 
certified clearly, according to Mr. Russell's language, and it makes 
all the sense in the world.
  The notion that somehow the administration is incapable of doing this 
I don't find persuasive. I think we need an administration that can 
make these certifications, that does make these certifications, and if 
they can't, then these terror financiers ought not be getting the 
benefit of sanctions relief.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), a very valued member of our committee and 
ranking member on the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for every sanctions bill on Iran 
that has come to this floor--I helped draft many of them--and I am 
ready to help draft, work on, and vote for sanctions bills on Iran 
because Iran continues its behavior in the area of missiles, and 
terrorism, and keeps seizing American hostages. I am ready to work on 
and support legislation to impose sanctions on Iran even if it is 
opposed by the administration. After all, almost every sanctions bill 
passed by this Congress was opposed either by the George W.

[[Page H351]]

Bush administration or this administration.
  We need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what 
President Obama told us we would do, and that is use sanctions to deal 
with Iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing. But we need a good process that will 
get us good legislation. Unfortunately, this is a bill that is the 
product of a bad process, a flawed process, and the bill itself is 
flawed.
  Let's look at the process.
  Almost 100 cosponsors, but all of them from one party. No Democrat on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee was invited to help draft the legislation 
or even invited to cosponsor it. Now this bill comes to the floor under 
a closed rule, a rule that prevents us from offering amendments that 
will deal with the flaws in the bill. There are at least two such 
flaws.
  The first is that the bill deprives the President of the authority to 
delist 489 entities. It locks those entities onto the SDN list, but it 
leaves out 269 other entities, creating two classes of entities: one 
which must stay on the list under almost any circumstance I can think 
of, the other which the President can remove. And there is no 
particular reason for the 269 entities to be treated differently than 
the 489. All of them have been involved in supporting Iran's 
proliferation and terrorist efforts.

                              {time}  1100

  Second, this bill creates too high a standard for the President to be 
able to remove an entity. He has to certify that it has never at any 
time in history engaged in even the most trivial transaction with a 
whole list of terrorist entities. We need a better drafting of that 
portion of the bill that deals with delisting entities, perhaps 
entities that have changed their behavior for well over a decade.
  I look forward to a bipartisan process and to, hopefully, an open 
rule. We see that reflected in the fact that I have introduced 
legislation, as just an example, that would impose additional sanctions 
on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and that is sponsored by the 
chairman of our committee and by the immediate past chairman of our 
committee.
  I know our committee can work in a bipartisan way to create better 
legislation than that which is before us, and we need additional 
sanctions on Iran drafted carefully because Iran has engaged in a 
missile test in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, because 
Iran's support for terrorism and Assad is responsible for the deaths of 
tens and tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of people in Syria 
and Yemen and because Iran used to hold four, but now holds five, 
American hostages. Fortunately, it does not hold our U.S. Navy sailors, 
but it holds five American civilians.
  It is consistent with American policy and with this administration's 
policy. They negotiated a nuclear deal. They kept it only on the 
nuclear issue not because America has conceded and has accepted and has 
given Iran carte blanche to engage in terrorism and hostage-taking, but 
because the President's policy was that we would deal with these issues 
separately. It is time for us to deal with these issues separately 
through well-drafted, bipartisan legislation.
  I am confident that, in the weeks to come, the administration will 
use its existing power to sanction additional entities as a result of 
Iran's illegal missile test, and I am confident that our committee will 
craft bipartisan legislation that will do what we know we need to do to 
deal with Iran's wrongdoing outside the nuclear area.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Trott), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. TROTT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3662.
  When President Obama announced the nuclear agreement, he promised 
that sanctions against Iran's support of terrorism, human rights 
abuses, and its ballistic missile program would continue to be 
enforced. All this bill does is require the President to keep his word.
  If the bill passes, the President won't be able to give Hezbollah, 
Hamas, and other terrorist groups billions of dollars. They will not be 
able to use billions of dollars to continue testing long-range missiles 
in violation of U.N. resolutions.
  Who can disagree with this goal? The President probably disagrees.
  Some suggest that, if the bill reaches his desk, he will veto it. All 
we in Congress can do is to try and remind the President about his 
promises surrounding this deal.
  This might also be a good time to remind the President about Iran's 
behavior over the past 2 months. They convicted and imprisoned one of 
our journalists. They detained another American. They released five al 
Qaeda prisoners. They have not released the four Americans they have 
been holding for years. They have tested their ballistic missiles. They 
fired a missile that came close to one of our naval vessels. And in the 
last 24 hours, they held 10 American sailors.
  It may well be true that neither Iran's behavior nor this bill will 
cause the President to realize he made a mistake in trusting Iran. I 
will rely on historians for that.
  It is unfortunate that this debate and this bill are necessary to 
remind the President that we expect him to keep his promise, his 
promise to withhold billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Iran 
will otherwise use to spread terror and will use to develop ballistic 
missiles that are aimed at our shores.
  Ranking Member Engel may be correct in that our actions today are 
symbolic, but we troublemakers in Congress have no choice. Whenever 
possible, we must try to remind the President that he cannot do a good 
deal with a bad guy.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3662.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from New York has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce's Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate the chairman's leadership. The gentleman 
knows how hard I work in supporting freedom and of my opposition to 
totalitarian regimes.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we passed H.R. 757, the North Korea Sanctions 
Enforcement Act. Unfortunately, I missed that vote--that happens here 
sometimes--and the gentleman knows how I fully support it.
  Again today we address a problem with a rogue regime: Iran. I voted 
against the flawed Iranian deal. Iran still holds a marine veteran, a 
contractor, an American pastor, and a Washington Post reporter. They 
have tested two ballistic missiles. Sanctions should not be waived by 
the U.S. That is why I support this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Stewart), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. STEWART. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in my work on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I have spent an awful lot of my time on these types of 
issues. I think there is much we can say about this bill, but at the 
end of the day, it comes down to two fundamental questions. They are 
really quite simple.
  The first is: Do you believe that the President will hold Iran 
accountable?
  In an interview yesterday, I challenged the other person to show me 
the President's foreign policy success because I believe in this 
administration there has been 7 years of foreign policy failure, from 
China, to Russia, to Afghanistan, to Syria. The list is long. We have 
to ask: Do we trust the President to implement policies that keep the 
world more or less safe?
  The second question is just as simple: Do we trust Iran?
  I asked Secretary Kerry to show me a single example of Iran working 
with us or with our allies in any positive fashion. They are, as has 
been said

[[Page H352]]

here, the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism.
  Recently they broke U.N. agreements not to test ballistic missiles. 
They have held our soldiers. From Hezbollah, to Hamas, to Syria, they 
foster terror and darkness everywhere they go. Do we trust Iran? Very 
simply, the answer is no, which is why this bill is so important.
  It helps us to hold Iran accountable. It helps us to hold their 
proxies accountable. It removes the incentives for them to continue to 
expand their power and their policies and their goals, which are 
counter to U.S. and Western goals throughout the world.
  That is why I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to as well.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
kindness. I acknowledge the chairman of this committee for his 
courtesies in debating this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think it is important for all of us to 
acknowledge the safe return of our United States sailors and to 
recognize that the United States was persistent and determined and, as 
well, made no apology and that the Iran Government moved quickly to 
return them.
  Let it be very clear that our sailors did nothing wrong. Obviously, 
when other sailors are in trouble, let me thank those who remain, as 
our heroes do. They leave no person, in essence, behind. So I am very 
grateful, and I know their families are grateful that they are safe.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctive point from where we are today. 
Everyone knows that Iran is a bad actor. Some of us on this floor voted 
for the Iran non-nuclear agreement while others did not. But I believe 
that we do ourselves harm when we continue to renegotiate or to re-
vote, as we have continued to do 62 times with regard to ObamaCare.
  This legislation would restrict the President's ability to lift 
sanctions on Iranian entities, thereby preventing the U.S. from 
carrying out its commitment under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action, signed in Vienna, Austria, on July 14, 2015.
  Specifically, the bill would require the President to certify that 
the delisted entity has not knowingly facilitated a significant 
financial transaction or has provided significant financial services to 
the IRGC or to terrorist affiliates.
  This, of course, would be a very difficult and hindering aspect of 
the President's responsibilities in his role as the Commander in Chief. 
It would specifically prevent the delisting of 400 banks, companies, 
and individuals that are engaged in Iran's nuclear program, 
particularly the Central Bank.
  Section 2 would require the President to certify to Congress that any 
entity from the Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list has not 
ever knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation impedes, prohibits, 
and stops the President and the next President, as our representative 
of the face of America internationally and who has the responsibility, 
from enforcing this agreement. It was done primarily to stop Iran's 
nuclear efforts.
  I, too, as one who has supported this legislation, believes that 
sanctions should be increased and that we should respond to Iran's 
ballistic missile episode, but there are ways to do that by 
strengthening the sanctions, not by tying the hands of the Commander in 
Chief--the President of the United States--and not by renegotiating 
this on the floor of the House to the extent that we have, in essence, 
giving the President no latitude with which to negotiate.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it is not 
legislation that enhances our place. It takes away from the President's 
authority, and it makes it very difficult to interact with Iran. Let me 
be very clear: Iran has its troubles, and it is a bad actor, but I will 
tell you there are better ways to handle this situation.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3662, the Iran 
Terror Finance Transparency Act.
  We are here again wasting valuable time on measures we know have no 
real chance of survival beyond these debates.
  I strongly oppose this futile measure to block all efforts to enforce 
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
  H.R. 3662, would prevent the U.S. from implementing the JCPOA by 
tying the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under 
this long negotiated deal to unrelated, non-nuclear issues.
  The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror 
Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the United States from 
implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by tying 
the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal 
to unrelated, non-nuclear issues.
  This bill includes provisions that connect the United States' JCPOA 
commitment to provide sanctions relief by delisting certain Iran-
related individuals and entities, including banks, to non-nuclear 
issues outside of the scope of the JCPOA.
  Certain provisions would effectively preclude delisting of 
individuals or entities on Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on 
which the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has 
completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly dismantle and 
constrain its nuclear program--based on activity that may have taken 
place and ended long before Implementation Day and involving persons or 
activity that will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day.
  By preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA 
commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a comprehensive 
diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran 
from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on Iran's 
nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to the unraveling 
of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a 
devastating blow to America's credibility as a leader of international 
diplomacy.
  This would have ripple effects, jeopardizing the hard work of 
sustaining a unified coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing 
activities in the region, calling into question the effectiveness of 
our sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear non-
proliferation.
  The Administration has consistently made clear that the purpose of 
the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the JCPOA--was to address one 
issue only: the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear 
program and to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  The JCPOA is the critical mechanism through which the United States 
was able to garner international support for our sanctions and achieve 
a diplomatic resolution.
  As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program through 
implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration remains clear-eyed and 
shares the deep concerns of the Congress and the American people about 
Iran's support for terrorism.
  Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorism, its 
ballistic missile activities, its human rights abuses, and its 
destabilizing activities in the region remain in effect.
  Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports individuals or 
entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's support for terrorism or 
development of WMD and their means of delivery, including missiles--or 
who does the same with any Iranian individual or entity who remains on 
Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, 
puts themselves at risk of being sanctioned.

  Up until this point, Iran has been meeting all commitments under the 
JCPOA--any impediments to the United States ability to uphold its 
commitments jeopardizes the security of our nation.
  The President has made it clear that he will veto any legislation 
that prevents the successful implementation of the JCPOA.
  According to the Statement on Administrative Policy, if presented 
with H.R. 3662, the President will VETO this bill.
  Let's just take a quick look back at some of the President's foreign 
policy achievements:
  The capture and neutralization of Osama Bin Laden which brought an 
end to a nearly decade long manhunt.
  The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq which helped to bring an end 
to a costly war, helping our country save billions of dollars in U.S. 
taxpayer funds.
  The current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has been 
instrumental in deterring and stemming Iran's nuclear ambitions and 
enabling security in the global society.
  The repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an aspersion on the personal 
private matters of those who have dedicated their lives to protecting 
our nation.
  Signing into law the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), an 
important treaty

[[Page H353]]

that showcases how the U.S leads by example by signing a treaty that 
requires both the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear 
warhead arsenals to 1,550 each, a 30 percent reduction from the 2002 
Treaty of Moscow and a 74 percent reduction from the 1991 START treaty.
  Neutralization of al Qaeda propagandist and foreign fighter recruiter 
Anwar Al Awlaki, one of the main leaders in the Al Qaeda in the Arabian 
Peninsula (AQAP).
  Indeed, under President Obama's leadership, our country's military 
aid to Israel has increased remarkably with the eye towards deepening 
and expanding U.S./Israeli relations--an important aspect of our 
nation's foreign policy and geopolitical efforts to promote peace in 
the region.
  Not to mention historical deals on the environment vis a vis Cop 21, 
organizing over 200 nations on strategies to protect the environment 
and proposed trade deals that will organize and facilitate the United 
States stamp on the Asian economy.
  This president's foreign policy achievements in promoting the 
security of our nation are irrefutable.
  Any serious legislation addressing Iran should be done as it has been 
done up until now, in a bipartisan way.
  H.R. 3662 is an entirely partisan bill that excluded the 
participation of all Democratic Members in drafting this measure or 
supporting it.
  This bill is fundamentally flawed and I urge all Members to vote 
against it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance), who is the cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. LANCE. I thank Chairman Royce and Mr. Russell for their 
tremendous leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3662, the Iran 
Terror Finance Transparency Act.
  The detention and interrogation of 10 American sailors near the 
Strait of Hormuz is the latest in a significant list of Iranian acts of 
aggression against American interests since President Obama signed the 
Iran nuclear agreement in October. Thank God our sailors have been 
released. They never should have been detained.
  In recent weeks, we have witnessed two reported long-range ballistic 
missile launches, the revelation by Iran of a new underground missile 
depot, the firing of rockets near U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of 
Hormuz, and the Tehran government continuing to hold American hostages. 
These provocations and the lack of response from the White House have 
merely emboldened Iran to increase its aggression. Iran believes it can 
act against American interests with impunity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and to 
stop the lifting of sanctions on Iran that would provide billions of 
dollars in economic relief.
  Let's send a clear message that Iran's aggression against the United 
States and its allies will not go unchallenged by Congress. History 
will judge our actions on this issue as history will judge the 
President and the administration on their actions on this issue. Let 
history be the judge. Let's support H.R. 3662.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ENGEL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Russell), author of this legislation.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this bill.
  There have been a lot of accusations about what is in this bill and 
the content. The fact of the matter is, what is being quoted is simply 
not in the bill.
  It says that it would deprive the President of the authority to make 
decisions. That is simply not the case. Page 2, line 20; page 5, line 
17; page 7, line 7: ``The President may lift''--spelled out--if he 
meets the certification criteria. What is that criteria? That they are 
no longer conducting activity and they have justification for that 
relief.
  Where this language ``never at any time'' is being quoted, Mr. 
Speaker, by my esteemed and caring colleagues on this issue--I know how 
they feel about this issue personally, and I commend them for it 
because we are on common ground here--but they are quoting something 
that is simply not in the bill. When they say ``never at any time,'' 
that is simply not there.
  The President may lift the sanctions. What we are calling for is a 
certification as to why. If he comes in and makes the case--look, this 
bank has corrected its behavior, general Soleimani has had some 
epiphany and he is no longer a terrorist--then, fine, we can have that 
certification, and the President does that.
  Talking about several of them and that there was no bipartisan 
effort, every single speaker that has said that there was not a 
bipartisan effort I have personally been in contact with--personally--
talking on this particular issue. So that is simply not the case. I am 
kind of hurt by that because I reached out to all of them, and I didn't 
deny any of them a chance for amendment, for dialogue, or discussion. I 
do think that we have much common ground to go on here.
  I think it is also important that it says that it doesn't advance 
goals. It is upholding the law. The law, which is the Comprehensive 
Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act of 2010, says that if there are 
people on terror and human rights list, that they shouldn't come off 
without certification. We agree. That is why we are saying we have to 
have the similar certification for those that overlap on the joint 
agreement. That is why we have identified them.
  The hundreds of others that were mentioned by the opponents of this 
measure, Mr. Speaker, they weren't on those lists. That is why they are 
not there. They weren't targeted for this. Only those that are on the 
terror and human rights or nuclear proliferation with missiles list, if 
they are there, then that is why they have been targeted.
  This isn't apparently about the merit of the measure or how we feel 
about the national security of the United States. It has now become an 
issue about process. Well, I guess that experience doesn't matter. It 
is about process. We need to do what is right for the country, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Let me first clear up, I think, what is a misperception. There are 
roughly 700 Iranian entities on our sanctions list. Of those, only 200 
are removed from sanctions and those are those who were involved in the 
nuclear program. It is not true that the JCPOA removed sanctions on 
entities that are engaged in terrorism or proliferation or human rights 
violations. This is black and white in the JCPOA.
  Entity by entity, we know exactly who will be removed. None of them 
are involved in terrorism or other malign behavior. We know who will be 
removed. There is a list in the annex. I have it right here, every 
company that will be removed, and none of them are removed for 
terrorism or other malign behavior. So I want to make that very, very 
clear.
  Let me say that I think everyone on both sides has good intentions, 
and I think that we don't disagree about Iran. The question here is not 
whether Iran is a bad player or a good player. I don't trust the 
Iranians. I voted against the deal, and I don't believe anything the 
government says. That is not the question here.
  The question is, how do you combat it in a unified way? We are not 
interested in embarrassing the President, certainly not on this side of 
the aisle. We are not interested in playing gotcha with the President 
either. We want to have a bill that has input from both sides so we can 
accomplish what both of us say we want to accomplish, and that is to 
hold Iran's feet to the fire.
  I want to make sure that the JCPOA--again, which I did not support, 
but again it is the law--that Iran is complying with everything it is 
supposed to be doing. And that is where our efforts should be, to make 
sure that they do that, and then to also make sure that our allies like 
Israel have the kind of help that they need to maintain their 
qualitative military edge and to have another memorandum of 
understanding with the United States that supports Israel. This is what 
we should be concentrating on, not embarrassing the President or 
playing gotcha. That doesn't do anything.
  Mr. Russell, the gentleman from Oklahoma, did come up to me and ask 
me if I would cosponsor the bill, but that was after it was already 
drafted, having no input into the bill. So that is not really a way of 
being collaborative, if you really want to be collaborative.

[[Page H354]]

  I appreciate what the gentleman from Oklahoma says. I don't doubt his 
sincerity, and he obviously worked very hard on this bill, but many of 
us have difficulties with it.
  We don't have difficulties with the end goal, with what we want to 
accomplish. We have difficulties by the way this is done. This seems, 
again, more to us like embarrassing the President, calling him names, 
than really putting our heads together in a collaborative way and 
really doing something that will hold Iran's feet to the fire.
  So I believe in the old adage that politics should stop at the 
water's edge when we are talking about foreign affairs. That is why I 
love the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Our Nation's security and our interests abroad are too important to 
let partisan politics get in the way. Ninety-nine times out of 100, the 
Foreign Affairs Committee operates in that spirit, and this bill is an 
exception to that. I think the lack of input from both sides of the 
aisle, the lack of time the Foreign Affairs Committee didn't spend 
working on it, is reflected in the final product. I am not pointing a 
finger at anybody. Again, I think Mr. Russell is sincere about this. I 
think we want the same thing.
  This bill is deeply flawed. It would force the President to meet an 
impossible standard on an issue where Congress had already spoken. That 
is no way to advance our interests abroad. That is no way to hold Iran 
accountable.
  So let's vote down this bill, go back to the drawing board, and come 
back with bipartisan legislation that would actually help us achieve 
our aims. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Again, the question here is not whether Iran can be trusted. They 
cannot. Iran is a bad player. Three people on this side of the aisle 
who spoke against this bill voted against the JCPOA. So it is not a 
matter of just trying to rubberstamp what the administration wants or 
anything like that. No, we don't think that this bill goes in the right 
direction. We don't want to embarrass the President. We want to work 
with the President to make sure that Iran's feet are held to the fire.

  Again, we had the vote on the Iran deal. I voted no, my friends on 
that side of the aisle voted no, but we lost. So let's not repeat what 
we have done with the Affordable Care Act, 62 times again and again and 
again playing gotcha with the President.
  Let's do something that really works. Let's put our heads together to 
make it work. We can take parts of this bill and put it together into a 
bipartisan bill. I am not opposed to that. But we have got to do it 
together. Politics need to stop at the water's edge.
  So let's now work together to ensure that Iran is complying with the 
JCPOA. That would be a positive step forward. Let's hold their feet to 
the fire. Let's make sure they do what they are supposed to do, because 
I don't trust them anymore than anybody on that side of the aisle.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's do 
what the Foreign Affairs Committee is known for doing for the past 3 
years under the leadership of Chairman Royce and myself. We believe 
that we are the most bipartisan committee in the Congress. We believe 
that is the way foreign policy should be created, and I know we can do 
better. Again, I don't impugn anyone's motives. Let's all put our heads 
together and let's come up with a bill that we can pass and be proud 
of.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate all the Members who have engaged in this debate. As 
Ranking Member Engel noted, this is not usually the place we find 
ourselves. What we have seen from Iran over the last few months is that 
the Iranian threat isn't going away. So we will have to keep working 
together to address the Iranian threat, and I look forward to that 
continuing collaboration.
  As the Iran nuclear agreement gets set for implementation, some 500 
specific individuals and companies and several banks are set to get 
relief for their ties to the nuclear program. This bill simply asks the 
President to ensure that those receiving this reprieve are not involved 
in Iran's support for terrorism, nor are they involved in the missile 
development program that Iran continues to push for intercontinental 
ballistic missiles.
  Soon, maybe in a matter of days, Iran will get access to over $100 
billion in frozen oil assets, and this is not going to go to the 
Iranians on the street. This is not going to go to small business in 
Iran, to those that despise their government. It is going to go to the 
regime. It is going to go to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  The reason it would work that way is because that is the entity that 
nationalized these businesses years ago, after 1979. They are the ones 
that right now control approximately a quarter of the entire economy, 
including the major businesses, such as, for example, energy or 
construction.
  If we look at what the U.S. Department of Treasury says about this, 
they labeled the IRGC as the ``most powerful economic actor'' in the 
country. So this entity has deep reach into those critical sectors of 
the economic infrastructure, as the Treasury Department tells us. The 
IRGC's largest business is its construction arm, which controls 800 
affiliated companies and billions of dollars in assets.
  These activities, in turn--and here is the problem, here is the nexus 
of the problem--fund Iran's ballistic missile program. What we had 
hoped for was, of course, to temper the appetite of the regime to move 
forward with that ICBM program. Instead what we see is a huge step-up 
several weeks ago as the President of Iran announced this huge step-up.
  Now we see these ICBMs that are being launched and tested. We also 
see the military activities, the regional aggression, the call for the 
overthrow of the governments in Yemen, which they actually carried out 
in Bahrain, and in Saudi Arabia. This is a huge problem because the 
IRGC are doing this.
  Now, during our hearings, Members expressed concerns that there would 
be no pushback from the administration when it comes to Iran's 
aggressive behavior. This has, unfortunately, proven correct.
  The response to two ballistic missile tests? The administration 
proposed a few modest sanctions. We were all notified about that. What 
happened? As soon as Iran pushed back, what happened? The 
administration pulled them back.
  The Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, ordered his Defense Ministry 
to accelerate its missile program just weeks after the Obama 
administration joined with his diplomatic partners to sweep Iran's past 
illicit nuclear weapons activities under the rug. Again, countries 
pursue ICBMs for one reason: to deliver a nuclear warhead.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3662--
the most recent attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear agreement. This 
legislation would explicitly prevent the United States from 
implementing its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action (JCPOA).
  We are all concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran, 
given its history and nebulous relationship with the United States. 
This is why I have consistently supported a diplomatic solution with 
other world powers, as sanctions do not work when applied by the U.S. 
alone. The JCPOA is our best path forward to enforce a non-nuclear 
future for Iran, particularly as we have countries, including China and 
Russia, join with us.
  We're going to need to be diligent. Iran does have a number of 
internal conflicts and bad actors. The clerics and some members of the 
Iranian Revolutionary Guard are destructive components within a country 
whose people have long suffered from the effects of sanctions. There is 
no indication that destroying this agreement would put us in a better 
position to prevent Iran from revitalizing its nuclear program. If the 
agreement falls apart, we can always sanction later. In the meantime, 
we ought to continue to give diplomacy a chance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H355]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and a result was announced. 
The vote was subsequently vacated by order of the House, and pursuant 
to clause 8 of rule XX and by order of the House, further proceedings 
on the question of passage of the bill were postponed to January 26, 
2016.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44. We are at war. 
My top priority is to keep our families safe. We must hold Iran 
accountable for financing terrorism. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on 
January 13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 13, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on 
January 13th, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, on January 13, 2016, I regret that I was 
otherwise detained and unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 44, 
on passage of H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on 
January 13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was unavoidably 
detained in a constituent meeting. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was meeting with 
constituents and was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on January 
13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 44 on 
January 13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was 
not present for one rollcall vote on Wednesday, January 13, 2016. Had I 
been present, I would have voted in this manner: Rollcall Vote Number 
44--H.R. 3662--``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote number 44 on January 
13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained due to traffic delay. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no''.

                          ____________________