[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4860-H4866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1615
NO 2H2O FROM IRAN ACT
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 819, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5119) to prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds
available to any Federal department or agency for any fiscal year to
purchase or issue a license for the purchase of heavy water produced in
Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 819, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5119
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 ``No \2\H2O from
Iran Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO
PURCHASE OR ISSUE A LICENSE FOR THE PURCHASE OF
HEAVY WATER PRODUCED IN IRAN.
No funds available to any Federal department or agency for
any fiscal year may be obligated or expended--
(1) to purchase heavy water produced in Iran; or
(2) to issue a license for the purchase of heavy water
produced in Iran.
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.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this bill. What this would do is prohibit the
United States from spending millions of dollars purchasing from Iran
heavy water. Iran--I think we should remember--is the number one state
sponsor of terrorism. Heavy water is essential to the production of
weapons-grade plutonium.
While this relatively rare chemical is not radioactive, it has long
been tightly controlled. Why? Because of its use as a coolant in heavy
water nuclear reactors. These are the types of reactors which experts
call a plutonium bomb factory.
The history of this goes back. If we think back during the Second
World War, the fall of Norway and its heavy water plant to the Nazis
created a very real risk that Hitler could win the race to build the
bomb. In response, at the time, the Allies launched several daring
commando raids--the most daring of the war--and hundreds of bombers in
what was ultimately their successful effort to prevent the Nazis from
using heavy water to develop weapons-grade plutonium. That is how
important this process has been in history in the race to that weapon.
So fast forward several decades, and now the Obama administration's
nuclear agreement does not limit Iran's ability to produce heavy water.
This is one of the agreement's many flaws, in my opinion. But, instead,
the deal allows Iran to possess a small amount of heavy water for its
newly legitimized nuclear program and requires Iran to ship any excess
heavy water that it produces out of the country.
So, while this deeply flawed deal allows Iran to sell its excess
heavy water on the international market, it certainly doesn't require
the United States to buy Iran's excess heavy water. If there are no
buyers, then Iran would have to comply with the limits on its heavy
water possession by suspending production, or it could also dilute any
excess heavy water that it currently possesses. That makes sense to me.
Let me be clear. Despite false claims, enacting this legislation
would not cause the United States or Iran to violate the nuclear deal.
What we are talking about here is something that is not in the deal,
whether or not we subsidize their production of heavy water.
So what it would prevent, clearly, is it would prevent the
administration from going above and beyond the agreement to deliver
Iran financial rewards that were never part of the agreement that
passed this House.
That is one of the reasons why the Obama administration's purchase of
28
[[Page H4861]]
metric tons of heavy water from Iran is so concerning. Purchases like
this only--as I indicated--subsidize and incentivize Iran's continued
production of this sensitive material that plays an essential role in
the production of weapons-grade plutonium.
I just want to go to the words of David Albright, which I think all
of us should reflect on here. He is a respected nonproliferation
expert, and he said these words: We should not be paying Iran for
something they shouldn't be producing in the first place.
That is my point, Mr. Speaker. So this bill is simple. It prohibits
U.S. purchases, prohibits us paying Iran for heavy water from their
facility, and, thus, prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from subsidizing
this rogue regime.
I also want to thank the author, Mr. Pompeo, for his work. I urge all
Members to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, by now, everyone knows that I opposed the Iran nuclear
deal. But as I have said again and again and again, now that the deal
is done, we need to focus on holding Iran's leaders to their word and
holding the regime accountable for its other bad behavior. I think you
would be hard-pressed to find any Member of this body who disagrees
with that goal.
But there is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do it. The
right way to do it is to collaborate across the aisle to draft
legislation that will win bipartisan support, that will make it across
the finish line, and that the President will sign into law.
The right way to do it is to let committees go through a regular
process, a regular order, so that Members on both sides have a chance
to debate and contribute.
The right way to do it is to bring it to the floor in a way that
ensures we end up with the best possible legislation so that we can
honestly advance American interests and protect American security.
The wrong way to do it is to ram it through the Rules Committee--that
is what happens here--and bring it to the floor with no chance to offer
new ideas to make the bill better. But that is exactly where we are
today. That is why this bill is so deeply flawed. That is why it has no
chance of becoming law, and that is a shame, in my opinion, because
this bill might have been a good starting point.
Again, I think we do need to deal with Iran more forcefully.
Generally speaking, I agree that we shouldn't be buying heavy water
from Iran. But this bill is far too broad. It is a blanket
prohibition--no waivers, no sunset, no exceptions. We have no idea what
the unintended consequences of this bill could be in the years ahead.
Those are the uncertainties we try to deal with on the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
So pull it out of a committee's jurisdiction, give it to the Rules
Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee really has no say in what
is truly an important Foreign Affairs Committee bill.
Mr. Speaker, traditionally, the House Iran-related bills have been
bipartisan. The way we have dealt with Iran has maybe been the best
example of nonpartisan collaboration on foreign policy, or bipartisan
collaboration on foreign policy, and politics stopping at the water's
edge. But in this case, the Speaker has totally circumvented the
Foreign Affairs Committee and our normal bipartisan approach. I think
there are serious consequences to the process that led us here. We are
sending a message to the rest of the world that foreign policy issues
are now part of everyday politics. This is a dangerous path.
I don't blame my good friend Chairman Royce for this lousy process.
This isn't the way he runs our committee, and I am grateful, as always,
for his fair leadership. Tomorrow, we are marking up 13 bipartisan
measures in our committee. That is the way it should be. We pride
ourselves in bipartisanship. That is how you pass legislation in
foreign policy, and that is exactly what we are not doing here this
afternoon.
But I am left to wonder, what happened to the Speaker's commitment to
regular order? When he became Speaker, that was the platform he rode in
on. What do our friends in the Freedom Caucus and the Liberty Caucus
have to say about the Speaker's change of heart? It just isn't right.
It leads to bad policy. Foreign policy is rarely black and white.
There are very few times when it is smart to say: ``This is the right
way to go, without exception, in perpetuity.'' That is what the bill
does. Complexity isn't a vice in foreign policy, and sometimes bills
that are only a page or two long are the most dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that we are spending time on a
measure that we all know isn't going anywhere and that we all know is
just political theater as my friends in the majority move into the
convention next week. We could be using this time in an honest effort
to make our country safer with this issue, which is an important issue.
But a flawed process has led to a flawed bill, and I am forced to
oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include any extraneous material on H.R. 5119.
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 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), the author of this legislation.
Mr. POMPEO. I thank the chairman for the gentleman's good work on
policing and performing oversight on the JCPOA.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5119, to prevent the
United States purchase of heavy water from Iran.
I want to start by pointing out the recent statements from the
Department of State and the Department of Energy confirming that the
United States was under no commitment to purchase heavy water from Iran
nor is it committed to do so in the future. The Obama administration
only acknowledged this fact last month as a result of a congressional
inquiry from my office.
This legislation is really very simple and as straightforward as you
can get. H.R. 5119, the No 2H2O from Iran Act, would prohibit Federal
funds from being used to purchase heavy water and also prohibit Federal
funds from being used to issue licenses to purchase heavy water from
Iran.
Tomorrow marks the 1-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action. This week, the House is taking a stand against Iran and the
dangerous deal this Nation entered into--reflecting very much what I
hear when I am back in Kansas.
Americans know President Obama's unsigned and unratified political
commitment with the Islamic Republic of Iran does not make them safer.
Americans see Iran continue to test sophisticated ballistic missiles.
They see Iran capture and humiliate American sailors. They see Iran
hold Americans and other foreigners hostage. They see Iran fire rockets
dangerously close to American aircraft carriers.
While many constituents are back home watching us vote on this issue,
the Iranian Ayatollah is watching this too. I know this because Iran is
desperate. On Monday, it announced that it had received $8.6 million in
exchange for 32 tons of Iranian heavy water that the Obama
administration wanted to purchase back in April.
Only then, only after the Iranians had chosen to reveal the status of
this funding, shortly before this very vote, did the Obama
administration come clean to the American public with some details of
this sale.
Mr. Speaker, must we always find out what is happening between the
United States and Iran from the Iranians?
Mr. Speaker, my bill will protect Americans and ensure the United
States does not become an active partner in Iran's nuclear program and
its terror regime. We cannot legitimize this nuclear proliferator. We
have already done enough for the Islamic Republic of Iran. We need not
act outside the requirements of the nuclear deal, no matter how much
Iranian mullahs
[[Page H4862]]
complain and no matter how much they threaten.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, our country made the correct
decision. We all agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons
program, but we decided the better way to achieve that was through
diplomacy rather than war.
Today, we deal with yet another challenge to that agreement. The
material involved is heavy water. For those who thought that war and
military action was the only way to prevent nuclear weapons development
in Iran, heavy water is the issue today, but it is just another way to
sink a successful agreement.
{time} 1630
When you look at the facts, how can it possibly be in our national
interest to take away our own authority to take away from Iran a
material that could be used in the development of nuclear weapons?
I don't think this is just about heavy water. When you consider the
facts and all that is represented here, it is a heavy lift, or a heavy
stretch, to believe that limiting ourselves somehow will protect our
families.
There are a number of nonmilitary uses for heavy water. The water we
are getting from Iran can be used by U.S. industry and research labs.
Heavy water is a critical material for biomedical and diagnostic
research, such as MRIs and pharmaceutical development, as well as a
variety of chemical and environmental analysis.
By purchasing this material, we make our families and allies safer
and boost American research and development. Exposed to light,
objections to our procuring this heavy water really do evaporate.
In World War II, many lives were lost to keep heavy water developed
by a Norwegian utility from being used by Nazi Germany for development
of a nuclear weapon. Here, we are using dollars instead of the lives of
young Americans and others to ensure there is no nuclear weapons
development within Iran and that there is less of this dual-use
material in Iran, and more of it in America.
I realize the strong desire here on the eve of the Republican
National Convention to undermine any success this Administration has.
But I believe this is a bipartisan success. That is one of the reasons
that a large number of experts on security policy--and former Members
of this body in the United States Senate, both Republicans and
Democrats--have joined together in bipartisan support of an agreement
that is working and that is making our families safer.
Don't vote to undermine the efforts of this international agreement.
Don't drown diplomacy by adopting this heavy water bill.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, the reality today is that the agreement was not intended to be
structured in a way that would give an inducement for Iran to go
forward with a production of heavy water and the export of heavy water
because, as we all know, in 15 years this agreement is going to be
over. At that point in time, we do not want Iran to have a full-scale
industrial weapons production capability.
If we create the market for heavy water--right now under the
agreement they are not supposed to have it on hand--if we create the
market by continuously purchasing this heavy water, yeah, they are
going to continue to produce it and, as a consequence, will further
develop their capability.
It is odd to me also, since the sale represents a government
intrusion into the North American heavy water market, why we would
prefer Iran continue the capability of developing this as opposed to an
American ally, Canada.
Why would we open the door to future U.S. purchases of Iran's heavy
water, which is what the administration is doing here, and choose Iran
as the supplier rather than our ally, Canada?
For these reasons, I am very concerned with that line of argument.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Trott), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this week, the administration agreed to a
catastrophic nuclear deal with Iran, a deal that was eventually
rejected by Congress in a bipartisan vote.
Despite negotiating from what should have been a position of
strength, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to appease
Iran. And even more disturbing, the administration admitted that it
used a false narrative to sell the nuclear deal to journalists and,
ultimately, to the American public.
As if the deal wasn't bad enough, the administration has made it a
point to make concession after concession in order to keep Iran happy.
The President tells us that Iran is honoring the deal, but German
intelligence tells us they are not. We were promised snapback
sanctions, but the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury
have been flying around Europe promoting Iran while trying to find
creative ways to give Iran access to the U.S. dollar. Lately, it seems
that our cabinet secretaries are acting more like ambassadors-at-large
for the Iranian Chamber of Commerce than Secretary of the Treasury and
Secretary of State.
We were told this deal wasn't about normalizing relations with Iran,
but the administration reportedly is weighing whether to back Iran's
bid to join the World Trade Organization. Rather than just adhere to
the deal, we are going above and beyond. We are using taxpayer dollars
to buy heavy water from Iran and indirectly eating Iran's nefarious
destabilizing activities in the region.
The administration claimed they understood the concerns of our ally,
Israel; but Iran violated the U.S. resolution by firing a ballistic
missile that said Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Mr. Speaker, the administration assured us that they are going to
push back on Iran's destabilizing activities and human rights concerns,
but 12 months later it seems like we have only empowered them.
If the administration won't hold Iran accountable, then the
responsibility falls on the people's House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Iran-
related measures on the floor this week.
The ranking member, a few minutes ago, made a point of suggesting
that there is no chance that the President would sign this bill, and
that we are wasting our time by debating it here today. It is incumbent
on us to call out the shortcomings on this deal. It is incumbent on the
House and the Members of the House to point out when Iran has violated
the deal. As I said frequently during the debate, you cannot do a good
deal with a bad guy.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this bill.
I am listening to the debate and, frankly, it is interesting to have
the two diametrically opposed views. This agreement a year ago was
supported by a range of former Secretaries of State in both parties. It
was an opportunity to move forward with our principal allies and with
China and with Russia to try and make Iran less likely to develop
nuclear weapons.
Mercifully, the agreement is in force, and for this first year it is
working. There is a reactor filled with concrete. This item here today
is an example of progress that my friends on the other side of the
aisle want to turn back. Under this agreement, they are required to
reduce the supply of heavy water. We are purchasing heavy water from
them, taking it out of their hands. At the same time, there are 14,000
fewer centrifuges that are operating in Iran and under international
supervision.
Why wouldn't we want to take away this essential element for the
production of nuclear weapons, especially since the United States has
an opportunity to purchase heavy water?
As my good friend from Texas pointed out, there are many research
applications for which we need heavy water.
[[Page H4863]]
My friend, the chairman of the committee, alluded to the question:
Why don't we use the North American production of heavy water?
Well, the United States doesn't manufacture heavy water anymore, and
Canada has stopped producing it and is selling it off.
Where are we going to get the heavy water from?
I think it is perfect to get it from Iran. We use it, it is
beneficial to us, and it takes a potential dangerous item out of their
hands.
I think the House should reject yet another effort to undermine the
agreement. The world is safer today than it was a year ago when Iran
was a month or 2 away from creating a nuclear weapon, and it created a
frenzy on the part of some of the people who are justifiably concerned
about Iran. Now that breakout date is a year away and we are
strengthening the potential ties.
The United States has serially mismanaged its relations with Iran
since we worked with the British to overthrow their popularly elected
government in 1953 and install a dictator, the shah, in charge. The
United States backed the murderous Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iranian
war when Saddam Hussein used poisonous gas against Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that Iran is one of the
few countries in the Middle East where the majority of the people still
like the United States, unlike some of our so-called allies over there.
Admittedly, there are people in the leadership in Iran who are bad
people who do bad things. The President of Iran has worked with us to
try and move the ball forward. This agreement is a foundation upon
which we can build. I am pleased that maybe they would buy airplanes
from us rather than the French or the European Union Airbus consortium.
I hope that we can get behind the reflexive opposition to this and
look at the facts. I think the facts are, at a minimum, we should buy
all of the heavy water from Iran we can at a market rate, get it out of
their hands, and help us with our needs.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think there is some confusion here. The point is that Iran is
continuing to manufacture heavy water. The point is that we are making
a market for their ability to export this instead of taking the legacy
stock of heavy water that is in the possession of Canada.
The reason Canada quit producing it is because they have ample stock,
and the presumption was they would sell that to the United States. Why?
Because Canada is not in the business of trying to become more
proficient in developing a market for something which can be used for
nuclear weapons production.
We have ample opportunity to purchase this from our ally. It is still
a requirement under the agreement that Iran cut back its reserve of
heavy water. If we are going to enter an ongoing program to continue to
purchase this from Iran, what we are doing is enabling them, enabling
them as they prepare 15 years from now, as I said earlier, to have that
turnkey operation where they can then have industrial-size capability
for the weapons program.
The other point I would make is that the reason the Iranians have a
favorable disposition towards the United States--and that is reflected
in the polling that shows that two-thirds of Iranians want a western-
style democracy without a theocracy--is because they don't happen to
agree with the policies of the Ayatollah and what happened in 1979 with
the revolutionary regime grabbing control of that government.
The consequences of that government nationalizing companies is that
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps actually controls the economy.
When we put money into that regime, what we are actually doing is
aiding and abetting the efforts of those that go to the streets and
yell ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel,'' and that is exactly
what the Ayatollah does.
We should have had a tilt to Iran, yes; but that tilt to Iran should
have been to the people of Iran who had that election stolen from them.
{time} 1645
That is where our tilt should have been. Instead, we are walking on
eggshells, and every time there is a new demand like this one, that we
now purchase and aid and abet their ongoing development of capability
on heavy water, it is beyond me. We have an annual report that was
published last month by the German Intelligence Service, and this is
what it reads:
The illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities
by Iran in Germany, registered by the Federal Office for the
Protection of the Constitution, persisted at what is, even by
international standards, a quantitatively high level last
year. This holds true, in particular, with regard to items
which can be used in the field of nuclear technology.
Iran is violating this agreement as we speak. It is not being
enforced. The debate here should be how we enforce this agreement, not
how we augment activities to further encourage the regime to avoid what
it agreed to.
Iran remains a center of illicit procurement, anxious to find ways to
circumvent U.S. export controls and sanctions. The nuclear deal
acknowledged this in annex I, which states that Iran intends to apply
nuclear export policies and practices in line with internationally
established standards for the export of nuclear material, equipment,
and technology.
Now, Iran has done absolutely nothing to implement this provision of
the agreement, and the administration appears content to allow them to
get out of doing so. That is what is concerning.
Finally, the components for the heavy water plant were illicitly
procured. Essentially, the United States Government is buying pirated
heavy water because the components for that heavy water plant were
illicitly procured.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5119, the No 2H2O from Iran Act.
It is now clear that a glaring side effect of the disastrous nuclear
deal with Iran is that it incentivizes Iran to keep overproducing heavy
water--a critical component in the production of weapons-grade
plutonium. Because this administration sees no problem with creating a
new U.S.-approved heavy water marketplace, it is, thereby, giving Iran
a green light to continue overproducing. There should, instead, be
serious consequences for Iran's overproduction of heavy water. Under
the administration's logic, we are paying and rewarding Iran for being
in violation of the nuclear agreement, and we are making it easier for
them to have nuclear weapons in the future.
It is high time for this administration to admit to the American
people and to itself that Iran has no intention of complying with the
nuclear deal. We should not give them any more concessions that cost
American taxpayers their hard-earned dollars while advancing Iran's
nuclear infrastructure.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend
Mr. Pompeo and the chairman for their leadership on this issue, and I
echo what the chairman said just a few moments ago.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5119, the No 2H2O from Iran Act.
This legislation would block the licensing and purchasing of heavy
water--nuclear material that is needed for a nuclear weapon--from Iran.
The bill became necessary when the administration announced it
intended to make an $8.6 million purchase of 32 tons of this nuclear
material despite the purchase not being required by the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Further, the administration never clarified how Iran would use such
funds or if steps would be taken to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are
not used by Iran to support terrorism, Iran's ballistic missile
program, or to finance other nefarious activities or bad actors in the
region.
The bill is necessary, unfortunately, because Iran is still producing
heavy
[[Page H4864]]
water, and, now, to echo the chairman's sentiments, we are creating a
market for it. That just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman for his leadership. I think
this is a very serious issue. I encourage all of my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania. There is no
requirement under the agreement that Iran cannot manufacture heavy
water. There is a limit on the amount that they can possess. That is
why the reserves are in storage elsewhere. The amount that we are
talking about now is already being shipped to the United States as we
speak.
Iran has a right, under the agreement, to continue producing heavy
water, which it will.
Where is the heavy water going to go?
They can sell it on the global market. I would rather they sell it to
the United States at market price than to North Korea or to Pakistan or
to some other actor.
This bill is misguided and misses the point. They are not violating
the agreement. We are better off in having the heavy water that we
need, that we don't produce, and that Canada has stopped producing that
we will be able to reinforce the possibility of having a successful
agreement over time.
I appreciate the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to at
least clarify what I think is reality.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A clarifying point is that they cannot sell it to North Korea. Iran
would not be able to do that because North Korea is under sanctions on
just that point.
I would also just make the argument that there is no scientific or
medical breakthrough that is dependent upon purchases of heavy water
from Iran; and, if there were, I have no doubt that we could work with
our ally, Canada, to make it happen because Canada, in particular, has
been creating a reliable, long-term heavy water supply that is able to
meet the projected increased needs in North America and elsewhere.
Canada stopped producing more because they have too much, and they
anticipated that we would purchase this from them. The United States
should support our ally, Canada, in this effort rather than in
subsidizing a state sponsor of terrorism's production of sensitive
material.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hill).
Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank Mr. Pompeo
for his work on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 5119, and I am a proud
cosponsor of this legislation.
Here, on the anniversary of Mr. Obama's deal with the theocracy of
Iran, passing the No 2H2O from Iran Act is a commonsense thing to do.
There is nothing in the failed, ill-conceived, misdirected, poorly
designed disaster of a nuclear deal which says the United States
Government is required to help Iran fulfill its commitments to limit
its stores of heavy water. I remain unconvinced today by the arguments
of my friends in the loyal opposition of the idea that our government
would obligate our taxpayers or even possess an option to buy Iranian
heavy water in the future. It is ridiculous. There is a private market
for heavy water in this world, and the Iranians are welcome to meet
their deal obligations in that private market. It is Iran's
responsibility to comply with the limits of its heavy water agreement.
As to the nuclear deal, it is not the United States' or any other
country's responsibility to buy a commodity in an already limited
global market from a government that has done nothing to indicate that
it is a friend.
I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage all of my
colleagues to support its passage.
I thank the chairman for his leadership consistently on analyzing the
President's transaction with Iran and its shortcomings. Here, a year
has passed, and we still see the failings of this transaction every
time we turn.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the chairman. I really appreciate Chairman
Royce for offering this legislation, and I thank Mike Pompeo for all of
his hard work.
Mr. Speaker, here is the deal. We were told by people like Ben Rhodes
that the Iran agreement was going to capitalize on winds of change
inside Iran and that this could be a way for Iran to cease its
offending conduct and become part of the community of nations. Yet here
we are, over a year out from this Iran deal, and Iran is increasing its
illegal proliferation procurement activities. It is increasing its
missile procurement activities. This is not the action of a country
that is looking to make nice with the rest of the world. They are
taking the concessions that were granted to them in this Iran deal, and
they are taking advantage of them, and they are expanding their
influence throughout the Middle East.
It is curious because the deal itself, I think, clearly, in looking
back on it, has been a failure; but what the administration is doing is
doubling down on that, and it is going even beyond what the deal says.
It wants to give Iran indirect access to the American dollar. Then this
purchasing of heavy water is not a requirement of the deal's. It,
effectively, acts as a subsidy on Iran for Iran's nuclear program. We
see other things like really lucrative aircraft deals that will help
Iran transport weapons to its proxies in places like Syria and Lebanon.
Of course, there are reports about uranium being found in Parchin,
one of the military sites. We are never going to be able to inspect
Parchin. That is not even in the deal. That is totally off the table.
Iran is not going to permit inspections there; so you could have some
of this activity continuing apace there.
I think it is great that a majority of us in this House has been on
the right side of this in voting against the Iran deal, in voting for a
number of years to sustain very tough sanctions on Iran. And now this
series of bills that we have, I think, is important, and particularly
the heavy water issue, because it is an unnecessary illicit subsidy
that we are sending over to Iran.
If you ask the American people whether they want their tax dollars
going to subsidize Iran's nuclear program, you will have overwhelming
opposition to such a policy; so I am happy to be here, speaking in
favor of this and of the other measures.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In the summer of 2013, we passed a very tough sanctions bill against
Iran. The chairman and I worked on it together very closely, and we
passed it unanimously out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Think about
that--unanimously. We have so many different ranges of ideologies on
the committee; yet, when it came to slapping sanctions on a murderous
regime, we found bipartisan consensus unanimously. That bill went to
the House floor and passed by a margin of 400-20. We sent it over to
the Senate, and, unfortunately, the Senate sat on it. It didn't pass
it.
I raise this because it shows what can happen when we work in a
bipartisan fashion on important foreign policy issues. This is
important. My friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
came up and who spoke disparagingly about Iran and the Iranian
Government will get no quarrel from me. I am no fan of the regime's and
I am no fan of a lot of things, but I do think that if we are going to
pass legislation that is going to have meaning, then we ought to do it
together in a bipartisan form.
{time} 1700
For the past 3\1/2\ years, Chairman Royce and myself have worked
really, really hard to put our heads together and come up with
bipartisan legislation, and this could have been the same. This could
have been the same.
This could have come to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We would have
debated it, and we would have passed it probably. There would have been
some changes with some difficulties that some of us find in the bill,
and perhaps we would have had a very similar vote. But it wasn't done
that way.
[[Page H4865]]
No regular order. Taking the bill out of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, where no one on the committee had a chance to either vote or
speak on it or give their opinion--absolutely nothing. It was taken to
the Rules Committee, rammed down, and came to the floor of the House.
There was no process, no transparency, no regular order, no
bipartisanship.
My God, if we cannot be bipartisan when it comes to foreign policy,
what can we be bipartisan on? Here is a perfect example.
So what happens is this bill is going to pass. I predict it will
pass, mostly along political lines. The President won't sign it. It
won't probably pass the other House.
But maybe if we had put our heads together and all worked together
and sent the bills to the Foreign Affairs Committee and came up with
legislation, maybe we could have had a bill that did 80 percent of what
this bill did, or maybe 90 percent, or maybe 100 percent but had
certain things in there--waivers and other things that are necessary--
in the bill. That is why I know that this is not a serious attempt at
doing it. It is an amendment attempt to score political brownie points,
and that is not what we should be all about, and that is not what we
should be doing.
My friends on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle
know, when I talk about foreign policy, I try to be principled. We may
not always agree, but I try to be principled on it. I try to say what I
feel. I try to find common ground.
So I hope this will be an anomaly. I hope that we can go back to the
bipartisan ways of the committee. I know tomorrow morning when we mark
up all those bills we will be doing it in a bipartisan way and, when we
come to legislation, the final product, that it is bipartisan. It is
not being bipartisan for the sake of it being bipartisan. It is not
just a semantical debate. It is the fact that it is good legislation on
foreign policy, and we always say that partisanship should stop at the
water's edge.
My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have gone on trips all over
the world. We have bipartisan delegations all the time. And what we
always find is, as Americans, when we go around the world, there is
very little that divides us. There is very little that divides us.
When we were in the majority and I was chairman of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee for 4 years, we went around to all these
countries. Everyone on my committee on my trip, Democrat or Republican,
had the ability to say whatever was on their mind and not once was
there ever a problem because, as Americans, we have so much more in
common than we have differences. And that is why, again, bipartisanship
should stop at the water's edge.
I worry because the world is watching as American foreign policy
falls victim to partisan politics. And, tomorrow, unfortunately, with
another bill, we are going to get more of the same.
So I hope that, in the future, we can get back to business as usual
because I know that Congress can work to push back on Iran's dangerous
behavior. I know that we can hold Iran's feet to the fire and make sure
that the nuclear deal, which passed--again, without my vote, but it
passed--and I want to make sure that that nuclear deal is being
implemented properly.
That is what we have to do: hold Iran's feet to the fire, do it in a
bipartisan way, not try to score political brownie points.
We all love this country. We want the right thing for this country.
Let's work together to make sure that foreign policy is as bipartisan
as it can be.
For now, I have to vote ``no'' on this bill. I urge my colleagues to
oppose it as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have a concern with the administration's decision on this issue
over Iran, not necessarily my colleagues here. My concern is that,
regardless of how we perceive the Iran deal that we voted on on the
floor, my concern is that the administration is now going beyond that
deal. It is the administration's conduct here that gives me pause.
When I hear the Secretary of Energy for the President, Mr. Ernest
Moniz, he made it clear that the U.S. purchase of this heavy water, in
his words, ``will be a statement to the world: `You want to buy heavy
water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It's been done.
Even the United States did it.' ''
Why are we giving the seal of approval to Iran's heavy water
production? Why is the administration doing that? This is beyond me. It
is beyond many experts.
I previously quoted nonproliferation expert David Albright, who has
said we shouldn't be paying Iran for something they shouldn't be
producing in the first place.
With this policy of purchasing Iran's heavy water, the Obama
administration is achieving two things. And neither of those two
things, in my opinion, are good. It is legitimatizing Iran's nuclear
program, and it is putting more money into Iran's pocket.
More buyers for Iran's heavy water means it will continue to produce
this sensitive material. And in just 15 years, when the President's
flawed nuclear deal expires, Iran can use this heavy water to produce
weapons-grade plutonium.
The Obama administration's latest effort to go above and beyond to
accommodate Iran should be rejected.
So I would urge all Members to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 819, 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.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on passage of the bill
will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to recommit on S. 304;
and passage of S. 304, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249,
nays 176, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 441]
YEAS--249
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
[[Page H4866]]
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--176
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Davis, Danny
Hastings
Knight
Loudermilk
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Takai
Young (IN)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1731
Mr. CARNEY and Mrs. BEATTY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas, VELA, and CARDENAS changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 441, I was unavoidably
detained outside the Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 441, I was
unavoidably detained outside the Chamber. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 441. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________