[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.''

                          ____________________