[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4957-H4964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM PROTECTION ACT OF 2016

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 819, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4992) to codify regulations relating to transfers of 
funds involving Iran, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
819, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4992

       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 ``United States Financial 
     System Protection Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, SENSE OF CONGRESS, AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) On November 8, 2011, the Department of the Treasury 
     identified the Islamic Republic of Iran as a jurisdiction of 
     primary money laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A of 
     title 31, United States Code, including Iran's Central Bank, 
     private Iranian banks, branches, and subsidiaries of Iranian 
     banks operating outside of Iran as posing illicit finance 
     risks for the global financial system.
       (2) On November 6, 2008, the Department of the Treasury 
     announced that it was revoking the ``U-turn'' license for 
     Iran, stating that ``as a member of the Financial Action Task 
     Force (FATF), the United States today fulfilled its 
     obligation to strengthen measures to protect the financial 
     sector from the risks posed to the international financial 
     system by Iran''.
       (3) On February 19, 2016, the Financial Action Task Force 
     (FATF), the global standard setting body for anti-money 
     laundering and combating the financing of terrorism which has 
     determined that Iran is a ``non-cooperating country or 
     territory'' in the fight against money laundering and terror 
     financing since 2008, stated that, ``the FATF remains 
     particularly and exceptionally concerned about Iran's failure 
     to address the risk of terrorist financing and the serious 
     threat this poses to the integrity of the international 
     financial system''.
       (4) United States and foreign businesses operating or 
     seeking to operate in Iran run significant risks, as 
     corruption in Iran is endemic, with Transparency 
     International ranking Iran 130 out of 168 countries.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the entire financial sector of Iran, including Iran's Central 
     Bank, private Iranian banks and branches, and subsidiaries of 
     Iranian banks operating outside of Iran, poses illicit 
     finance risks for the global financial system due to its 
     proliferation, support for terrorism, and other illicit 
     conduct.
       (c) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the 
     United States to--
       (1) deny Iran access to funds denominated in United States 
     dollars, including through any offshore United States dollar 
     clearing system for transactions involving the Government of 
     Iran or an Iranian person; and
       (2) deny Iran access to United States dollars through any 
     offshore United States dollar clearing system conducted or 
     overseen by a foreign government or a foreign financial 
     institution for transactions involving the Government of Iran 
     or an Iranian person.

     SEC. 3. CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF 
                   FUNDS INVOLVING IRAN; CLARIFICATION OF 
                   APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS TO FOREIGN 
                   DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS AND FOREIGN REGISTERED 
                   BROKERS AND DEALERS.

       (a) Codification of Regulations.--Section 560.516 of title 
     31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 
     2016, shall apply with respect to transfers of funds to or 
     from Iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of an 
     Iranian person or the Government of Iran, for the period 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and ending on the date 
     on which the President makes the certification to the 
     appropriate congressional committees under section 401(a) of 
     the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and 
     Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8551(a)).
       (b) Clarification of Application of Regulations to Foreign 
     Financial Institutions and Foreign Registered Brokers and 
     Dealers.--
       (1) Foreign financial institutions.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     in effect on January 1, 2016, shall apply with respect to 
     foreign financial institutions to the same extent and in the 
     same manner as such subsection applies with respect to United 
     States depository institutions if the funds that are to be 
     transferred as described in such subsection are funds that 
     are denominated in United States dollars.
       (2) Foreign registered brokers and dealers.--Subsection (b) 
     of section 560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     as in effect on January 1, 2016, shall apply with respect to 
     foreign registered brokers or dealers in securities to the 
     same extent and in the same manner as such subsection applies 
     with respect to United States registered brokers or dealers 
     in securities if the funds that are to be transferred as 
     described in such subsection are funds that are denominated 
     in United States dollars.

[[Page H4958]]

       (3) Suspension.--The President may suspend the application 
     of paragraph (1) with respect to a foreign financial 
     institution or the application of paragraph (2) with respect 
     to a foreign registered broker or dealer in securities for a 
     period not to exceed 60 days, and the President may renew the 
     suspension of the application of paragraph (1) or paragraph 
     (2), respectively, for additional periods of not more than 60 
     days, on and after the date on which the President certifies 
     to the appropriate congressional committees that during the 
     preceding 60-day period the Government of Iran is in 
     compliance with the criteria described in section 401(a)(1) 
     of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and 
     Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8551(a)(1)).
       (c) Licensing Restrictions.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     President may not issue any license under the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or 
     provide other guidance, including executive actions, rules, 
     regulations, frequently asked questions, written 
     communications, or any other commitments, that permits--
       (A) a United States depository institution or United States 
     registered broker or dealer in securities--
       (i) to conduct an offshore United States dollar clearing 
     system for transactions involving or for the benefit of the 
     Government of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process 
     transfers of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
     January 1, 2016; or
       (ii) to provide United States dollars for any offshore 
     United States dollar clearing system conducted or overseen by 
     a foreign government or a foreign financial institution for 
     transactions involving or for the benefit of the Government 
     of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process transfers 
     of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016; 
     or
       (B) a foreign financial institution or foreign registered 
     broker or dealer in securities--
       (i) to conduct an offshore United States dollar clearing 
     system for transactions involving or for the benefit of the 
     Government of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process 
     transfers of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
     January 1, 2016, and as applied under subsection (b); or
       (ii) to provide United States dollars for any offshore 
     United States dollar clearing system conducted or overseen by 
     a foreign government or a foreign financial institution for 
     transactions involving or for the benefit of the Government 
     of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process transfers 
     of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016, 
     and as applied under subsection (b).
       (2) Exception for humanitarian purposes.--The President 
     may, on a case-by-case basis, issue a license described in 
     paragraph (1) to authorize the activities described in clause 
     (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) or the activities described 
     in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(B) if--
       (A) such activities relate solely to--
       (i) the provision of agricultural commodities, food, 
     medicine, or medical devices to Iran; or
       (ii) the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people 
     of Iran; and
       (B) the President submits to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a copy of the license.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign 
     financial institution'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 1010.605 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     in effect on January 1, 2016.
       (3) Iran.--The term ``Iran'' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 561.329 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     as in effect on January 1, 2016.
       (4) Iranian person.--The term ``Iranian person'' means a 
     person or entity (as such terms are defined in section 
     560.305 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in 
     effect on January 1, 2016) that--
       (A) is organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction 
     within Iran (including foreign branches); or
       (B) is a person in Iran.
       (5) Transfer of funds.--The term ``transfer of funds''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term ``funds transfer'' in 
     section 1010.100 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     in effect on January 1, 2016; and
       (B) includes a transfer of funds or other property for the 
     benefit of an Iranian financial institution that is made 
     between accounts of the same financial institution even if 
     that Iranian financial institution is not the direct 
     recipient of the transfer.
       (6) United states depository institution.--The term 
     ``United States depository institution'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 560.319 of title 31, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016.
       (7) United states registered broker or dealer in 
     securities.--The term ``United States registered broker or 
     dealers in securities'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 560.321 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     in effect on January 1, 2016.

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

       (a) In General.--The President may not rescind a 
     preliminary draft rule or final rule (as in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act) that provides 
     for the designation of Iran as a jurisdiction of primary 
     money laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A of title 
     31, United States Code, unless the President submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a certification 
     described in subsection (b) with respect to Iran.
       (b) Certification.--The President may rescind a preliminary 
     draft rule or final rule described in subsection (a) if the 
     President submits to the appropriate congressional committees 
     a certification that the Government of Iran is no longer 
     engaged in support for terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass 
     destruction, and any illicit and deceptive financial 
     activities.
       (c) Form.--The certification described in subsection (b) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4992.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4992. This bill would prohibit trade with 
Iran in dollars, and that is the world's top currency. The Iranian 
access to the U.S. financial system here is what is at risk.
  When selling this Iran deal to Congress, Treasury Secretary Lew 
testified unequivocally that--and I am going to quote him; I am going 
to quote our Treasury Secretary--``Iranian banks will not be able to 
clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account 
relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing 
arrangements with U.S. banks.''
  He testified: ``Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied 
access to the world's largest financial and commercial market.''
  The Secretary strongly denied the administration was giving away the 
store to Iran. We were told that the restrictions on Iran's access to 
the U.S. dollar were key to pushing back on Iran's terrorism and on its 
missile proliferation.
  But for the past 6 months, as the Iranian Supreme Leader has 
ratcheted up complaints about the pace of sanctions relief, the Obama 
administration has shifted to ``making sure Iran gets relief.'' That is 
the theme.
  Indeed, the State Department has taken its advocacy for Iran to a new 
and disturbing level by trying to persuade major non-U.S. banks that 
doing Iran-related business is not only permitted, but is actually 
encouraged.
  As one witness told the committee in May, the United States is acting 
as the ``business development and trade promotion authority of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran.'' And the administration is looking for ways 
for Iran to be able to conduct business in dollars.
  When challenged before the House Financial Services Committee in 
March, Secretary Lew would not answer authoritatively whether the 
United States may offer Iran the ability to access onshore or offshore 
dollar-clearing, to allow for dollar-denominated transactions and ease 
Iran's ability to trade internationally.
  The ayatollah wants this form of sanctions relief--to essentially 
declare that Iran is open for business--without ending its support for 
terrorism and ending its proliferation of missiles.

[[Page H4959]]

  Mr. Speaker, the United States should not be offering additional 
special exemptions to assist Iran with access to dollars while Iran 
remains a leading state sponsor of terror, subject to serious 
sanctions.
  Notably, the Treasury Department's designation of Iran as a primary 
money laundering concern remains, and that is a recognition that any 
financial transaction with Iran risks supporting the regime's ongoing 
illicit activities. That is part of the reason that the Financial 
Action Task Force, which sets the global anti-money laundering 
standards, has warned of, in their words, ``the terrorist financing 
risk emanating from Iran and the threat this poses to the international 
financial system.''
  Instead of granting such a significant unilateral concession of 
Iranian access to dollarized transactions, this legislation requires a 
reciprocal step by Tehran. Iran must stop its support for terrorism, 
one of the top concerns that administration officials promised that 
they were going to address using its remaining sanctions after the 
nuclear agreement. This is an approach that all Members should support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans have made it a top priority to 
bypass regular order and rush a number of measures to the floor as part 
of their reckless and politically driven Iran week agenda that would 
put the United States in breach of our commitments under the Iran 
nuclear deal.
  Concluded a year ago, the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, will prevent Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear bomb for the foreseeable future. The agreement 
imposed tough restrictions on and heavy monitoring of Iran's nuclear 
program in exchange for nuclear-related sanctions relief. To date, Iran 
has upheld its end of the deal, and I believe we have a responsibility 
to uphold our commitments as well.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 4992, is just one of the measures 
under consideration this week that is aimed squarely at prohibiting 
Iran from experiencing the sanctions relief promised under the 
agreement that is the JCPOA.
  As part of the Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. committed to lift 
secondary sanctions to allow Iran to conduct banking transactions 
outside of the United States in return for Iran meeting its nuclear-
related commitments, which was verified by the International Atomic 
Energy Agency.
  H.R. 4992, this bill, would put the United States in direct violation 
of the JCPOA by reapplying these secondary sanctions that had been 
lifted as part of the agreement. Moreover, the bill would undermine the 
good faith commitment made by all parties under the JCPOA to uphold the 
letter, the spirit, and intent of the agreement, and to refrain from 
action that would undermine its successful implementation. By denying 
the relief we committed to provide under the deal, we throw the 
continued viability of the JCPOA into question, thereby abandoning the 
best chance we have at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  In addition to violating our commitments under the JCPOA, this bill 
does nothing to provide additional protection for the United States 
financial system. The bill's proponents ignore the fact that our 
primary embargo on Iran remains in effect and that the administration 
is already taking robust measures to protect the United States 
financial system from access by Iran.
  To the extent this bill is motivated by rumors that the 
administration is preparing to grant Iran new access to the U.S. 
financial system beyond the scope of JCPOA, I would point out that the 
administration has said that these rumors are entirely unfounded. The 
administration has also made clear that it has no intention of 
reinstating the U-turn authorization, which permits foreign firms to 
use the U.S. as a pass-through for facilitating transactions with Iran, 
or give Iran access to the United States financial system.
  The President has officially stated that he will veto this bill and 
any other legislation that prevents the successful implementation of 
the Iran nuclear deal.
  We must ask ourselves, if we undermine this deal that we made, what 
comes next, more sanctions?

  It is important to remember that the harsh nuclear-related sanctions 
that were previously in place did not prevent Iran from continuing to 
pursue a nuclear capability. A United States-led attack on Iran--I 
sincerely hope that we would work diligently to avoid this option.
  Lastly, I am opposed to this bill being brought directly to the floor 
without going through regular order. We did not hold a hearing. We did 
not hold a markup in the Financial Services Committee on this 
legislation, denying Members the opportunity to fully consider its 
implications.
  We cannot renege on our commitment to uphold the JCPOA, a significant 
effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Violating the 
agreement would not only undermine U.S. national security, but also our 
ability to lead on any international negotiations aimed at peace in the 
future. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4992.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4992. I appreciate my good friend, Chairman Royce, of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. We also serve on this Financial Services Committee.
  It was my subcommittee that granted the partial waiver to allow this 
legislation to come directly to the floor; and because I think that 
this is so important, that is why it is here on the floor today.
  Under the Obama administration's flawed nuclear deal, the JCPOA, or 
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran has received significant 
sanctions relief so far. Because of this dangerous deal, the Obama 
administration left the door wide open for Iran's Supreme Leader to 
demand access to the dollar.
  This is the same country that the State Department dubbed ``the 
world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.''
  This is the same country that the Treasury Department has labeled ``a 
jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern'' thanks to its 
support for terrorism and the use of its banks to facilitate nuclear 
and ballistic missile initiatives.
  Last summer, Treasury Secretary Lew testified that ``Iranian banks 
will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold 
correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, 
or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.'' I agree. They 
should not. I am thrilled to hear Secretary Lew make that statement.
  He also then made it perfectly clear with another quote. ``Iran, in 
other words, will continue to be denied access to the world's largest 
financial and commercial market.'' Yet we just hear that this is a 
breach of the JCPOA as has just been asserted. If so, then Secretary 
Lew's own words would indicate a breach before it was even enacted and 
before it began.
  So which is it? They either really don't want to codify this because 
they plan on trying to offer this or allow Iran to do it, or, for some 
other strange reason, they think that these words alone cover it. Well, 
they don't because it is not legally binding.
  In fact, the President, the POTUS, the President of the United 
States, himself, has said that Iran has violated the spirit of the 
agreement already.
  Just last week, we had testimony in my subcommittee, where we were 
doing a hearing, that Germany, in Germany, the German intelligence 
services--Angela Merkel talked about this in the Bundestag--that they 
have indications that Iran has continued to pursue nuclear capabilities 
in Germany itself.
  So it is a very simple, yet a very important, piece of legislation 
that would codify the existing Treasury regulations that prohibit U.S. 
depository institutions and registered security brokers or dealers from 
processing funds to or from Iran as well as to prohibit any foreign 
financial institutions from transferring any funds that are in U.S. 
dollars.

[[Page H4960]]

  


                              {time}  1145

  It has been also stated--I would say ludicrously--that somehow this 
bill and others like it are unpatriotic. I think it is the exact 
opposite, Mr. Speaker. This bill is necessary to make sure that the 
financial standing of the U.S. institutions are protected. I think it 
is important that we assert ourselves to make sure that this 
administration doesn't go beyond the bounds that it already has, and it 
is time to put partisan persuasions aside, work together, and stop 
doing business with our enemies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this important bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, America chose to preclude an 
Iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy rather than war.
  What has happened in the 12 months since that momentous decision was 
made?
  The Iranians have given up 98 percent of their nuclear material. They 
have dismantled thousands of centrifuges, and they filled the core of a 
major plutonium reactor with concrete.
  Even the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, said: 
``The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel's 
existence for the foreseeable future and greatly reduced the threat 
over the longer term.''
  The promoters of these three bills are in a state of denial. They 
took every opportunity along the torturous path of negotiations to try 
to block, obstruct, and interfere with those negotiations and leave us 
with only the choice of war and military action to stop the Iranians 
from developing a nuclear weapon. So today, having denied diplomacy for 
so long, they are still compelled to deny that diplomacy has worked in 
the last year.
  What we should be doing today is building on our success, not seeking 
to subvert it. Success so far doesn't mean that the Iranians may not 
backtrack. We know this is an authoritarian government that commits 
many wrongs today. It is certainly not our friend. That is why careful 
scrutiny and intensive inspections must continue. I believe that 
patient, deliberate diplomacy remains the only course--the best path--
to protect our families.
  Now, one of the Republican Members this morning attacked the 
agreement and said that it has got us ``walking on eggshells.'' I have 
to tell you that even if that is true--and I deny that it is--walking 
on eggshells is much, much better for American families than the death 
and destruction of unleashing actual military shells. That is the 
alternative.
  I believe that continuous, intrusive monitoring is the key to keeping 
our families safe and avoiding war. We have a lot of people agreeing 
with that. Nobel laureates, generals, diplomats, and former legislators 
are advising that, through this agreement, all pathways to an Iranian 
nuclear weapon have been blocked--so they said in their letter this 
week.
  I remain hopeful. I am hopeful and optimistic that eventually we will 
overcome the extremists in Iran, hopeful that peace will prevail, and 
hopeful about this Congress, if nothing else, will not undo this 
agreement. Because they have shown such an inability to do any other 
work as they today shut down the Congress for the next 53 days, leaving 
so many challenges unanswered.
  Let's conclude today by rejecting this attempt to deny the most 
effective way to protect the security of our families and that of our 
allies by letting diplomacy continue to advance.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to make a point, this is not a breach of the 
nuclear deal. This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal. We did not 
agree to give Iran access to the U.S. dollar. As a matter of fact, the 
agreement that we all understood is that, without ending its support 
for terrorism and proliferation of missiles, they weren't going to get 
that access. There were things we have held in reserve as continued 
pressure against Iran to get its compliance.
  The difficulty is that the ayatollah wants this form of additional 
relief outside of the deal, which essentially declares that Iran is 
open for business. He wants to be able to do it without ending his 
proliferation of missiles and these ballistic missile tests.
  And we are saying: No, no, that was not in the deal. We are not 
giving you additional--additional--rewards while you are decrying the 
United States and saying ``death to the Great Satan,'' ``death to the 
Little Satan,'' ``death to America,'' and ``death to Israel.''
  Why should we further give advantage to the build-up of Iranian power 
when it is going not into the economy but into the hands--the coffers--
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps?
  That is the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hill), a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Task 
Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I 
appreciate his work on this important issue. He makes a good point, 
which is that this is not so much about the JCPOA, as noted by the 
opposition. This is about the fact that our joint agreement that the 
Obama administration reached with our allies with Iran is in conflict 
in many ways with existing Federal law and Federal practice where we 
are still involved in analyzing Iran for its sanction violations.
  More importantly, while there is a lot of talk about the 1-year 
anniversary of the JCPOA, I want to remind my friends on both sides of 
the aisle that 7 years ago, in June, 2009, the people of Iran rose up 
against the malicious mullahs of their murderous regime, and their 
cries for help fell on deaf ears in the United States. Some 4,000 were 
arrested.
  What has become of them? What has become of those people? What has 
become of their cause?
  So I want to remember in June 2009, the impact of this regime in 
Iran.
  I am proud to support this legislation. I am proud to serve on the 
Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.
  Look to the State Department's most recent Country Reports on Iran. 
The report states: ``Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism worldwide 
remained undiminished through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the 
Quds Force, its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran's 
ally, Hezbollah.''
  In addition to its support for terrorism, the Iranian regime is 
corrupt and known to be involved in money laundering, bribery, and 
illicit finance around the world--not just the Middle East, but in the 
Western Hemisphere. The Treasury has designated the Government of Iran 
as a primary money laundering concern since 2011.
  International financial bodies, such as the Financial Action Task 
Force, have warned Iran's financing of terrorism poses a serious threat 
to the international financial system.
  So since the Iranian deal, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is 
actively providing funding and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, propping up 
Shia militias in Iraq, and responsible for deaths of Americans and our 
soldiers in Iraq. They continue to hold hostages. They continue to fail 
Federal adjudicated claims of 35 years of victims, and they continue to 
trade and test ballistic weapons, threatening our allies and our best 
interests.
  This legislation is not about sinking the nuclear deal. This 
legislation is about holding Iran accountable for its terrorist finance 
activities and its money laundering activities. There is no reason in 
any way, shape, or form that they deserve dollar access.
  This legislation is about maintaining the integrity of our country's 
financial system and preventing the dollar from being used to support 
terrorism around the world. I am pleased to support this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992 
precisely because the passage of H.R. 4992, were it to become law--and 
I say this as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence--would put me and this Congress and the rest of us in the 
United States back in a position of walking on eggshells, if I

[[Page H4961]]

might borrow a phrase used by the Republican majority. It would put me 
back in the position of every single week going to the spaces of the 
Intelligence Committee and asking the question, What kind of progress 
has Iran made this week in their efforts to deliver nuclear weapons, 
and then hearing answers that I would not like and nobody in this 
Chamber would like.
  There is no question and there is no legal opinion of any credibility 
that suggests that H.R. 4992 is not a very clear violation of our 
obligations under the JCPOA.
  The majority has talked a lot about denying access to the U.S. 
infrastructure financial system, which the Treasury Secretary has said 
we will do. What they are not telling you is that H.R. 4992 would 
subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions on U.S. banks regarding 
dollar-denominated transactions.
  So we would say to a French bank: You cannot undertake a transaction 
with a German hotel developer if it were denominated in dollars.
  Now, apart from the jurisdictional questions and the damage that 
would do to the United States dollar as the global reserve currency, it 
is a very clear violation of the JCPOA. There is no legal 
interpretation of any credibility that would suggest otherwise.
  Now, let me be clear about some things that we all agree on--and I 
have a profound amount of respect for Chairman Royce, and we agree on 
some things. I have heard a steady stream from the other side of the 
truth that Iran is money laundering, that they are sponsoring 
terrorism, that they are destabilizing the region, and that they treat 
their people terribly. You are 100 percent right on that issue. You 
will find no disagreement on this side of the aisle with any of those 
allegations. But the fact of the matter is that the Iran nuclear deal, 
which is jeopardized by this bill, was a deal that said: In exchange 
for stopping your development of nuclear weapons, we will provide you 
with access to some of your own money.
  That was the deal. The deal did not include: You will stop 
destabilizing the region and that you will stop your terrorist 
activity.
  By the way, I am sorry about that. I would have liked to have seen a 
deal that would have brought Iran entirely into the community of 
nations, but that was not the deal. By the way, there was a time in 
American history when we were a bit more adult in the way we thought 
about foreign relations where Ronald Reagan would go to the Soviet 
Union--what he called the evil empire--and do an Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces deal that was about nuclear weapons while the Soviet 
Union was murderous to their own people, destabilizing the globe, and 
threatening us with annihilation. But we said it was worth preserving 
the deal and preserving the safety that we had against ballistic 
weapons under Ronald Reagan.

  Now, we can't disagree on some facts. I heard Chairman Royce say that 
tens of billions of dollars are going to the Islamic Revolutionary 
Guard. That is simply not true. Secretary Kerry estimated--and he was 
referring to actual dollars into the country--that some $3 billion had 
come into Iran. So, yes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, sadly, will 
benefit in some small way from the sanctions relief. But the figure of 
tens of billions of dollars is simply inaccurate. We disagree 
fundamentally on the Iran nuclear deal.
  The fact of the matter--and I have heard allegations from the other 
side to the contrary--is that not the IAEA--not any global bodies--are 
suggesting that Iran isn't anything other than in compliance with the 
deal. As a consequence, instead of being 2 months away, as we were, 
from the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, we are probably 12 
months or more away from the development of a nuclear weapon.
  Is that perfect?
  Of course, it is not. It is speaking as somebody who every week 
considers the threats to this country being 12 months away is a heck of 
a lot safer than being 2 months away.
  I have heard from the other side that this is a flawed deal and that 
it jeopardizes U.S. national security and the security of Israel. Let 
me quote somebody who knows something about the security of Israel, 
Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, Chief of Staff of Israel Defense 
Forces. Six months ago he said: ``The deal has actually removed the 
most serious danger to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future 
and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.''
  If it is true for Israel, it is true for the United States. Stand up 
for peace, stand up for our international obligations, and oppose H.R. 
4992.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the Secretary was awarded several Pinocchios from The 
Washington Post for that statement on the amount of support that would 
give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  The reason why is because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in 
fact, owns many of the largest institutions. They were nationalized 
after the 1979 revolution. Because of this, they are beneficiaries of 
the economic activity. It is the number one economic actor, according 
to our Department of Commerce, according to our State Department. The 
IRGC is the number one economic actor.
  So, in point of fact, yes, this deal is going to demonstrably benefit 
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at a time when they are in charge 
of this ballistic missile program, intercontinental ballistic missile 
program, which you see them developing and advancing as we speak.
  I would just add one other point, and that is that there isn't a lot 
of debate here in terms of what message they are sending us when they 
go to the streets and, under the direction of the ayatollah, members of 
the IRGC chant ``Death to America.''
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a 
member of the Committee on Financial Services and of the Task Force to 
Investigate Terrorism Financing.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  To my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), look, I know you to be one 
of the, actually, smartest people here on these sort of subjects. So I 
am going to take a slightly different approach and see if what I am 
actually reading in this legislation is a little different than some of 
the nature of the conversation here.
  The way I am reading this legislation, it functionally says that 
U.S.-chartered institutions will not act as the clearers, 
clearinghouses, for FX, for dollar-denominated trade.
  So, as we walk through those mechanics--if we all remember when we 
sat down, both in the isolated area, reading the nuclear agreement, 
what was in that agreement that said we are obligated to hand over the 
infrastructure of our U.S. financial system, our banking system, our 
foreign exchange clearing system, and we have an obligation to provide 
that infrastructure that we have built and hand that to the Islamic 
Republic of Iran? There is nothing in the agreement that says we have 
an obligation to provide our financial infrastructure to help them.
  Now, we have already heard Chairman Royce and others walk through all 
of the bad acts and how this money is often killing people around the 
world and taking their lives and threatening our allies. That may be 
the meat of it, but the actual legislation functionally denies the use 
of clearing U.S. currency, U.S. dollars from U.S.-chartered 
institutions.
  My understanding is that, if they wanted to, they could probably go 
to the Bank of Singapore and clear their dollars there into gold and 
wash money for other bad actors and send it to murderers in Lebanon.
  But at least those institutions that we hold dear, that we regulate, 
that we talk about here, that our taxpayers guarantee deposits in, why 
would we hand Iran our infrastructure to clear their dollars when so 
many of their resources are going for bad acts?
  I know we keep having this conversation of, ``The nuclear deal is 
bad, many of us voted against it,'' others saying, ``Oh, it is a great 
achievement, we want to support it.'' Fine. There is nothing in the 
agreement that says, great, you now get to use the U.S. infrastructure 
to finance yourselves, move money around, and actually ultimately wash 
money to do evil in the world.
  So if we are going to have this conversation, let's be intellectually 
honest

[[Page H4962]]

of what the language in the legislation actually says.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), the ranking member of the 
Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing on the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992, the 
so-called United States Financial System Protection Act of 2016.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4992 would directly violate our commitments under 
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no question about 
that. By reimposing the secondary sanctions on Iran's banking sector, 
we clearly violate the terms of that JCPOA.
  These are not transactions between the U.S. and Iran, but, rather, 
these are banking transactions that occur outside the U.S. financial 
system. These sanctions were lifted on implementation day, according to 
the agreement, but only after we put International Atomic Energy Agency 
inspectors in place in Iran, on the ground, to verify Iran's compliance 
with the deal.
  That verification and reporting occurs on a monthly basis. The last 
report we have from the IAEA, who are on the ground in Iran, is that 
they are, indeed, in full compliance with the terms of the JCPOA which 
addressed their nuclear program.
  Critics of the JCPOA will tell you that this bill is needed to ensure 
that Iran does not gain access to the U.S. financial system. Yet the 
administration has made clear that we are not going to reinstate the U-
turn authorization or grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. 
And, during the JCPOA talks, the U.S. stood firm that our sanctions 
against Iran's weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, 
and support for terrorism were not on the table. They were not part of 
that agreement. And our primary trade embargo on Iran, with certain 
limited exceptions, is still in place.
  Now, critics of the JCPOA will also tell you that the license that 
has been granted to Boeing to sell civilian passenger aircraft to Iran 
is really a subterfuge and that Iran is going to use these commercial 
jetliners to transport weapons or personnel in a military capacity.
  They ignore the fact that Iran already has military combat aircraft 
that they purchased from Russia. So there is no need for Iran to buy 
Airbus aircraft from the EU or Boeing aircraft from the United States 
in order to fund their military, their air force. So that is clearly 
not something that they are trying to do. Like I said, they could buy 
directly from the Russian Government, as they have done in the past and 
they continue to do, combat aircraft.
  Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that exactly 1 year after the U.S. and the 
P5+1 announced the landmark JCPOA that Congress is voting to undermine 
it. The bills on the floor this week are an attempt to undermine that 
by opponents of this deal and have another bite of the apple and try to 
bring down the agreement.
  I would like to remind my fellow Members that we have debated this 
already and the House and Senate failed to pass a joint resolution of 
disapproval. That deal is done. And, so far, even according to high-
level Israeli officials, Iran remains in compliance with that 
agreement.
  We should focus instead on ensuring that this is fully implemented 
and that our inspectors have a full and fair opportunity to maintain 
that Iran is indeed in compliance.

  The global community, as a result of this agreement, will be in a 
better position to know and to respond sooner and with the benefit of 
having vast, detailed intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. We 
are there, we are on the ground like never before.
  Iran has removed over two-thirds of its centrifuges and placed them 
under international supervision. That is a cut of nearly 14,000. It 
stopped enriching uranium and removed nuclear material from Fordow, one 
of its major facilities. It has cut its fissile material stockpile by 
98 percent, from 12,000 kilograms to less than 300 kilograms of only 
non-weapons-grade material. The heavy water reactor at Arak has been 
rendered unusable for nuclear purposes. Finally, the JCPOA has 
verifiably delayed any possible path Iran may have to a nuclear weapon.
  Enacting this bill, H.R. 4992, or any of these anti-Iran-nuclear-deal 
bills would give Iran's hardliners the very excuse that they want to 
rip up the JCPOA, kick out the IAEA inspectors on the agreement, and 
race toward getting a nuclear bomb.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rigell). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 
30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Mr. LYNCH. If we do sabotage this deal, will we be able to count on 
the backup from the global community to bring Iran back into line? It 
is a risk I believe is dangerous and, in this case, unnecessary.
  I urge my fellow Members to defeat H.R. 4992.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for bringing this 
important legislation.
  The American public stands with you, Chairman, and there are multiple 
reasons why the American public will stand with all of this Congress 
that will vote for this bill.
  For one, the American public has an issue with financing Iranian 
terror through U.S. financial infrastructure. The American public has 
had an enormous issue with a lot of specifics related to the Iran 
nuclear agreement. It is not really much of an agreement. It is an 
unsigned political commitment.
  There are material differences with regard to the agreement. The U.S. 
said, We are going to be able to access military sites. The Iranians 
said, Before, during, and after the negotiation, you will never be able 
to access our military sites. We said, Sanctions relief will be phased 
in over the course of time based on compliance. The Iranians say, No, 
sanctions relief will be immediate, no suspension. These are pretty 
important parts of the agreement.
  Well, let's talk about some other parts that weren't part of the 
agreement, they weren't able to agree to. So they put into a secretive 
deal between the Iranians and an entity that we have no ability to 
actually be on an inspections team because, as the AP reports, the 
IAEA's agreement with the U.S.--these so-called deals where the 
verification is outlined. The Iranians, in some cases, are inspecting 
their own nuclear sites. In other cases, they are responsible for 
collecting some of their own soil samples.
  That is why the American public stands with everyone who votes for 
this legislation, because of all the unilateral concessions that have 
been made since this agreement has been made. This isn't the only one.
  Buying heavy water for no reason. While this President is holding the 
heavy water of the Iranians, those who vote for this bill, who have 
opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, they are holding the heavy water of 
American security for their $1.7 billion payment that was made after 
this deal was reached: a $400 million debt, plus $1.3 billion of 
interest.
  Or our detained soldiers, who were embarrassed through photography 
and videography. And we are saying thank you for releasing our sailors? 
The American public was outraged. Using our sailors as propaganda to 
make yourself look strong and the rest of us look weak.
  Or maybe it is giving the Iranians access to U.S. financial 
institutions.
  We are being laughed at. The Iranians will take to the street and 
they will chant ``Death to America,'' they will continue their illegal 
test firing of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and they will 
detain Americans unjustly.
  They know that we didn't even ask for a signature. Think about it. Of 
all the agreements we enter into in life--buying a car or buying a 
home--we couldn't even ask for a signature.
  The American public is upset.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from New York (Mr. Zeldin), 
perhaps we didn't get a signature, but we got compliance from Iran on 
their obligations to stop their production of nuclear weapons.

[[Page H4963]]

  


                              {time}  1215

  I want to take the rest of my time to hopefully clear up a factual 
matter.
  I have profound respect for Chairman Royce, and Congressman 
Schweikert is one of my closest friends in this Chamber. We seem to 
have a disagreement as to whether this would jeopardize the JCPOA. This 
bill would subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions that are put 
on U.S. banks regarding dollar-denominated securities. I would point 
to, in the JCPOA, annex II, which lists the sanctions to be lifted 
under the JCPOA, 4.1.3, which lifts sanctions on the provision of U.S. 
bank notes.
  This would clearly violate our obligations under the JCPOA, and I 
would hope that my friends in the majority would acknowledge that fact 
as they push this bill. I continue to urge its rejection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4992, the 
United States Financial System Protection Act; and I thank Chairman 
Royce for offering the legislation today and for his tremendous 
leadership on this issue.
  Allowing Iran access to the U.S. dollar would mark an unprecedented 
concession to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has 
taken virtually no tangible actions to suggest that it is serious about 
dismantling its nuclear program or ending its decades-long ties to 
terrorism. Why should Iran be rewarded with coveted access to our 
currency?
  Last week, I offered an amendment to the Financial Services 
Appropriations Act that would make sure that the U.S. Treasury 
officials who might be attempting to act on this matter would not be 
permitted to do so--to change statutory law. This would go not only to 
this administration, but to future administrations as well. My 
amendment passed by a voice vote, and today's legislation and the 
previous bills go further in adding new sanctions to stop the 
administration's purchase of heavy water from Iran and to prevent any 
additional steps to appease Iran.
  This goes to the heart of the agreement, which was voted down in this 
House. It was never voted on in the other House because of cloture. Let 
us make sure that Iran is held accountable. Iran has done nothing to 
earn our trust. Let's not give away critical language in this regard. I 
urge a strong ``yes'' vote on Chairman Royce's legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  You have heard very clearly from this side of the aisle as to why it 
is so important for us to be true to our commitments that were made 
under the agreement. You have heard very clearly what this bill is all 
about.
  Part of that agreement which is being denied by the opposite side of 
the aisle has to do with non-U.S. financial institutions. We maintain 
our sanctions as they relate to the United States financial 
institutions. Our institutions are not in any way violating those 
sanctions, and we do not allow our financial institutions to do 
business with Iran; but we do support non-U.S. financial institutions' 
ability to do business with Iran.
  What is this bill all about?
  We keep hearing about rumors. We keep hearing about suspicions. We 
keep hearing about what we think they may do. We keep hearing about 
what someone else said they are going to do. The fact of the matter is 
this agreement is extremely clear. They--that is the Iranians--have not 
violated this agreement at all. As a matter of fact, there is something 
in the agreement called dispute resolution. If you believe that they 
have violated the agreement in some way, why don't you insist on a 
dispute resolution to deal with the issue? But you cannot do that. You 
cannot point to anything that the Iranians have done that is in 
disagreement with the agreement that has been made.
  Why are you coming to the floor of the House of Representatives 1 day 
before we are to take a break and putting this bill and other bills on 
the floor? Is this politically motivated? What are you trying to do? 
Who are you trying to send a message to?
  Instead of using your power and your ability to deal with this 
agreement in an honest and credible way, what you should be doing is 
supporting the President of the United States of America and respecting 
this country and our commitments.
  We have five other countries in this deal. What happens if we renege 
on our agreements? What are they to think of us? What do you think 
about your country? Why would you have the President of the United 
States on the international stage looking as if the rug has been pulled 
out from under him by his own legislators? I don't get it. I do not 
understand it.
  As a matter of fact, one of the things we should all be very clear 
about is our support for Israel. That side of the aisle does not 
support our relationship and our friendship any more than we do. If 
that is the message you are trying to send, it doesn't work. It doesn't 
hold water. As a matter of fact, any Member of Congress who looks at 
this agreement, who reads the agreement, who understands the agreement 
knows that you don't have any issues with what is happening in our 
financial system. You have not been able, in this debate, to talk about 
the fact that U.S. financial systems are not involved in any way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to 
the Chair.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will address these 
remarks to you so they can hear them, and that is that they have not 
been able to identify in this debate how the United States financial 
institutions are involved in any shape, form, or fashion in doing 
business with Iran. They have not been able, in the debate, to indicate 
that, somehow, we have not agreed that non-U.S. financial institutions 
can be involved in financial deals with Iran.
  I am simply asking that they deal with the facts. I am simply asking 
them not to undermine the agreement that we have made. I am simply 
asking them to admit that Iran has in no way violated this agreement. I 
am asking them to simply support this country and this President and to 
make sure that we don't separate ourselves from the other five 
countries that we have a deal with. I am asking them not to put us in 
the position in which the other five countries say: ``We cannot trust 
America. We cannot trust America because they are reneging on the 
deal.''
  We have done a tremendous service not only to Israel but to the 
United States in working out this deal to ensure that Iran does not 
continue to develop its nuclear capability. Why did we do that? It is 
because we are on the path toward peace and not war. We do not want 
Iran to attack Israel, and we do not want Israel to attack Iran. We do 
not want the United States to be thrown into this war--a war that could 
be created by either of them--because we believe that we can provide 
credible leadership for peace. That is what this is all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would just like to say that we are all in agreement 
that Iran should not be a nuclear state, which would pose a direct 
threat to both the United States and international security.

  The Iran nuclear deal is the best option we have for keeping nuclear 
weapons out of the Iranian Government's hands. It would be reckless to 
abandon our commitments under the deal which deny Iran a credible 
opportunity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material for use in a bomb 
for at least a generation. To date, Iran, again, has upheld its end of 
the deal, and we have a responsibility to do the same.
  The President's Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4992 and 
the other harmful Iran-related bills on the floor this week state that 
undermining the JCPOA would ``remove the unprecedented constraints on 
and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the 
international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating 
blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to 
our closest allies.''
  H.R. 4992 is being framed as protecting the U.S. financial system; 
yet

[[Page H4964]]

our financial system is already protected by our primary sanctions on 
Iran. In other words, this bill does nothing to protect the U.S. 
financial system or to promote our national security. In fact, it does 
the opposite.
  We have said all of this, which I have just reiterated, but let me 
make my final and closing statement.
  Why are you wasting your time? Even if, by some stroke of magic, you 
could get this through the Senate and send it to the President of the 
United States, he is going to veto it. They know it. Everyone knows it. 
Why are we doing this?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Part of the problem here is that money laundering in Iran has been 
proven to be tied to their efforts to support international terrorism. 
The unfortunate case here is what we are debating. Remember, we were 
originally assured, yes, we can push back on issues like their 
ballistic missile program, that we can push back on their support for 
terrorism or on their abject destruction of the human rights of the 
people inside Iran. We can put pressure on those fronts.
  We have somehow reached the point at which, despite the testimony of 
the administration that we were going to be pushing back, the 
administration feels that any steps we take to assert a position on 
these fronts is injurious to the relationship with Iran or, in some 
way, undermines the JCPOA. In terms of Iran, the entire country is 
designated by our Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary 
money laundering concern, and not just by our country and not just by 
our Treasury, but by the international system that looks at these 
financial systems. They have determined the same with respect to Iran.
  Secretary of State Kerry and his colleagues in the administration are 
in the midst of a campaign to reassure foreign firms that Iran is open 
for business. All right. We can trade with Iran, but it is an 
additional step beyond that to say that Iran is going to have the right 
to access U.S. dollars. Other administration officials, by the way, go 
so far as to say that Iranian economic growth is in our national 
security interest.
  I don't think it is in our national security interest. Frankly, if 
people are going to trade with Iran, they can do it without the use of 
U.S. dollars.
  It is a tough case to make in terms of this, in some way, being in 
our national interest when you consider that Iran's Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps has been labeled--what?--by the U.S. Treasury 
Department as being the ``most powerful economic actor'' in the 
country, the IRGC. That is the same entity that is developing these 
ballistic missiles and that is supporting terror throughout the region. 
It is a terrorist IRGC by our own labeling here in the United States.
  That should be enough to put the brakes on the administration's plans 
to get Iran out from under restrictions that prohibit trade with Iran 
in dollars. You can trade, but you can't trade in dollars, okay?

                              {time}  1230

  The pervasive influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 
throughout Iran's economy means that extreme due diligence will be 
necessary to ensure that foreign companies and foreign banks are not 
complicit in Iran's terror finance or the range of other illicit 
financial activities in which Iranian entities regularly engage. That 
is why this legislation protects the integrity of the U.S. dollar from 
Iranian illicit finance by codifying existing restrictions, clarifying 
restrictions on foreign financial institutions involved in 
dollarization, and, again, links determination of these measures to the 
end of Iranian support of terrorists. Easy enough for Iran to solve the 
problem; just quit supporting terrorism.
  I urge all Members to support this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________