[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5726-H5732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5461, IRANIAN LEADERSHIP ASSET
TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 876
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5461) to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees on the estimated total assets under direct or
indirect control by certain senior Iranian leaders and other
figures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
[[Page H5727]]
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1245
general leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the Reading Clerk
read through the rule, it sounded a little restrictive. Today, I went
back and referenced my notes just to make sure that I was right. Mr.
Speaker, House Resolution 876 is a structured rule, but it provides for
the consideration of absolutely every amendment submitted to the Rules
Committee on H.R. 5461, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.
Every single amendment that was submitted by this body to the Rules
Committee for approval was approved and will be made in order by this
rule.
The underlying bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit
a report to Congress and make that report available online in its
nonclassified parts--obviously, the classified parts would be
restricted to Members of Congress--that estimates the total assets
under direct or indirect control of senior Iranian leaders, including
those with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is well-documented that many of Iran's
political and military leaders have amassed substantial personal wealth
on the backs of the citizens of Iran. It gives them control over all
sorts of sectors of the Iranian economy. In fact, the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service estimates that one-third of the Iranian
economy--that includes telecommunications; it includes construction; it
includes airports; it includes seaports--is controlled by leaders
personally in the government--these political and military elites--
through what they will call personal foundations.
Mr. Speaker, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--that is what
most of America knows as the Iran deal, signed by President Obama--has
allowed many Iranian entities that are tied to government corruption to
be removed from the list of entities that American businesses are
prohibited from doing business with--those businesses sanctioned by the
U.S. Government. Given the large agreement that we have in this Chamber
that the Iranian Government is embracing corruption at every level, it
is clear that much of the foreign investment from U.S. companies should
be limited but is not under the current regime. What is more, U.S.
businesses today that are able to invest in Iran are doing so without
any of the knowledge of whom they are supporting and what kinds of
corruption may be involved. That is bad news for America. It is bad
news for American national security, and it is bad news for the
American economy.
H.R. 5461 will shine a light on that internal Iranian corruption, and
it will allow American businesses the information they need to
determine whom and whom not to do business with. We may hear today in
the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, that these requirements are too
burdensome. I tell you that that is nonsense. It is simply a request
that the Department of the Treasury, using existing resources--public
resources--as well as our classified resources, make this report to
Congress. We are talking about only 80 folks. We are talking about the
Supreme Leader of Iran; we are talking about the President of Iran; we
are talking about members of the Council of Guardians in Iran; we are
talking about the Expeditionary Council and about two dozen
Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders.
In the war on terror, in the quest for transparency, I am certain
that the United States Government, through the Department of the
Treasury, can provide this information. We may hear in the underlying
debate that such information will expose our intelligence sources
overseas--again, nonsense. There is not a single Member of this
Chamber, from left to right, who wants to do that. No one wants to do
that. Anything that is in a classified setting that needs to remain in
a classified setting will, in fact, remain in a classified setting.
Mr. Speaker, if you have any of those concerns--in fact, if any
Member of this Chamber has any of those concerns--I invite him to
support this rule. Again, with the passage of this rule, we will move
to the underlying bill. We will have a full-fledged debate on that
underlying bill, including a debate over every single amendment offered
for consideration in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes.
With all that we have to do, I can't believe we are here doing this;
nonetheless, here we are today, considering H.R. 5461, the so-called
Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.
This bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to
Congress and post online the estimated total assets under the direct or
indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures,
along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are
employed, regardless of whether said figures are subject to U.S.
sanctions.
The fact is that this bill--and let's be clear about it--is nothing
more than another attempt by Republicans to undermine the historic
agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve to prevent Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons is a big deal. I am sorry my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle don't share that view, but it is a big deal. The world will
be safer with a nuclear-free Iran.
Last July, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia,
China, Germany--the P5+1--and Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action, which required Iran to abandon its nuclear program in
exchange for U.S., EU, and U.N. sanctions being lifted. The agreement
officially came into effect on October 18, 2015. U.S. nuclear-related
sanctions were lifted on January 16, 2016, after the International
Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran implemented its key nuclear-
related measures described in the agreement and the Secretary of State
confirmed the IAEA's verification.
Since the implementation of the agreement, Republicans have
repeatedly tried to create the impression of numerous scandals
surrounding Iran and of supposed violations of the agreement; but the
reality is that the agreement has, so far, prevented Iran from
developing a nuclear arsenal. While we will continue to counter Iran's
hostile activities in the region, we will not undermine the JCPOA.
H.R. 5461 would absolutely do nothing to increase transparency within
the Iranian financial industry. Rather, this bill would cause confusion
regarding compliance obligations, deter non-U.S. banks from reengaging
with legitimate Iranian business, and undermine the letter and spirit
of the nuclear agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve.
[[Page H5728]]
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy, which basically ends with this statement, that if the President
were presented with this bill, his senior advisers would recommend that
he veto this bill.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act--Rep. Poliquin, R-
ME, and one cosponsor
The Administration shares the Congress' goals of increasing
transparency and bringing Iran into compliance with
international standards in the global fight against terror
finance and money laundering. However, this bill would be
counterproductive toward those shared goals.
The bill requires the U.S. Government to publicly report
all assets held by some of Iran's highest leaders and to
describe how these assets are acquired and used. Rather than
preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this
bill would incentivize those involved to make their financial
dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for
Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. These
onerous reporting requirements also would take critical
resources away from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's
important work to identify Iranian entities engaged in
sanctionable conduct. Producing this information could also
compromise intelligence sources and methods.
One of our best tools for impeding destabilizing Iranian
activities has been to identify Iranian companies that are
controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)
or other Iranians on the list of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to non-U.S.
businesses, so that they can block assets or stop material
transfers. This process is labor-intensive and requires the
judicious use of our national intelligence assets.
Redirecting these assets to preparing this onerous public
report would be counterproductive and will not reduce
institutional corruption or promote transparency within
Iran's system.
In addition, this bill's required public postings also may
be perceived by Iran and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) partners as an attempt to undermine the
fulfillment of our commitments, in turn impacting the
continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that
peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it
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.
As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program
through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration
remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for terrorism,
its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and
destabilizing activity in the region. The United States
should retain all of the tools needed to counter this
activity, ranging from powerful sanctions to our efforts to
disrupt and interdict illicit shipments of weapons and
proliferation-sensitive technologies. This bill would
adversely affect the U.S. Government's ability to wield these
tools, would undermine the very goals it purports to achieve,
and could even endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's
nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.
If the President were presented with H.R. 5461, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going nowhere. Quite frankly,
I think it is an insult to the American people that we are bringing up
more and more bills that are going nowhere when we have so much here to
do. Congress has roughly a week before we recess again, and instead of
focusing on passing a bipartisan bill to actually fund the government,
House Republicans are wasting more time with partisan bills like this,
and it really is quite unfortunate.
But, since Republicans want to talk about transparency so much, let's
talk about the transparency--or the total lack of transparency--of
their Presidential nominee, Donald Trump. I have got to tell you that I
have been doing this a long time, and I think it is safe to say that
Donald Trump's lack of transparency would make Richard Nixon blush.
For 40 years, America's major party nominees have publicly released
their tax returns, a simple and basic disclosure made to the American
people to help them choose which candidate is best fit to be our next
President. Donald Trump, the nominee of the party that is telling us
today that they care so much about transparency, has repeatedly refused
to release his tax returns. This comes even after he promised in 2014
that he ``absolutely''--and I say that in quotes--would release them if
he ran for President.
Let's be honest. In this House of Representatives, if Hillary Clinton
refused to release her tax returns, there would be an outcry like you
have never heard from my Republican friends. There would be calls for
hearings and resolutions and probably even a vote to impeach her
retroactively once she was elected. We all know that. But, on Donald
Trump's lack of transparency--the guy who wants to be President of the
United States--they are silent.
The secrecy and the lack of transparency doesn't stop with Donald
Trump's tax returns. This month, Newsweek reported on how Donald
Trump's extensive financial dealings overseas would pose an
unprecedented conflict of interest that could threaten our national
security and global interests.
In the article, they write:
Never before has a business posed such a threat to the
United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his
company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from
the entire Trump family, the foreign policy of the United
States of America could well be for sale.
The Trump Organization has hundreds of business dealings involving
more than a dozen countries on five continents, including Russia,
India, Turkey, Libya, China, and South Korea. Newsweek warns that, as
long as The Trump Organization remains open, foreign governments and
businesses would be able to funnel money directly into the pockets of
Trump and his family. That means American foreign policy would be
literally for sale. It is a situation unlike anything we have ever seen
in American history.
For example, Trump's business deals could motivate him to abandon
NATO allies like Turkey and important Asian allies like South Korea.
His deals in Azerbaijan could force him to alter his position on Iran
or undermine U.S. relations with Armenia. His deals in India could
influence his position over longstanding conflicts with Pakistan--in a
volatile subcontinent where both nations have nuclear weapons.
When it comes to Russia, there are concerns about Trump's heaping
praise and praise and praise on an increasingly hostile foreign leader,
Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the same time his company is
seeking business opportunities in Russia and how that conflict of
interest could evolve if Trump were President of the United States.
Newsweek also reports that the friction caused by Trump's business
dealings could jeopardize relationships with our allies like Turkey in
the fight against ISIS. Additionally, one of Trump's business partners
is a South Korean company that is involved in nuclear energy, which
makes you wonder if that is why he suggested South Korea should have
nuclear weapons.
So, if you want to talk about transparency and if you are worried
about conflicts of interest and corruption, you ought to demand that
the nominee of your party come clean with the American people. You
ought to demand that he release his tax returns, that he make it clear
that he would end all of his business ties if, God forbid, he would
become President of the United States, which is something that, I hope,
we never, ever get close to.
The bottom line is that that is something that is real and is right
before us, and, quite frankly, we ought to be doing more about it. We
shouldn't be wasting the American people's time with more partisan
messaging bills that claim to be about transparency--bills that are
going absolutely nowhere. We should focus on passing a bipartisan
funding bill that keeps this government open and that takes real action
to combat the very real Zika virus and other public health crises that
Americans are actually confronting.
I urge the Members of both parties to defeat this rule and get back
to work on real issues that actually matter in the lives of the people
whom we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if
he has any further speakers remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just inform the gentleman that we
have one additional speaker who says he is on his way.
Mr. WOODALL. I tell the gentleman I, too, have a rumored speaker who
is on his way, so we are in the same boat in that space.
[[Page H5729]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I read further from the Statement of Administration Policy, the veto
threat that the gentleman from Massachusetts noted earlier.
{time} 1300
He did read the section that said: If the President were presented
with H.R. 5461, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill.
There is more on this page, Mr. Speaker. He also says: `` . . . the
Administration remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for
terrorism, its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and
destabilizing activity in the region.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, what he is referencing, no doubt, ties into the
report that the State Department released over the summer, naming Iran
the number one international sponsor of terrorism.
Now, what this bill asks is: If you know you have a corrupt
government--again, in the administration's words, Iran's support for
terrorism, its ballistic program, its human rights abuses, and its
destabilizing activity in the region--if you know that you have a
dangerous government and if you know that corrupt leaders of that
government are hiding their resources in foundations across the nation,
if you know that those foundations are controlling a third of the
Iranian economy, continuing to keep its foot on the voice of the
Iranian people, if you know that this is true, why won't you stand up
and be counted?
My friend from Massachusetts says we shouldn't waste our time on this
because it is going nowhere. Candidly, I believe leadership is taking
those things that folks believe are going nowhere and making them a
reality. That is what the President did with this Iran deal.
When I go back and think about the polling that was going on across
the Nation while the President was pushing this deal around the globe,
there was no more unpopular agreement with the American people. The
American people were livid that we would be making a deal to perpetuate
the power and control structure in Iran, but the President led on that.
He forced that through. I don't believe we ever got a majority of the
American people behind it, but he got a majority of the Congress to
support him in that effort.
Mr. Speaker, this is about information. This is about information on
a known sponsor of global terrorism. This is about providing
information not just to American citizens, but to Iranian citizens. If
you live in the nation of Iran, if you have that average annual income
of $15,000, Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know how the other
half lives. You might be interested to know, when your leaders are
talking about the Great Satan on national television, where it is they
are stuffing their pockets. You might be interested to know, when folks
are talking about you rising up to fight the Great Satan, where those
folks have their relatives working, where their millions are growing,
what parts of the economy they are controlling. That is all this bill
is going to ask for.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule today. The rule
makes it in order to consider the underlying bill as well as every
single amendment that has been offered by both sides of the aisle to
perfect the underlying bill.
Again, I urge my colleagues to be enthusiastic in their support of
the underlying bill and of the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond to the gentleman that the reason why the
administration wants to veto this bill has nothing to do with the fact
that they aren't concerned about Iran's role in promoting terrorist
organizations around the world or being involved in very bad behavior.
I think they are opposed to this bill because they don't think it is
worth anything; that it is not going to work. In fact, rather than
preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this bill would
actually incentivize those affected to make their financial dealings
less transparent and create a disincentive for Iran's banking sector to
demonstrate transparency.
Look, we are all talking about this like this is all on the level.
The real deal is that my friends on the other side are upset that the
President of the United States negotiated a deal with Iran that
prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon. So we see a multitude of
bills like this coming to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up legislation that would expand the Department of
Homeland Security's presence overseas.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would strengthen DHS's operations by
authorizing and expanding Department of Homeland Security, Customs and
Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs
that vet and screen individuals before they enter the United States. It
would add an additional 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers
for overseas and domestic operations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for allowing me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so we can bring up my bill, H.R. 5256, the Expanding
DHS Overseas Passenger Security Screening and Vetting Operations Act.
Mr. Speaker, everybody we have talked to within the Homeland Security
arena says that, as Americans, we are safer if we can push our borders
out. So the notion that we should wait on the bad guys to get here is a
notion that obviously would put us in harm's way.
So what we are proposing with this bill is enhancing the ability for
us to push our borders out. We have had examples of this. They have all
been successful. So this is another effort to resource the opportunity
to make sure that our borders not only are just safe, but as safe from
American soil as possible.
So 15 years ago, Mr. Speaker, foreign terrorists carried out the most
deadly and costly terrorist act on U.S. soil. We committed ourselves to
creating the Department of Homeland Security. We resourced it. We put a
number of agencies together. We are on a day-to-day basis tracking bad
people all over the world, preventing bad people from getting into the
United States. To the credit of our men and women, they are doing a
good job, but we are only as good as the resources that we put to fight
terrorism.
So this, again, is one of the tools in the toolkit that we have
identified that we have to have, which is to push our borders out so
that we can not only keep Americans safe, but we can, through our
enhanced vetting process, keep bad people out.
So as the 9/11 Commission reported, the terrorists that carried out
this heinous act on 9/11 were able to exploit legitimate channels of
travel to the U.S. from countries around the globe. There is no
question about that. To prevent terrorist travel, the Department of
Homeland Security has made significant efforts to expand its presence
and partnerships around the world to vet passengers well in advance of
their arrival to the U.S.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, there are over 200 airports around the
world. The last-point-of-departure airports, to speak of, where unless
we can vet all those individuals who are trying to come here, they
can't get on the plane. So what we are trying to do is continue to
enhance that effort and others to make sure that anyone trying to get
to this country--and we can identify that they are bad people--that we
will keep them away.
My legislation, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5256, will strengthen these
operations to deal with evolving terrorist threats, including the
threats posed by individuals traveling without visas from European and
other countries with visa waiver agreements with the U.S.
[[Page H5730]]
Now, to prevent these terrorists and other dangerous people from
entering the U.S., Mr. Speaker, this legislation directs DHS to
strategically expand its program that vets and screens travelers. It
specifically authorizes key DHS vetting and screening programs. It also
provides for an additional 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers
for not only overseas operations, but also to address domestic
shortages, particularly at U.S. international airports.
Mr. Speaker, even as we absorb the events of this weekend where
Americans carried out terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New
Jersey, we must do all we can to prevent foreign terrorists, including
an estimated 3,000 Europeans trained as foreign fighters by ISIL, from
entering the United States.
Defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, will allow Members to
consider my bill, H.R. 5256, that will do just that. Again, Mr.
Speaker, we are only as good as we resource the Department to fight
terrorism.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), one of the great leaders of this
conference.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend the
gentleman from Georgia for the great work that he does on the Rules
Committee. Once again, he has done yeoman's work on this legislation
before us.
Frankly, I have some reservations about the underlying bill, but I do
respect the goal of this legislation. I also respect the gentleman from
Mississippi in his efforts to come up with some legislation so that we
can have enhanced interrogation of certain people wanting to come into
this country. I think almost everyone on this side of the aisle
believes in more detailed vetting of people wanting to come here,
especially from countries that we deem as dangerous.
I rise at this time, though, just to make the point that--in response
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who spent almost
his entire time talking about this bill, talking about the transparency
of the Republican nominee for President, I also, though, might make the
point that the Democratic nominee, Secretary Clinton, has refused for
many months to release the transcripts or copies of her many speeches
that she gave to Wall Street firms for really what most people would
consider to be small fortunes. In addition to that, she has refused to
give out details of the approximately 60 percent of the people she met
with while Secretary of State who had contributed to the Clinton
Foundation, in some cases, very large amounts of money from foreign
countries, which really is possibly more closely related to this
legislation than is the tax return of the Republican nominee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I would ask my colleagues respectfully to support us in our effort to
defeat the previous question so we can bring up the legislation that
Mr. Thompson mentioned, legislation that would strengthen the
Department of Homeland Security's overseas screening and vetting
programs.
I would like to think that even though Democrats and Republicans
don't always agree on everything, we can agree on something and that
this is something that we ought to be able to agree on, and hopefully
we will be able to have a vote on it.
Again, I regret that we are bringing up a bill that, again, is
another attempt to try to undermine the deal that we have brokered with
other nations around the world to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
power, but here we are yet with another bill. The President is going to
veto it. We can continue to debate the merits, but it is kind of a
waste of time.
Again, I would hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on the rule and
vote ``no'' on the bill if we are presented with it.
I would just say one final thing to my friend from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan), who I have a great deal of respect for: The deal is that Mr.
Trump is the first nominee, I think, that I can recall, who has not
released his taxes. Secretary Clinton has released years and years and
years of her taxes. We know more about Secretary Clinton than we know
about any other nominee, I think, in history.
I have always kind of wondered why Mr. Trump says some of the things
he says, which, quite frankly, I sometimes find unbelievable, some of
the comments on foreign policy. But when you look at his financial
interests and his investments in these various countries, you can kind
of understand why he defends dictators, why he never mentions the words
``human rights,'' why he says some of the things he says about urging
other countries to become nuclear powers when we should all be talking
about how we control nuclear weapons in this country.
{time} 1315
If we are worried about transparency and you are worried about
conflicts of interest, and if we are truly worried about corruption,
now is the time, I would urge my friends on the other side of the
aisle, to tell the nominee of your party to come clean. There are so
many tangled webs in The Trump Organization, so many financial ties to
things that, quite frankly, should give every one of us concern. I
don't know what the problem is about a little sunshine.
Like I said in the beginning, if Secretary Clinton did not release
her tax returns, there would be calls for hearings and resolutions and
there would be Special Orders, and it would go on and on and on; yet,
with regard to their nominee, it is okay for him to withhold all this
information from the American people. I think that is unfortunate.
So if we are talking about transparency here today and if we are
worried about corruption and if we are worried about conflicts of
interest, there is that old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' I
would urge my Republican colleagues to hold their nominee, hold their
standard-bearer to a higher standard when it comes to transparency.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward nominees for the Office of the
President.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate you issuing that reminder. I don't particularly enjoy
this time of year on the House floor because we do have important
business that needs to occur here, and we often get off base.
I don't think this is the right time to talk about the FBI
investigation into Secretary Clinton. I don't think this is the right
time to talk about the pay to play investigation going on with the
Clinton Foundation. I don't think this is the right time to talk about
all of her employees who have been questioned about her behavior and
are pleading the Fifth, one right after the other, and are refusing to
answer those questions. I don't think this is the right place for that.
This is the right place to talk about something that brings us
together, which is the defeat of a corrupt Iranian regime.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. There
are many of us on this side of the aisle who do not like the agreement
that the President made with the Iranians. In fact, there are many on
that side of the aisle who do not like the agreement that the President
made with the Iranians, and you need go no further than this debate
today to understand why.
I will read again from the President's own veto statement of this
bill. It says: ``This bill's required public postings''--these are the
public postings of the assets and the corrupt arrangements that are
involved in these top high officials of the Iranian regime. ``This
bill's required public postings . . . may be perceived by Iran and
likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) partners as an
attempt to undermine the fulfillment of our commitments, in turn
impacting the continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that
peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon.''
I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, the President's concern is that, by
making information public to the American people and the Iranian
people--and this information would be published in four languages so
that it would be available
[[Page H5731]]
to the Iranian people as well--by making information public about the
corrupt business dealings of Iranian leaders, we will be violating the
agreement the President signed with Iran.
How could this Nation possibly have signed an agreement, Mr. Speaker,
that trades away our opportunity to shine sunlight on corrupt
practices? I don't believe that we have. But my friend from
Massachusetts said, Mr. Speaker: It undermines the letter and the
intent of the agreement. To shine sunlight on corrupt practices.
Mr. Speaker, this is why the American people were concerned about the
Iranian agreement. This is why we continue to be concerned about the
Iranian agreement; but more importantly, this bill is not about that
agreement.
The chairman of the Committee on Financial Services testified in
front of the Committee on Rules last night, Mr. Speaker, and he said he
just can't imagine why it is controversial for us to publish a list of
officials and their holdings online. I agree.
It is baffling to me that the disclosure of what is, in many cases,
publicly known information but that has not been compiled in a
particular place could be a threat to preventing Iran from developing
nuclear weapons. In fact, I would argue shining sunlight on the corrupt
regime will empower the Iranian citizens to perhaps help us in this
cause.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial piece of legislation. This
is, in fact, a transparency piece of legislation. The motion to
recommit that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) discussed,
candidly, most of what he said I agree with. I don't believe a motion
to recommit is the right place to do it. He was not in front of the
Committee on Rules last night. The bill he offers as a bipartisan,
commonsense compromise has absolutely no Republicans on it whatsoever;
but I do believe that pushing out our borders, pushing out our vetting
process is exactly the right idea for this country. This happens to be
a bill from the Committee on Financial Services. The gentleman from
Mississippi happens to be the ranking member on the Committee on
Homeland Security. I hope the Committee on Homeland Security will get
about that business. I support it 100 percent.
But what I ask of my colleagues here today, Mr. Speaker, is to
support this rule so we can debate this bill. Folks on both sides of
the aisle like it, don't like it. Debating the bill is the right place
to expose it. Transparency is good for the Iranians, and it is good for
us as well. If we support this rule, we will also consider every
amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules. Every alternative
idea, every perfecting idea, every improvement that this body came up
with and brought to the Committee on Rules last night, Mr. Speaker, we
are going to make in order for debate here on the floor.
This is a tough time of year. Politics don't often bring out the best
of policy, but we have got a good shot at it today. We have got a good
shot at it with this rule. We have a rule here that I think everybody
can be proud to vote for; and, as my friend from Tennessee said
earlier, then we will debate the merits of the underlying bill and have
the House work its will.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 876 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5256) to enhance the overseas operations of the Department of
Homeland Security aimed at preventing terrorist threats from
reaching the United States, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5256.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair once again will remind Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the nominees for the
Office of the President.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
[[Page H5732]]
____________________