Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 164 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6255-H6265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROHIBITING THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FROM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIRCRAFT TO IRAN

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
921, I call up the bill (H.R. 5711) to prohibit the Secretary of the
Treasury from authorizing certain transactions by a U.S. financial
institution in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial
passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, in lieu of
the amendment recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-66 is adopted, and
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5711

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--IRAN FINANCING PROHIBITION

SECTION 101. PROHIBITION.

The Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize a
transaction by a U.S. financial institution (as defined under
section 561.309 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations)
that is ordinarily incident to the export or re-export of a
commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of
Iran.

SEC. 102. REVOCATION OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS.

If the Secretary of the Treasury authorized any transaction
described under section 101 before the date of the enactment
of this title, such authorization is hereby revoked.

TITLE II--NO EX-IM ASSISTANCE FOR TERRORISM

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``No Ex-Im Assistance for
Terrorism Act''.

[[Page H6256]]

SEC. 202. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCING THAT
WOULD BENEFIT IRAN.

Section 2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12
U.S.C. 635(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Prohibition on Financing That Would Benefit Iran.--
``(A) Direct financing.--The Bank shall not guarantee,
insure, or extend (or participate in an extension of) credit
in connection with any transaction with respect to which
credit assistance from the Bank is first sought after the
effective date of this paragraph by--
``(i) the Government of Iran or an entity owned or
controlled by the Government of Iran; or
``(ii) an entity created under Iranian law, or a foreign
subsidiary of such an entity.
``(B) Indirect financing.--The Bank shall not guarantee,
insure, or extend (or participate in an extension of) credit
in connection with any transaction with respect to which
credit assistance from the Bank is first sought after the
effective date of this paragraph involving--
``(i) an entity for the purpose of a transaction involving
the Government of Iran or an entity referred to in
subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) a non-United States entity that, in the 5-year
period ending with the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, has leased or sold aircraft to the Government of
Iran or an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) in
contravention of United States law, or a subsidiary or
controlling parent of such a non-United States entity.
``(C) Cancellation of approved financing.--The Bank shall
cease the provision of financial assistance approved by the
Bank in connection with a transaction with respect to which
credit assistance from the Bank is approved after the
effective date of this paragraph, on finding that the
assistance has facilitated the export, sale, or lease of an
aircraft to an entity referred to in subparagraph (A), and
shall seek immediate recovery of any amount provided by the
Bank in connection with the transaction.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in part A of House Report 114-818, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read and
shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and to submit extraneous materials on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
When our fellow Americans deposit their earnings in a U.S. bank or
entrust the government with their tax dollars, they do so assuming that
their money will not be used in ways which undermine the security of
our very Nation and, frankly, of the world. The legislation we are
debating tonight is a package of bills that is designed to prevent the
Obama administration from further undermining the trust of the American
people and the security of our Nation, as well as the security of our
allies.
Under President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, formally known as the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, the administration
agreed to authorize the export of civilian aircraft to Iran. What the
JCPOA did not include was authorization for the U.S. financing of those
sales. As Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in April in a Council on
Foreign Relations speech: ``Iran, complied with the nuclear agreement.
Therefore, the nuclear sanctions are lifted. I think that that is a
process that is becoming more and more clear. And we'll keep our part
of the bargain there. But the U.S. financial system is not open to Iran
and that is not something that is going to change.''
Again, that was Secretary Jack Lew in April of this past year.
Mr. Speaker, something changed. In September, the Treasury's Office
of Foreign Assets Control issued licenses to Airbus and to Boeing that
permitted the sale of up to 97 airplanes to Iran Air, the country's
flagship, state-owned carrier. These licenses didn't stop there,
however. By going beyond the scope of the JCPOA, they also authorized
U.S. financial institutions to ``engage in all transactions necessary
to provide financing or other financial services'' related to the Iran
Air orders.
My bill, H.R. 5711, would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from
authorizing U.S. financing through American banks in connection with
the export of commercial aircraft to Iran just as the administration
claimed was U.S. policy to begin with.
This bill would keep Americans' deposits away from a country that the
President's own State Department calls ``the world's foremost state
sponsor of terrorism'' and which the Treasury has designated as ``a
jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.'' Let me repeat that.
The State Department, itself, says this is the world's foremost state
sponsor of terrorism, and the Treasury Department has designated a
jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.
How many more red flags need to go up?
Under this bill, Americans would not have to fear that their savings
are being channeled to Iran Air, which was sanctioned by the Treasury
in 2011 for ferrying soldiers and weapons of war to Syria--the site of
a 5-year conflict that has claimed a half a million lives and has
displaced millions more.
This is the same Iran Air that a U.N. report concluded had shared
ballistic military technology with North Korea and is the same Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps whose deputy commander called for an end to
Israel, making note of more than 100,000 missiles that were ready ``for
the annihilation--the wiping out--and the collapse of the Zionist
regime.'' Additionally, research by the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies shows that Iran Air's support of the Assad regime continues
to this very day.
Why should U.S. banks and their customers be implicated in Iranian
atrocities?
I would submit that there is no reasonable answer to this, which is
why this commonsense prohibition, when offered as an amendment to this
year's Financial Services appropriations bill, was passed by this very
body--the House of Representatives--by a voice vote.
However, this bill goes even further, Mr. Speaker. Not only will H.R.
5711 protect Americans' bank accounts, it will prevent their tax
dollars from being used through the Export-Import Bank to subsidize
aircraft sales to Iran. It would be through direct transactions or
third-party leasing, which is becoming more and more common.
This codifies and strengthens an existing Ex-Im prohibition that is
renewed in annual appropriations bills. For that reason, this measure
enjoyed the support of Ex-Im supporters and critics alike when it came
before the Financial Services Committee.
H.R. 5711 combines the text of two bills that were reported by the
Committee on Financial Services; one of them sponsored by me and the
other by Congressman Roskam of Illinois. Both pieces of legislation
were cosponsored by our Democrat colleague, Congressman Sherman of
California, who has devoted years to Iran policy, both as a member of
the Financial Services Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I thank Representative Sherman and Representative Roskam for working
with me on this very important legislation package; and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I am disappointed that we are here, yet again, debating another
Republican bill to undermine the Iran nuclear deal--a deal that, so
far, has delivered on its principal goal of blocking Iran's path to
nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. This is a dangerous move
that, if enacted, would put U.S. and global security at risk.
Specifically, H.R. 5711 would prohibit the Treasury Secretary from
authorizing any transaction by a U.S. financial institution to support
the export of commercial planes to Iran. Doing so would violate a key
component of the agreement in which the U.S. has committed to allowing
the sales of these planes and the associated financial

[[Page H6257]]

services that are necessary to support the sales.
Earlier this year, the Treasury Department issued a license to Boeing
for the sale of 80 passenger planes to Iran--valued at $17.6 billion--
and authorized U.S. financial institutions to engage in all
transactions necessary to allow Boeing to receive payment for the sale.
This legislation not only puts the Boeing deal in the crosshairs by
prohibiting it from conducting a lawful sale under the agreement, but
it also places the viability of the nuclear deal itself in question.
Moreover, this legislation would breach the good faith provision in the
agreement by which all parties agreed not to undermine its successful
implementation.

H.R. 5711 also includes language that prevents the Export-Import Bank
from financing exports to Iran, which is a red herring because the Ex-
Im Bank has not supported exports to Iran since the 1970s, and it is
legally prohibited from doing so as long as Iran is a state sponsor of
terror.
Notably, the bill removes the President's national security waiver
with regard to these restrictions--a move that denies the President the
flexibility that is necessary to work with our allies to find the most
effective ways of changing Iran's behavior. The fact is that all
previous Iran sanctions bills that have passed the House and that have
become law have included a Presidential waiver that gives the President
the flexibility to act quickly and maneuver when doing so serves the
U.S. national security interest.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that this bill comes at a
time of deep global uncertainty about U.S. foreign policy. We have a
President-elect whose talk on foreign policy has ranged from vague and
contradictory in some areas to utterly incoherent elsewhere. He has
inserted unpredictability into the international arena, has questioned
the value of U.S. alliances, and has threatened the cornerstones of
decades of American foreign policy leadership.
Yet, instead of reassuring the world that the United States is
committed to working with our global allies to promote our collective
security, House Republicans have decided to push yet another piece of
legislation through the House to destabilize the agreement that is
central to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

{time} 1800

I do wonder why their leadership decided to bring this bill to the
floor now in the lameduck session when they know the President will
veto it. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that
in two short months, they will no longer have the luxury of legislating
without consequences.
Come January, we will have a President who has called the Iran
nuclear agreement the worst deal ever negotiated. Like most of his
other nonsense policies, Mr. Trump has claimed he will either more
strictly enforce the agreement or negotiate ``a much better deal'' or
dismantle it altogether. We don't know, and he doesn't know.
So I am going to bet that, under the Trump administration,
Republicans will not be so eager to move legislation to unravel this
agreement because, like the rest of us, they do not know how Mr. Trump
will govern and because they know there is no other reasonable approach
to curbing Iran's nuclear ambition, short of military intervention.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
sending a strong message to the President-elect and our allies around
the world that Democrats remain committed to a strong U.S. engagement
in the world and will not tolerate any attempt to undermine the Iran
nuclear deal or any other international arrangements that keep us safe.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a leader on this
issue who is the author of H.R. 5715.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Huizenga) and also Chairman Hensarling for their consistent and
persistent work on this issue.
My friend from California mentioned a minute ago her disappointment.
Well, if you want to talk about disappointment and destabilizing of the
deal, just look at what the Iranians have done since the JCPOA passed.
By the way, a majority of the House of Representatives and a majority
of the United States Senate, not on a partisan basis either, Mr.
Speaker, voted against the JCPOA. So let's put that in context. But the
President insisted, he moved along, and here we are. So let's see what
we can do about it.
Before we fix it, let's look at what the Iranians have done. They are
the destabilizers. There have been Iranian-supplied rockets launched at
a U.S. Naval ship. Iran has fired rockets within 1,500 feet in December
of last year on U.S. ships numerous times. The IRGC patrol boats have
aggressively harassed U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has
launched numerous ballistic missile tests in violation of the U.N.
Security Council resolutions. They violated the JCPOA by producing
excess heavy water. They continue to kidnap Americans and hold them for
ransom.
So let's put it where it lies. The destabilizing impact doesn't
belong with the United States. It doesn't belong with any statement by
an American policyholder. The destabilizing nature belongs, Mr.
Speaker, to the Iranian regime, the mullahs themselves.
So the gentlewoman from California said she is disappointed. Well,
look, I mean, disappointment, get used to it. It is the nature of
things. The nature of the disappointment is that we now have American
companies that are saying: You know what? Let's go in and let's do
business with a terrorist regime.
How is that?
Let's just go make a buck. That is the scandal of this. The scandal
is that there are American companies, there are international
companies--Boeing, Airbus--that are now making their own names
inextricably linked with terror forever more. That is the scandal.
So what are we trying to do?
The gentlewoman said that the Ex-Im elements of this--I think she
said--was a red herring. If not, it was words to that effect.
No, it is not so. Because if you look carefully at what the Ex-Im
prohibition actually prohibits, Mr. Speaker, it prohibits the direct
financing to the Iranian regime. Fine, if that is all this did, well
and good. There is no reason to oppose it, then.
Of course, that is not where the Ex-Im is actually limited. Because
here is what can happen: under current law, the Ex-Im Bank can do a
deal with the Europeans, for example.
What can happen, then?
That can be leased under current law to the Iranians. This amendment,
Mr. Huizenga's language, would prohibit that. That is what we are
trying to do.
Look, think about the irony of this. You have got an administration
that currently is telling Americans it is a dangerous thing to go to
Iran; that you are at risk of being kidnapped if you go to Iran. At the
same time--picture this, Mr. Speaker--that that is being articulated,
they are also saying: We are going to help you do some business over
there.
That is ridiculous. It is absurd, it is contradictory, and it is
indefensible.
So here is the good news: The good news is we can do something about
it. The other good news is this Iran deal has a very short shelf life
because the President-elect has said he doesn't like it.
President Obama didn't do the hard work of developing a national
consensus on it. If he had, it would have been a treaty and a treaty
that would have bound the United States in permanency; but he didn't do
that. Why? Because it was a bad idea and he couldn't sell it to
Congress. So he went the easy way, did it basically by executive order.
And what goes around comes around.
So we can do some good work here today. We can move this out. Is
President Obama going to sign it?
Obviously not, but that is not to say that it is not what we should
do. We know what we need to do. We need to make sure that the American
financial system is not complicit in this deal. We need to make sure
that American taxpayers are not subsidizing this deal.
I urge the bill's passage.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a member of the Financial
Services Committee and the House

[[Page H6258]]

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from
Michigan, once again, we find ourselves in this dreary and dangerous
ritual of considering a bill which, without question, would cause us to
violate our agreement under the JCPOA. We get the same arguments about
how bad the Iranian regime is, and we get the same misstatements like:
This is President Obama's deal.
It is not President Obama's deal. It is a deal of the United Nations
Security Council, of China, of Russia, of Great Britain, of France, of
Germany, the U.K., and the rest of the world who combined working for a
period of almost 15 years hammered out a deal--and I say this as a
member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--which
today has removed Iran as a nuclear threat.
Yet, here again, we are offered a bill that would compromise our
obligations and almost certainly result in centrifuges spinning once
again in Tehran and then leading on to the very likely prospect of yet
another Middle Eastern war.
Yes, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, it is a bad place. You will
get no argument from this side of the aisle that this is a bad regime.
Once again, I remind my Republican friends that their patron saint,
Ronald Reagan, made a nuclear deal with the Soviet Union, also a
sponsor of terrorism, an appalling regime; but Ronald Reagan was smart
enough to know that you can make a deal that makes everybody safer even
with some very bad people. Ronald Reagan.
One thing I know as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence is that what used to be a mortal national security
threat to the United States--2 to 3 months from breakout time, 2 to 3
months over which would almost certainly be involved in yet another war
in the Middle East--has been taken off the table.
Now, the Republicans not only seek to scuttle that deal with all of
the implications, but they do it by stopping an American company from
selling a flagship American product around the world. If you use the
Department of Commerce's multiplier, the bill they are pushing today
would result in 100,000 American jobs not created so that they can
continue with this fetish of eliminating a deal, which has made us
safer.
If there is any question about whether this has made us safer, let me
again quote General Gadi Eizenkot, who is the chief of staff of the
Israeli Defense Forces. 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. That is the chief of
staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, but my friends in the Republican
Party know better about what is good for Israel.
These sad charades end pretty soon because the bluff has been called.
President Trump has said he will tear up the Iran deal. When he does
that--because this, of course, is not becoming law--the centrifuges
will spin again. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, when the
centrifuges are spinning, we and I will stand here and we will tell the
American people why centrifuges are spinning again. And where we were 2
years ago when we thought we were going to war with Iran, if we go to
Iran, when Israeli planes are bombing Iran, we will stand here and
explain why we are now in another Middle Eastern war. We can avoid that
by ending these charades and finally accepting this deal.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the chairman of
the Small Business Committee, but also a previous chair of the Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5711. I
want to the commend my colleagues, Congressmen Huizenga and Sherman,
for authoring this bipartisan piece of legislation.
It was once said that the West would sell its enemies the rope that
would be used to hang itself with. Well, because of the disastrously
flawed Iran deal, that is exactly what we are currently doing. That is
why this legislation is so important.
H.R. 5711 essentially prevents the export or reexport of commercial
passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This bill would cut
off Iran's means of delivering weapons to terrorist organizations like
Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad, a war
criminal who is responsible for the worst refugee crisis since the
Second World War.
The truth is we wouldn't even need to be here today if the Obama
administration had just paid attention to the facts on the ground in
the Middle East. When negotiating the disastrous Iran nuclear deal,
despite knowing Iran was the world's leading state sponsor of
terrorism, President Obama and Secretary Kerry permitted the sale of
commercial aircraft to Iran anyway.
Incredibly, under current U.S. law, if we issued a license for Iran
Air to purchase aircraft from an American manufacturer and then Iran
walked away from its commitment, U.S. taxpayers would have to foot the
bill for Iran. In this case, that could be up to $70 billion on the
U.S. taxpayer. Given Iran Air's multiple unpaid commitments over the
years, that outrageous outcome is entirely possible.
So for all of the reasons that I have mentioned and for reasons that
have been stated already by my colleagues, I would urge clear-minded
people on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a senior member of the
House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 5711.
This legislation is only the latest misguided and politicized effort
by the majority to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a
historic agreement negotiated by the world's major powers in order to
keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Simply put, enactment of H.R. 5711 would violate the United States
Government's obligations under the JCPOA, opening the door for Iran to
walk away from this agreement. It also threatens to undermine our
credibility with our allies and negotiating partners.
Now, we must be vigilant. No one disagrees that we must be vigilant
in ensuring Iranian compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. We also
should continue to hold Iran to account for its violations of human
rights, for its sponsorship of terrorism, and for its nonnuclear
weapons development.
Last night, I supported, as did almost every Member of this body, a
clean reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Extension Act, which
guarantees Congress' ability to snap back sanctions should Iran violate
the JCPOA. The reauthorization also allows Congress to take positive
action on transition day should it be verified that Iran has used its
nuclear capacity only for peaceful purposes.
So the continued authorization of sanctions will allow the United
States to continue to exert pressure on the Iranian regime. The
dangerous bill before us today will do just exactly the opposite. By
directly blocking a specific provision of the JCPOA--namely, the
permissible sale of commercial passenger aircraft--this legislation
would send a clear message to the Iranian people that the United States
does not negotiate in good faith; that we expect to have it both ways,
with Iran dismantling its nuclear facilities and getting nothing in
return.

{time} 1815

We must also remember, my colleagues, that the Iran nuclear agreement
is not just a bilateral agreement between Iran and the United States.
It is the product of years and years of negotiations between Iran and
the P5+1, which is the United Kingdom, China, France, Russia, Germany,
and the United States. The bill before us today would break faith with
those negotiating partners in a reckless and dangerous way.
Because of this agreement, the breakout time for Iran to develop
enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon went from 2 to 3
months to a year or more. Because of this agreement, the international
community has 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear sites. Because of this
agreement, we possess the enforcement mechanisms necessary to verify
Iran's compliance.

[[Page H6259]]

By all objective accounts, Iran has upheld its end of the bargain.
Why would we give up these capabilities by failing to uphold ours? In
light of the political transitions taking place in our country, now is
especially the time when the United States must keep its word, its word
to our allies and to the international community.
Now, regardless of all this, it appears that our Republican
colleagues are willing to jeopardize a major international agreement
for political advantage. They are willing to undermine the credibility
of the United States and our allies on the international stage.
My colleagues, instead of scoring political points or seeking to undo
the foreign policy legacy of the outgoing President, we should be
working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure this agreement's
success. For that reason, I urge colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a member of the House
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5711.
Despite the President's assurances, Iran remains a menace to the
stability of the Middle East and a threat to America and its allies.
All of us, both Republicans and Democrats, need to take action to
reduce the harm that this rogue state and its accomplices can do.
H.R. 5711 takes some very important steps in that effort. By
prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury from green-lighting U.S.
financing for the export of commercial aircraft to Iran, we are making
it more difficult for Iranian airlines to acquire planes that we know
are used to ferry soldiers and weapons.
I need to ask my colleagues across the aisle: Is that such a bad
idea?
By blocking Ex-Im assistance to the Government of Iran, we are
preventing the U.S. taxpayer from subsidizing efforts by the world's
foremost state sponsor of terrorism to acquire aircraft to support its
deadly activities around the world. We can all agree that Ex-Im should
never be used for this purpose.
The Government of Iran continues to fund terrorist activities, and it
is intimately involved in Syria's violent civil war. Let us not forget
the recent hostile actions taken by Houthi rebels in Yemen. These
rebels receive funds from Iran, and they fired missiles at U.S. Navy
warships on patrol in the Red Sea.
The American people cannot be complicit in these hostilities. We owe
it to our constituents and our allies around the world to pass this
commonsense legislation.
I thank my colleagues from Michigan, Illinois, and California for
introducing this bill. I urge its support.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will this Congress ground Boeing or support
this key manufacturer and the jobs that it creates, that have already
helped make America great? Will we march to the tune of the pied pipers
against peace who see war with Iran as the only way to restrain it from
developing nuclear weapons? Part of what makes trade so important to us
is that countries that trade together are less likely to go to war with
one another.
The House today is being asked to vote to block the sale of about 80
Boeing aircraft to update an aging and unsafe commercial airline in
Iran. If this bill passes, that is bad news for a major American
business, and it is also bad news to thousands of skilled workers
across this country who won't see any part of what could be a $25
billion deal. It is great news for Boeing's major European competitor
to get the work that these supporters would deny to Boeing.
This is, of course, just the latest of one effort after another to
undermine the only way forward, short of war, to limit Iran's ability
to develop nuclear weapons. This realization is why this very week so
many national security experts have urged Mr. Trump to reconsider, to
reverse his threat to break the promises that our country made in an
international agreement. This week also, the European Union affirmed
its support for that international agreement. The six other countries
that joined us in that international agreement are honoring their
promises, and we should do the same thing.
What will keep Boeing from flying high? It is the war hawks that fly
high, so insistent on undermining this important pact that has made our
family safer. If the hawks win, it is about more than losing a
multibillion-dollar deal to one American manufacturer. It really means
that nothing--nothing--but the threat of another American war, an
American attack, will hold Iran back from developing nuclear weapons.
This is about more than destabilizing the American workforce.
Undermining this agreement will destabilize the Middle East. It will
jeopardize our families and the families of our allies. Once again,
this measure should be rejected.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my support for H.R.
5711 and to thank Congressman Huizenga for his leadership on this very
important issue.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing
certain transactions by U.S. financial institutions in connection with
the export or reexport of a commercial passenger aircraft to the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
As the primary sponsor of terrorism throughout the world, it is
imperative that we hold Iran accountable and do all we can to limit
their abilities to promote this type of action and behavior. This bill
confronts the same airline that has been sanctioned by the Treasury
Department for transporting fighters and weapons on behalf of Iran's
Revolutionary Guard.
It is beyond me how the administration can be okay with allowing Iran
access to airplanes which would only further their support of
terrorism. I supported this commonsense legislation when it was marked
up in the Committee on Financial Services, and I am proud to support it
today.
Thank you to my good friend, Congressman Huizenga, for sponsoring
this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
California, Ranking Member Waters, for the leadership that she gave
this issue in the Committee on Financial Services, and I rise today to
offer my opposition to this bill for a number of reasons.
I will say that it is interesting--I heard my colleague from North
Carolina mention the Soviet Union and the interests and the efforts
that President Reagan made to, in fact, make America safer in his time
and in his context. Interestingly, in the backdrop of today, one could
now argue that Russia has, in its portfolio, advocacy for terrorists as
well as a large profile of cyberterrorism and hacking into the United
States as well as a blatant interference in the most recent
Presidential election. As I look to my colleagues speaking about what
the President-elect will do, I would hope that he would not undermine
the national security of this Nation.
First of all, we know that this bill will be vetoed if it gets to the
desk of President Obama. This bill would damage a hard-fought
diplomatic solution that makes the world safer from nuclear war. The
sanctions are working, including extensive monitoring of the nuclear
capability of Iran.
We also, in a bipartisan manner, supported the potential extinction
of Iran sanctions yesterday, and that was the right thing to do, the
opportunity or the possibility of doing that. But this bill, in
particular, flies in the face of a realistic approach to how we do
international engagement.
The JCPOA has significantly constrained Iran's nuclear program. Key
aspects of the program are dismantled under the JCPOA, and it subjects
Iran's nuclear program to unprecedented verification and monitoring
requirements. It is working.
It is profoundly in the national security interests of the United
States to continue to meet our commitments

[[Page H6260]]

under the JCPOA as long as Iran continues to meet its commitments. Our
allies are depending on us. The word of the United States should mean
something. We even know that Israel has seen a positive impact, some of
its military persons have indicated, by way of the JCPOA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This bill prohibits the involvement of U.S.
financial institutions in the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to
Iran Air, civil end use that would put U.S. aircraft manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors whose access to
financing would not be subject to the same constraints. This is not
putting commercialism or jobs above national security. It is, in fact,
allowing civil end use to continue as we are standing for our national
security.
The sweeping and vague nature of this provision would have a chilling
effect on U.S. and non-U.S. entities seeking to engage in permissible
business with Iran. The United States has a long tradition of remaining
faithful to our commitments with our international partners, and a
reversal of this principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our
ability to lead globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon
in implementing the JCPOA. We can anticipate that should this bill
become law, our closest allies would view this bill as a violation of
the JCPOA commitments, and Iran would take the issue to the Joint
Commission.
The main thing of this bill is that it will douse the friendship and
alliance that we are making with allies who want a peaceful
nonproliferation of nuclear activity. This is a ``no'' vote in order to
provide for the national security of this Nation.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a member of the House
Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Huizenga for the couple
minutes. This is one of those moments, has anyone actually read the
four pages on the bill? Great. In that case, we should all know this
isn't about selling jets. It is about using the American financial
system to finance them. That is what the language of the bill is.
Think about this. We have now spent the last 6 years around this body
talking over and over and over how we are going to keep the American
financial system safe, how we are going to not do things that
concentrate debt within our capital markets.
If Iran wants to buy jets, let them go find bilateral agreements in
other countries. Let them show up with the cash. Let them go find
someone else to put up the surety bonds. Let someone else go put up the
coverage on the lost pieces on the ladder of the financing.
This piece of legislation coming through the Committee on Financial
Services is about protecting our financial system, first, from what
many of us on the committee believe is going to turn into bad debt and
functionally become toxic within our financial markets; but then,
secondly, do you really want the United States financial system
providing liquidity and financing for the leading state sponsor of
terrorism in the world? That is a pretty powerful ethical question when
you consider what we have been through in cleaning up our own financial
system over the last few years.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume. I am sorry that Mr. Pittenger left because I
really did want to share this point with him.
It is important to note that nothing in this legislation will keep
new passenger aircraft out of the hands of Iran. The bill only prevents
Boeing from selling civilian passenger aircraft to Iran, while foreign
aircraft manufacturers, such as Airbus, will still be able to sell
their passenger planes to Iran since they won't need U.S. financial
institutions to help finance their deals.

{time} 1830

What is this? Is this some kind of payback to Boeing? Is this some
kind of----
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. That is actually not true. Airbus is
subject to this as well because of the significant number of parts and
material in the jets that they produce. So they would be subject to
this as well as Boeing.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Reclaiming my time, there is nothing
in this legislation that will keep new passenger aircraft out of the
hands of Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who is also a member of the House
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Huizenga for his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's State Department recognizes
the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of three state sponsors of
terrorism. But, ironically, the President calls his deal with Iran a
foreign policy achievement. Our Commander in Chief is proud of his plan
that puts Iran on the path to getting a nuclear weapon. He is proud of
his plan that condones and facilitates U.S. business with Iran.
In September, the Treasury Department authorized the sale of up to 97
Airbus and Boeing planes to Iran. Iran is more than just a labeled
state sponsor of terrorism. Iran uses its financial sector for
international money laundering.
Iran has been a long-time supporter of the brutal Assad regime in
Syria. It has supported a government that has killed hundreds of
thousands of its own people. Iran's leader has pledged to wipe America
and Israel off the map, but none of these facts matter to the Obama
administration. They will do whatever they can just to make a deal and
ensure a legacy.
Mr. Speaker, why are we rewarding and aiding a nation that has
contributed to so much disorder and destruction in the Middle East?
To me, it is simply a no-brainer. We must not authorize U.S. aircraft
sales to Iran.
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5711, which would prohibit the
Treasury Secretary from authorizing U.S. financing in connection with
commercial passenger aircraft to Iran.
In God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a portion of a letter from J
Street: J Street Calls on Members of Congress to Oppose Anti-JCPOA Bill
Restricting Commercial Aircraft Sales.
The last paragraph says:
``Additionally, the bill would not even achieve its intended
objective of preventing Iran from acquiring commercial aircraft--it
would merely ensure that Iran purchases them from a foreign producer,
pointlessly denying jobs and income to working Americans and
communities across the country. Like so many of the legislative
attempts by JCPOA opponents to undermine or kill the agreement, this
bill is just another cynical messaging exercise that hurts rather than
helps America's essential interests, security, and standing in the
world.
``J Street therefore urges Members of Congress to oppose H.R. 5711
and reaffirm the United States' commitment to uphold its international
obligations.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a distinguished member of the
House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Huizenga and also
Chairman Hensarling for bringing this very important issue before the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, it is a horrible idea to allow the United States
Government to help the Iranian Government support terrorism. This bill
helps make sure that does not happen.
Now, the world knows that the Iranian Government has a very long
history of using their state-owned Iran Air to transport weapons and
military personnel for the Revolutionary Guard, which, in turn, trains,
arms, and funds

[[Page H6261]]

terrorist organizations around the world. The Revolutionary Guard and
the Government of Iran has American blood on its hands.
It should be very concerning to everybody in this Chamber,
Republicans and Democrat, that the Iranian leaders for years have
chanted, Death to America, and have vowed to wipe the State of Israel
off the map. The Iranian Government cannot be trusted.
Now, the United States financial institutions should not be allowed
to help the Iranian Government purchase aircraft and other equipment
proven to be used for military purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 5711, is a good, commonsense bill. I
implore everybody in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, to do
what is right and to stand up and vote ``yes'' for H.R. 5711 to make
sure we do not assist the chief sponsor of terrorism in this world to
conduct its activities.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I like Mr. Poliquin. He
is a nice man. He always has a nice smile. But I don't trust him more
than I trust J Street.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to
the balance of the time remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knight). The gentleman from Michigan has
10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 10\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is a member of the Financial
Services Committee and a former Treasury official.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5711. And I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), who serves on our committee, for his
leadership on this measure and consistently works on matters concerning
Iran, as well as Mr. Roskam of Illinois.
I was proud to be a member this past Congress on the Financial
Services Committee Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.
During our hearings, Mr. Speaker, we heard numerous witnesses describe
Iran's support for terrorism and other evil activities.
It is really staggering, Mr. Speaker, that we sit here tonight and we
have a Member of the other party suggest that Iran is a friend to the
United States. There is no friendship between Iran and the United
States or our allies. I think that is a stunning thing to say on the
House floor.
You have heard tonight about Iran's direct involvement in conflicts
in Iraq, Syria, Yemen; their support of Hamas, Hezbollah. And one of
the main methods they use to support their terrorist activities around
the world is they are flying commercial aircraft by the Quds Force
around this world supporting terrorism, supplying Assad in Syria, who
is responsible for the deaths of hundreds.

This deal is not about blocking airplane sales, Mr. Speaker. This
deal is about protecting taxpayers on financing airplane sales,
protecting our banks in the financing of airplane sales. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, the Obama administration has already provided the Government
of Iran, the mullahs in Iran over $100 billion in freed-up cash and has
given them $1.7 billion in Euros in cash on pallets. Let them use that
to buy an aircraft. Let's assume they cost $100 million, $150 million.
They can buy several aircraft and pay cash, thanks to the failed
diplomacy of the Obama administration.
So, again, this legislation is about the belief that the United
States should not directly support terrorism and the killing of
innocent civilians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. It is the mission of Iran
to use these aircraft for nefarious purposes. We already have that
guilt on our hands by the release of $100 billion and $1.7 billion in
cash. Let's not compound the errors of the past by opposing this bill,
which will limit taxpayer risk and our financial sector risk at
financing aircraft to Iran.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the
balance of my time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), a distinguished Member, friend, and
former member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Michigan
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just find it fascinating that here we are again.
Listen, we can talk about the JCPOA, this Iran nuclear deal, which I
think is a historic mistake, which will haunt us for generations. There
is no question about that. If anybody was unclear about where I stand
or where I think many in this body stand, let me just simply say that I
think this will be a historic mistake that will haunt us.
Ultimately, when we are talking about the world's greatest state
sponsor of terrorism, what is amazing to me is the fact that this is
not even up for debate in the administration. The administration will
tell you: Yes, Iran is the world's greatest state sponsor of terror.
And you know what? With this agreement, if our destination was to
say, You know what, we want to ensure that Iran is never able to get a
nuclear weapon, this deal all but ensures it. Bob Menendez, a Democrat
over in the Senate, said those very words. Prime Minister Netanyahu
says this is a historic mistake.
So, yes, we can talk about some of the others over there who believe
this is a good thing, but ultimately we realize this is a bad thing.
This is a bad thing because, frankly, as we talk about quoting J Street
on the floor, I personally want to say that I will trust Bruce Poliquin
from Maine, my colleague on the Financial Services Committee. When it
comes to a financing bill, yes, I trust Bruce Poliquin a heck of a lot
more than I trust J Street. J Street, frankly, is in the tank for the
other side. They are not an objective body, I believe.
Ultimately, as we look at this bill, Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't
prevent the sale of aircraft. As much as I would like to prevent the
sale of aircraft to the world's greatest state sponsor of terror, which
could use the aircraft to send supplies and soldiers--because we know
that Iran is sending money and supplies to Hezbollah, Hamas, to Assad
in Syria. Frankly, this administration will tell you the same thing.
This is a bill that prevents the financing. Ultimately, as we look
at, how do we protect taxpayer dollars, how do we protect the deposits
of millions of Americans that go to Main Street and deposit in their
local banks?
We are just saying, you can't use financing to go finance the planes
that are going over into Iran, the world's greatest state sponsor of
terror.
If they want to pay cash, it would be one thing to say, You know
what? I don't think you have got any cash.
Wait, we know they have got cash. Why? Because we just sent an
unmarked plane with unmarked bills full of cash, ultimately, we know,
for the release of hostages. We have got $1.7 billion that we know is
there. We have got $100 billion worth of sanctions relief. You know
what, I am counting on the fact that they have got the resources to
spend.
So what this is doing is this is trying to protect the American
taxpayer. Ultimately, what we do know, the administration agrees to
authorize the export of civilian aircraft to Iran. That still can
happen. This bill does not change that one iota.
What it does do is it says that you cannot use U.S. financing for
those sales. Ultimately, I think that is a good thing because when we
look and we want to go back and they want to talk about it, this is
something about the JCPOA, the Iran deal.
What is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the only thing that
was bipartisan in the Iran deal was its opposition in this body to that
deal. Frankly, I think we ought to be doing everything in our power to
make sure that we keep and hold Iran accountable, and we should not be
financing planes that go in there because, ultimately, we know they
have already

[[Page H6262]]

fired missiles. Right? They have already broken their agreements. They
have fired missiles. They have fired weapons over at U.S. ships. They
have captured U.S. sailors. They are taking hostages.
This is not a good actor. Frankly, we should be doing everything in
our power to make sure that we are holding them accountable and
ratcheting up sanctions. We should not make it easier for them to be
able to purchase planes.
Frankly, we have got all manufacturers that are out there that have
parts in the United States that would be implicated with this. So this
is not singling out a single U.S. carrier.
We want to talk about pro-growth, but what we don't want to do is
talk about pro-growth opportunities that are going to help the world's
greatest state sponsor of terror. This is a mistake if we do not pass
this piece of legislation.
I am confident that this bipartisan piece of legislation is going to
be able to pass this House. My hope is that the Senate will take it up.
I don't believe that the President will sign it--and I think that will
be a mistake--but that should not prevent this body from doing the
right thing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go right back to where we started at
the beginning. The world's greatest state sponsor of terror should not
be aided by the U.S. taxpayer, by our banking system, in order to
finance planes that we really don't know what they are going to do with
them. But what we do know is that Iran is a bad actor and they are
going to continue to be the world's greatest state sponsor of terror.
So I am going to urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a
commonsense piece of bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the
chairman for his work on it, and I want to thank Chairman Hensarling as
well. I want to thank Mr. Roskam, and I want to thank everybody here
who is going to stand up united to say, this is going to something that
we need to hold Iran accountable to.

{time} 1845

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time, and I am prepared to close.
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Illinois just
repeating some of the outrageous statements that Mr. Trump made during
the campaign where he talked about the airplane carrying billions of
dollars to Iran. I guess we are going to be hearing a lot of that
around here.
Mr. Speaker, next year, President-elect Trump will face a daunting
array of international challenges. The most pressing of these will be
curbing Islamic terrorism, reining in Russian corruption and hegemony,
and dealing with the civil wars in Iraq and Syria.
The self-proclaimed Islamic State, though it is in retreat in Iraq
and Syria, has demonstrated its ability to operate beyond the confines
of the Middle East and sponsor attacks in Asia, Europe, and the United
States. Moreover, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea will require
an immediate and coherent policy response from the Trump
administration.
So if ever there was a time when the U.S. should be affirming our
commitment to the international agreements that promote our stability
and security in such a volatile global environment, the time is now. We
should be working to reassure our allies and the rest of the world that
the U.S. is committed to internationalism and to shaping and preserving
the world economic and political order. Yet, Republicans are intent on
playing politics and continuing their futile attempts to undermine the
Iran nuclear agreement and put the global community at risk of a
nuclear Iran.
Over the past few months, this House passed Republican bills to
reinstate a program denying Iranian financial institutions access to
U.S. dollars; to prohibit the U.S. from buying heavy water from Iran, a
key component for some nuclear reactors; and most recently, to prohibit
so-called ransom payments to Iran, which would, in fact, put the U.S.
in violation of its international obligations under the Algiers
Accords, which have been in effect since 1981, under both Republican
and Democratic administrations.
The White House has issued a statement of policy making it clear that
the President would veto the bill before us today, stating: ``The
United States has a long tradition of remaining faithful to our
commitments and our international partners, and a reversal of this
principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our ability to lead
globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon in implementing
the JCPOA.''
We know that this bill would violate a key provision of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action that specifically committed to the sale of
commercial planes to Iran by prohibiting our financial institutions
from facilitating those sales. It also would put U.S. aircraft
manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign
competitors, whose access to financing would not be subject to the same
constraints.
The legislation is also concerning because it would remove the
President's national security waiver with regard to restrictions on the
Export-Import Bank's ability to finance exports to Iran. While the
administration has never exercised this authority, I believe removing
the President's discretion and leverage on critical national security
matters would be a serious mistake.
So I strongly oppose this bill that aims to undo the hard-fought
progress to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and undercuts our ability
to exercise global leadership, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to quote the great American President, Ronald Reagan:
``There you go again.'' Attack the President-elect, and try to throw
out red herrings.
The bill that we have before us has two simple titles, the Iran
Financing Prohibition--and I will read section 101: ``The Secretary of
the Treasury may not authorize a transaction by a U.S. financial
institution.''
Section 102, Revocation of Prior Authorizations: ``If the Secretary
of the Treasury authorized any transaction described under section 101
before the date of the enactment of this title, such authorization is
hereby revoked.''
We are halfway through. Section 2, Title II, No Ex-Im Assistance for
Terrorism. It simply says that there is a prohibition--on section 202:
``Prohibition on Export-Import Bank Financing that would Benefit
Iran.'' That means direct financing. That would be subhead A.
Indirect Financing, meaning you can't have a third party get that
lending from the Export-Import Bank, by the way, a U.S. taxpayer-funded
bank. So that is subhead B.
And C is Cancellation of Approved Financing, if they have done that
already.
This bill is not that complicated, and this bill does not cite any
particular company. It does not limit any company from selling aircraft
to Iran, no matter how big of a mistake that might be.
It simply says--as I might add, Secretary Jack Lew, Secretary of the
Treasury, said in April of this year: There will be no U.S. financial
institution financing this deal. And we have added that second section,
that second title that says: There will be no use of the U.S. taxpayer-
financed Export-Import Bank. That is all this bill says.
So you have heard attacks on the President-elect. You have heard
attacks on the Export-Import Bank and whether this is going to be good
or bad for U.S. employers and employees.
The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, H.R. 5711, says: We
are not going to allow U.S. financial institutions, and U.S. financial
institutions only, to be used to finance these deals; and we are not
going to allow the Export-Import Bank of the United States to be used,
either directly or indirectly, to finance that deal.
Iran can go put this deal together with other banks in Asia, Europe,
anywhere else in the world that they can find it, but not here in the
United States and not using taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to support

[[Page H6263]]

H.R. 5711, the No U.S. Financing for Iran Act, introduced by my good
friend Bill Huizenga. This bill also includes the outstanding work of
my good friend Peter Roskam, who introduced H.R. 5715, the No Ex-Im
Assistance for Terrorism Act.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama has made an endless stream of
concessions to the Iranian government. Most recently, in September, the
administration announced that it would issue special export licenses
for Boeing and Airbus to sell dozens of commercial aircraft to Iran--a
deal that together is valued at upwards of $50 billion. Yet the deal is
not finalized because Iran is having difficulty financing it.
The No U.S. Financing for Iran Act will guarantee that the U.S. plays
no part in facilitating this financing: it blocks the Treasury
Department from authorizing U.S. financial institutions from supporting
such transactions and prevents the U.S. Export-Import Bank from
extending direct or indirect credit to the Government of Iran.
Although the Ex-Im Bank is prohibited from providing direct financing
to Iran, it could do so through a third-party. For instance, Reuters
last week reported that after months of negotiations, Iran secured
financing possibly through an Emirati leasing company for the first 17
planes it plans to buy from Airbus. If the U.S. Ex-Im Bank were to
provide financing to such a third-party company, it would in effect be
facilitating Iran's purchase of the aircraft.
It is important to recall why Iran should not be receiving these
planes in the first place: until President Obama implemented his
nuclear deal, Iran Air had for over four years been subject to U.S.
sanctions due to the company's notorious working relationship with
Iran's military and Revolutionary Guards Corps. For years, Iran Air has
smuggled rockets, missiles, and other sensitive materiel aboard its
passenger and cargo planes bound for regional hotspots, such as Syria,
home to Iranian terrorist proxies and murderous regimes.
The Obama Administration was absolutely wrong to drop these sanctions
in connection with the nuclear deal because this support has little or
nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program. On the contrary, much of
this activity is related to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism--for which
the United States still imposes sanctions on Iran.
It is long past time for the Administration to stop accommodating
this genocidal regime and rather hold it to account. Just last week the
IAEA reported that Iran had for the second time this year exceeded its
quota for heavy water as stipulated in the nuclear deal. But instead of
calling this violation what it is, the Obama Administration chose to
sweep it under the rug. Such passivity in the face of Iranian
violations only emboldens the regime to see what more it can get away
with. This is a dangerous game to play when the consequences are so
grave for our national security and that of our close ally Israel.
The Administration's nuclear deal with Iran itself contained far too
many major concessions: it recognized Iran's right to enrichment,
despite longstanding United States policy against such recognition, and
settled for a weak inspections regime that is anything but ``anytime,
anywhere.''
We must act again today to put a stop to the concessions. For that
reason, I urge my colleagues to pass this urgent measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.

Amendment No. 1 Printed in Part A of House Report 114-818 Offered by
Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 1, before line 1, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``No U.S. Financing for Iran
Act''.
Page 1, line 7, strike ``that is ordinarily incident to''
and insert ``in connection with''.
Page 4, after line 3, insert the following:

TITLE III--SUNSET

SEC. 301. SUNSET.

This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall cease to
be effective on the date that is 30 days after the date on
which the President certifies to Congress that the Government
of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of
international terrorism.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this point my amendment
adds a short title and clarifies the nature of prohibited Iranian
transactions. The amendment also provides for a sunset of the bill's
provision upon presidential certification that Iran has ceased support
of international terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
amendment and the underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HECK of Washington. The key change made by this amendment is to
strike the phrase ``ordinarily incident to'' and insert ``in connection
with.'' One is a term of art commonly used by the Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. Companies doing business with an OFAC
license know what that means.
In connection with is a much broader term, not clearly defined, Mr.
Speaker, and if this amendment were to pass, exactly how attenuated of
a connection would be impermissible?
Crickets, because we don't know.
I believe the chilling effect of this language would go far beyond
the purported intent of this legislation. And let there be no confusion
what the intent is, which is to block a single legal, fully compliant,
and scandal-free business transaction that supports both our national
security and American manufacturing.
If this bill became law, we would be less safe. The U.S. specifically
committed in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran Deal,
as we refer to it, to allow the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, as
well as the provision of associated services. Associated services is
specifically defined in the relevant section of the agreement to
include financial services of the kind U.S. banks would be specifically
blocked from providing under this bill.
Well, it is hard to think of anything that would be a clearer
violation of our own commitments under the JCPOA, an action that would
give Iran a meaningful reason to walk away from the whole thing, making
us less safe. It is a clear, black-and-white violation of the JCPOA.
And what is our plan B if Congress provokes the collapse of this
agreement? Crickets. We don't have one.
Think of how much went into the successful negotiation of the
agreement. We had to convince a lot of countries, with whom we don't
often always agree, to maintain a united front for U.N. sanctions to be
effective.
If we choose to burn down the JCPOA, which this will do, entirely of
our own volition, are my colleagues under any illusion that we could
simply go back to our partners, not to mention Iran, and say with a
straight face: Well, let's start over.
And why wouldn't Iran just happily revel in the unraveling of the
mighty international coalition which brought them to the table and go
back to building up its nuclear program again?
Again, crickets, because they would be likely to.
So let's be clear. Yes, we continue to have numerous and serious
differences with Iran. But as we counter their destabilizing behavior
in other parts of the Middle East, I know I sleep better at night
knowing that the Iran deal prevents them from obtaining a nuclear bomb
with which to set off either a regional arms race or threaten our
allies with nuclear blackmail.
And frankly, if Iran is going to get new planes--and nothing in this
bill will stop them, the choice is really not whether it is going to be
Boeing or Airbus--I sleep better at night knowing that you have got
American eyes on that plane in the form of the after-sale services for
parts repair and American hands doing the maintenance to guard against
the diversion from legitimate civil aviation use. It keeps us more safe
if these are American-made planes.
But even if we ignore all the compelling evidence that this bill will
make us less safe, this bill fails spectacularly at preventing Iran
from buying airplanes. In fact, I am certain it would hurt our own
aerospace industry way more than it would hurt Iran.
It is easy for foreign companies to get around this bill. They easily
go to non-U.S. banks for financing. But American companies don't have
that option to cut out U.S. banks entirely, unless you prefer that the
proceeds from a sale be kept offshore, that American workers and
communities

[[Page H6264]]

never see a dime of reinvestment, and the more than 100,000 jobs this
transaction could support go to other countries.
This bill is also an attack on a key pillar of support for our
exporters, including the aerospace exporters, namely, the Ex-Im Bank.
Despite the fact that the Ex-Im Bank already has a policy against this,
despite the fact that there is law against this, despite the fact that
the Ex-Im has said they won't do this, and despite the fact that the
seller, Boeing, has said in writing they won't do this.
This isn't belts and suspenders. This is stapling your pants to your
flesh.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that undermines
foundational elements of our national and economic security, and, in so
doing, I too am reminded of what President Reagan once said: ``It's not
what you don't know that bothers me, it's what you think you know that
ain't so.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Washington,
who has been a big proponent of the Export-Import Bank and a particular
company that he was alluding to and talking about, knows, though, that
this bill would apply to any aircraft that the Treasury authorizes for
Iran. That includes the 17 Airbus planes for Iran Air. And he brought
up, actually, offshore profits.
Well, according to Bloomberg, Boeing has $800 million--$800 million
in profits stashed offshore; and the reports are that Boeing is
pursuing these deals with the Japanese bank already, not a U.S. bank.
And apparently the company is less worried about this bill and that
financing than my friend from Washington is.

{time} 1900

So this is simply about saying that Iran does not have direct access
to the U.S. financial system. I don't understand why my friends and
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so freaked out by that.
This is simply about making sure that our banking system is not going
to finance this deal indirectly or directly and that the use of the
Export-Import Bank would be prohibited.
This amendment says it is a sunset to this bill upon Presidential
certification that Iran has ceased support of international terrorism--
a goal we all have. So if the President can support that and certify
that, then this falls away. So we do not say that this deal is not
allowed. We simply say that U.S. financial institutions cannot be used
for this and that we cannot and will not use the Export-Import Bank--a
U.S. taxpayer-funded entity--to do this.
At the end of the day, in April of this past year, Secretary Jack Lew
told us that there will be no access; and either he misled the United
States citizens and this body at that time or they changed their mind.
They haven't told us which, but neither one is acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SWALWELL of California. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Swalwell of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
5711 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 2, after line 2, insert the following new section:

SEC. 103. PROTECTING U.S. ELECTIONS.

The Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize a
transaction described under section 101 by a U.S. financial
institution if such institution is engaged in business with a
foreign entity that has been found by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to
have engaged in or authorized cyber attacks targeting any
election held in the United States.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment
to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.
If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
Mr. Speaker, this final amendment says plainly that no U.S. business
may do business with a country that has used cyber attacks to undermine
a U.S. election.
So if my colleagues are genuine in believing that Iran is a hopeless
adversary, then surely they will join me in believing that Russia, in
its efforts to undermine our recent November election, should also be
treated as such.
This motion is really about the future of two U.S. adversaries: Iran
and Russia. Iran, surely a bad actor over the last few decades, has
finally in the last couple of years come to the international table and
struck an agreement with the United States and many of our allies to
make sure that we take it from being a country that is 3 months away
from having a nuclear weapon to 1 year away. They continue to sponsor
terrorism across the world. But today, better than ever before, we have
eyes, ears, and checks and balances on them that we have never had. By
the way, we can address all of their bad behavior with them being much
farther away from having a nuclear weapon than they were before the
Iran nuclear agreement.
Russia, however, continues to wreak chaos in the Middle East
supporting Syria and its brutal dictator Assad. Russia brought down a
commercial airliner over Ukraine and has further incurred into Ukraine
taking over Crimea. Russia continues to attack and escalate hostilities
with U.S. personnel at our embassy in Moscow.
Now the standard bearer for the Republican Party, President-elect
Trump, has chosen to embrace Russia and take the United States on a new
tack.
So the question today is: If you believe Iran is hopeless, then do
you believe that we should also make sure no U.S. business does
business with a country that is trying to undermine our elections?
I want to go through some of that evidence. On October 7 of this
year, Director of National Intelligence Clapper said that the
intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government
directed cyber attacks aimed at disrupting our November elections.
Why would Russia do this?
Russia clearly had a favored candidate in this race in President-
elect Trump. Russia has been successful.
This amendment says that you cannot do business with any country that
is trying to influence our elections. This amendment says that if you
think Iran is a bad actor, then you have to treat Iran the same way you
treat Russia. This amendment says that if you think the U.S. should
allow businesses to do business with a country trying to undermine our
elections, to undermine the will of our constituents, then you should
vote against this amendment.
If you are with Russia, then you should be against this motion.
However, if you believe that we are closer to preventing Iran from
having a nuclear weapon than we were a year ago, and if you believe
that it is better for a U.S. manufacturer to provide commercial
airliners to Iran and create U.S. jobs and have eyes and ears on what
is going on over there, then you should be for this motion. But if you
want our elections to be free and fair from outside influence, then
vote for this motion. If you want to stand with Russia, then you should
vote against this motion.
So I ask my colleagues on the other side: Are you going to embrace
the new U.S. foreign policy that your standard bearer has proposed,
that we are going to undermine and unravel the agreement that we have
struck with Iran and march millions of young men and women back into
the Middle East, an area where we have not had major combat operations
finally for the first time

[[Page H6265]]

in 15 years? Or do you think that we should treat Iran the same way
that we are treating Russia?
So I submit that to my colleagues, and I invite them to maybe engage
on that question because that is what this motion is about: Do you
stand with Russia? Or do you stand with preventing U.S. businesses from
doing business with a country that our intelligence community has said
has tried to undermine our elections?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Well, America, you just heard a ridiculous
straw-man choice laid out in front of you.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about anything other than selling and
financing aircraft sales to Iran. That is what this bill is about. This
is what this bill should be about.
I will point out to my colleague that there are some pretty major
kinetic activities--I believe they are called at this point, which
means shooting war--happening in Mosul and other places where our
troops are involved.
But at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. I look forward to
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address concerns
that we may have with other foreign governments in the future, and I
would request that they vote for the underlying bill, H.R. 5711.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________