[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.

                          ____________________