[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9880-H9891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF IRAN'S ACCESS TO FINANCE ACT
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 658, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4324) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to
make certifications with respect to United States and foreign financial
institutions' aircraft-related transactions involving Iran, and for
other purposes, 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 658, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute 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 115-48 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4324
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Oversight of
Iran's Access to Finance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
informally known as the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama
administration agreed to license the sale of commercial
passenger aircraft to Iran, the world's foremost state
sponsor of terrorism and a jurisdiction of primary money
laundering concern.
(2) In April 2015, prior to the adoption of the JCPOA,
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, in publicly advocating
for its provisions, stated: ``Make no mistake: deal or no
deal, we will continue to use all our available tools,
including sanctions, to counter Iran's menacing behavior.
Iran knows that our host of sanctions focused on its support
for terrorism and its violations of human rights are not, and
have never been, up for discussion.''.
(3) In March 2016 remarks to the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Secretary Lew, in reference to U.S.
commitments under the JCPOA, stated: ``While we have lifted
the nuclear sanctions, we continue to enforce sanctions
directed at support for terrorism and regional
destabilization, and missile and human rights violations.''.
(4) In an April 2016 forum at the Council on Foreign
Relations, Secretary Lew stated that, under the JCPOA, the
U.S. committed to lifting its nuclear sanctions, ``but the
U.S. financial system is not open to Iran, and that is not
something that is going to change''.
(5) In September 2016, the Department of the Treasury's
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued licenses
permitting the export of up to 97 aircraft for use by Iran
Air, the Islamic Republic of Iran's flagship state-owned
carrier. These licenses included authorization for U.S.
financial institutions ``to engage in all transactions
necessary to provide financing or other financial services''
in order to effectuate the sales. In November 2016, OFAC
licensed an additional 106 aircraft for purchase by Iran Air,
which are also eligible for financing authorized by OFAC.
(6) The Department of the Treasury had sanctioned Iran Air
in 2011 for its use of commercial passenger aircraft to
transport rockets, missiles, and other military cargo on
behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and
Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, both
of which had been designated under Executive Order 13382 for
weapons proliferation-related activities. In October 2017,
the IRGC went on to be designated under Executive Order 13224
for its support of the IRGC-Qods
[[Page H9881]]
Force, which has provided support to terrorist groups such as
Hizballah, Hamas, and the Taliban.
(7) Among Iran Air's sanctionable activities, the airline
delivered missile or rocket components to the Assad
government in Syria, which like Iran is classified as a state
sponsor of terrorism.
(8) The Assad regime is responsible for a civil conflict
that has claimed an estimated 400,000 lives, including
through the government's deployment of chemical weapons and
barrel bombs against unarmed civilians and children.
(9) Despite being delisted in 2016, Iran Air has continued
to fly known weapons resupply routes to government-controlled
areas of Syria. According to research by the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, between Implementation Day of the
JCPOA on January 16, 2016, and May 4, 2017, Iran Air operated
at least 134 flights to Syria, which included stops in
Abadan, Iran, a suspected IRGC logistical hub for airlifts to
the Assad regime.
(10) In November 2016 correspondence to the Chairman of the
House Committee on Financial Services, the Department of the
Treasury noted that the commitment to delist Iran Air under
the JCPOA ``does not affect our ability to designate, or re-
designate, any Iranian airline that engages in sanctionable
activity. The United States retains the ability to designate
any individual or entity that engages in sanctionable
activities under our authorities targeting conduct outside
the scope of the JCPOA, including Iran's support for
terrorism, human rights abuses, ballistic missile program,
and other destabilizing activities in the region.''.
(11) In April 2017, Iran announced a deal for Aseman
Airlines to purchase up to 60 commercial aircraft, a
transaction that would require authorization by OFAC. Aseman
Airlines' chief executive officer, Hossein Alaei, has for
decades served as a senior member of the IRGC.
SEC. 3. CERTIFICATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT-RELATED TRANSACTIONS BY
UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after authorizing a
transaction by a United States or foreign financial
institution in connection with the export or re-export of a
commercial passenger aircraft to Iran (or, for an
authorization made after January 16, 2016, but before the
date of the enactment of this Act, not later than 60 days
after such date of enactment), and every 180 days thereafter
for the duration of the authorization, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall submit the report described under subsection
(b) to the appropriate congressional committees.
(b) Report With Respect to Financial Institutions' Iran-
related Transactions and Due Diligence.--With respect to a
financial institution and a transaction described under
subsection (a), a report is described under this subsection
if it contains--
(1) a list of financial institutions that, since January
16, 2016, have conducted transactions authorized by the
Secretary in connection with the export or re-export of
commercial passenger aircraft to Iran;
(2) either--
(A) a certification that--
(i) the transaction does not pose a significant money
laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States
financial system;
(ii) the transaction will not benefit an Iranian person
that, since the date that is one year preceding the date of
the certification--
(I) has knowingly transported items used for the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including
systems designed in whole or in part for the delivery of such
weapons; or
(II) has knowingly provided transportation services or
material support for, or on behalf of, any person designated
under Executive Orders 13224, 13382, or 13572; and
(iii) any financial institution described under subsection
(b)(1) has had since the date such authorization was made,
or, if the authorization is no longer in effect, had for the
duration of such authorization, appropriate policies,
procedures, and processes in place to avoid engaging in
sanctionable activities that may result from the financial
institutions' exposure to Iran; or
(B) a statement that the Secretary is unable to make the
certification described under subparagraph (A) and a notice
that the Secretary will, not later than 60 days after the
date the determination is submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees, issue a report on non-certification
described under subsection (c) to the appropriate
congressional committees.
(c) Report on Non-certification.--With respect to a
financial institution and a transaction described under
subsection (a), a report on non-certification is described
under this subsection if it contains--
(1) a detailed explanation for why the Secretary is unable
to make the certification described under subsection (b)(2);
(2) a notification of whether the Secretary will--
(A) not amend the authorization of the transaction with
respect to a financial institution, notwithstanding such non-
certification;
(B) suspend the authorization until the Secretary is able
to make such certification;
(C) revoke the authorization; or
(D) otherwise amend the authorization; and
(3) an explanation of the reasons for any action to be
taken described under paragraph (2).
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive, on a case-by-case
basis, the provisions of this Act for up to one year at a
time upon certifying to the appropriate congressional
committees that--
(1) the Government of Iran has--
(A) made substantial progress towards combating money
laundering and terrorism financing risk emanating from Iran;
or
(B) has significantly reduced Iran's--
(i) destabilizing activities in the region; or
(ii) material support for terrorist groups; or
(2) such waiver is important to the national security
interests of the United States, with an explanation of the
reasons therefor.
(e) Termination.--This section shall cease to be effective
on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the
President certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees that--
(1)(A) the Secretary does not find, under section 5318A of
title 31, United States Code, that reasonable grounds exist
for concluding that Iran is a jurisdiction of primary money
laundering concern; and
(B) Iran has ceased providing support for acts of
international terrorism; or
(2) terminating the provisions of this section is vital to
the national security interests of the United States, with an
explanation of the reasons therefor.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the committees
on Financial Services and Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the committees on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial
institution'' means a United States financial institution or
a foreign financial institution.
(3) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign
financial institution'' has the meaning given that term under
section 561.308 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) Knowingly.--The term ``knowingly'', with respect to
conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has
actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the
circumstance, or the result.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(6) United states financial institution.--The term ``United
States financial institution'' has the meaning given the term
``U.S. financial institution'' under section 561.309 of title
31, Code of Federal Regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 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 B of House Report 115-463, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall
be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
{time} 1730
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4324, which is a
commonsense piece of legislation sponsored by my good friend and fellow
Texan, Mr. Williams. His work as a member of the Financial Services
Committee and as vice chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade
Subcommittee has been invaluable.
Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues know, under the Iran nuclear bill,
also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the
Obama administration committed the U.S. to license the sale of aircraft
to Iran.
In addition to authorizing the sales, these licenses have authorized
banks to engage in financing, even though Iran remains classified by
the Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering
concern. On top of that, the State Department continues to label Iran
as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
The recipient of these aircraft would be Iran Air, the state-owned
airline that was sanctioned as recently as 2011 for supporting the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which itself has been designated by
the Trump administration as a terrorist organization. So, Mr. Speaker,
so far, so bad.
And yet, while I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle find these aircraft sales and their financing deeply disturbing,
Mr. Williams' bill is about something far, far simpler. All
[[Page H9882]]
his bill would do is bring about the implications of the aircraft
finance for Iran out into the sunlight. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it
is a reporting requirement--nothing more, nothing less.
It would simply require Treasury to help Congress understand who is
involved in these transactions. If it is an airline, has that airline
stopped supporting terrorists or other sanctioned persons. If it is a
bank, does that bank have the due diligence in place to guard against
the immense illicit finance risk endemic to Iran.
All this legislation does is have Treasury certify this information
for Congress. And, if Treasury can't make those certifications, it
simply has to notify us what plans it has in response, even if it has
no plans in response.
So, when we hear today from the other side of the aisle how this bill
may impose new conditions on Iran or somehow stand in the way of
commitments under the JCPOA, I suggest, again, everyone read the bill.
It is simple. It is common sense. In fact, we should be considering
this under the expedited process of the suspension calendar.
This legislation provides, again, for a simple reporting requirement,
Mr. Speaker; that is it, a reporting requirement.
If my friends who oppose this bill don't care enough to even request
the information from the executive branch, especially information that
may reveal the use of their constituents' bank deposits for the benefit
of enablers of terrorism, well, Mr. Speaker, that is a sad, sad day for
congressional oversight and a sad day for the United States Congress.
But there are people who have read the bill, if everybody in this
institution hasn't, people, for example, associated with the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, who wrote recently in a November 22 policy
brief for the Foundation's Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance:
``The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing approval
process by codifying steps that are likely already central to the
Department's evaluation process.''
They go on to write, Mr. Speaker: ``While not imposing any new
standards for the approval of sales to Iran, codifying the existing
standards in law through this bill makes the licensing process more
transparent and gives the American people--through their elected
representatives--a clear picture of a significant component of the
sanctions relief provided to Iran under the nuclear agreement.''
Mr. Speaker, I include this report in the Record.
[From the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Nov. 22, 2017]
Congress Supports Financial Transparency for Iranian Transactions
(By Annie Fixler, Tyler Stapleton)
The House Financial Services Committee approved last week
the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act,
which codifies in law a set of conditions that the U.S.
Treasury must use to evaluate licenses for the sale of
commercial aircraft to Iran.
The bill requires the secretary of the Treasury to report
within 30 days whether transactions related to the export and
re-export of aircraft to Iran pose a ``significant money
laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States
financial system.'' The secretary must also determine whether
the transactions benefit any Iranian person that has
knowingly transported or otherwise supported the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or provided
material support to persons included on Treasury's sanctions
lists. If the secretary cannot certify that the transaction
meets these conditions, he must explain whether the licenses
authorizing the transaction will be revoked, modified, or
remain valid despite the potential for illicit transactions
or benefits going to sanctioned persons.
Under the July 2015 nuclear agreement known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the United States
committed to allowing the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran
provided the planes are used ``exclusively for commercial
passenger aviation.'' The JCPOA specifically states that if
aircraft are either used for a prohibited purpose or
transferred or re-sold to individuals or entities on
Washington's sanctions lists, the U.S. would view this as
grounds to cease its approval of aircraft sales--but, by
implication, not abrogate the nuclear deal in full.
Upon the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016,
Treasury issued a Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) and
additional guidance reiterating and expanding on the relevant
language from the nuclear deal. The SLP and related guidance
indicate that Treasury would view license applications
favorably but would review applications on a case-by-case
basis and ``include appropriate conditions to ensure'' that
no sanctioned persons were involved in the transaction.
The SLP and related guidance are clearly consistent with
the JCPOA, which does not require the United States to issue
licenses for aircraft sales without conditions. Accordingly,
the SLP does not guarantee that all applications will be
approved. If Washington determines that certain criteria are
necessary in order to ensure that commercial aircraft are
used appropriately, it is permitted to reject an application
that does not meet those criteria.
The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing
approval process by codifying steps that are likely already
central to the department's evaluation process. First, for
more than two decades, Treasury has been at the forefront of
efforts to implement global anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorism financing standards. The bill emphasizes
that these standards should be a critical component in the
evaluation of licenses vis-a-vis Iranian aircraft
transactions. Second, the bill's requirement that no persons
knowingly supporting proliferation benefit from the deal
mirrors Treasury's statement that no persons on sanctions
lists be involved in the transactions.
While not imposing any new standards for the approval of
sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law
through this bill makes the licensing process more
transparent and gives the American people--through their
elected representatives--a clearer picture of a significant
component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the
nuclear agreement.
The most novel component of the bill is that it requires
the secretary of the Treasury to issue a report listing all
U.S. or foreign financial institutions that have conducted
authorized transactions in connection with the export or re-
export of commercial aircraft to Iran. While not classified,
this information is not currently part of the public record.
Objections to the publication of a list of companies and
banks involved in aircraft sales revolve around exposing
businesses to reputational risks for transacting with Iran.
Yet it is unavoidable for there to be reputational risk for
doing business--even legal business--with the world's leading
state sponsor of terrorism.
Mr. HENSARLING. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my fellow
Texan, has given all Members an opportunity, no matter what their views
on the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, to simply support transparency and
Congress' right to basic information. I hope that my colleagues will
seize that opportunity.
And, again, I thank Mr. Williams from Texas for his leadership and
his excellent work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a senior member of the
Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee. This is not simply the gathering of
information. This is not simply oversight.
Under H.R. 4324, a condition would be imposed on the sale of
commercial aircraft to Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was very clear. It
is broadly committed to ``allow for the sale of commercial passenger
aircraft and related parts and services to Iran.'' The only condition
on the U.S. commitment is that ``licensed items and services be used
exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.''
H.R. 4324 would impose a new condition, a new condition which would
require certification by the Secretary of State and all of the process
that would ensue.
It is not a stretch--in fact, it is fairly clear--that if H.R. 4324
were to pass, the Iranians and others could credibly claim that we have
violated our obligations under the JCPOA. Now, nobody should be
surprised by that.
Despite the advice of his National Security Advisor, despite the
advice of the Secretary of Defense, despite the advice of pretty much
everyone around him, President Trump chose not to recertify Iranian
compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.
We have seen bill after bill, including the bill just voted on,
attempting to reverse the Iran nuclear deal, and we have heard this
since this deal first came to the floor.
Let's reflect for one second on what the implications are:
This bill puts the Iran nuclear deal at risk. It arguably takes
American aircraft manufacturers out of competition for lucrative
contracts. My colleague from Washington will address this shortly.
[[Page H9883]]
I don't understand how putting American jobs at risk and taking
American manufacturers out of contention in favor of companies like
Airbus is about keeping America great again. I don't understand why,
when we focus on jobs, this should be an action we should take.
However, I will say something, and I speak as a member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to the passage of the
Iran nuclear deal, it is not an exaggeration to say I didn't worry
every night in a way that we worry today about North Korea. I went to
bed every night thinking about Iranian centrifuges spinning, about
military technology being created that could ultimately deliver a
nuclear weapon to Israel or to Europe or to the United States, and our
intelligence community believed that we were 2 to 3 months away from an
Iranian nuclear weapon, kind of where we are today on North Korea.
I suspect everybody in this Chamber doesn't want to be where we are
on North Korea with another state, with Iran.
I understand the skepticism on Iran, and I agree with everything that
the chairman said with respect to Iran being a state sponsor of
terrorism, with Iran being a location of money laundering, and I could
go on, with Iran being an absolutely appalling regime.
But I speak as a member of the Intelligence Committee for a lot of
people in this room when I say that, for the first time in a long time
subsequent to the passage of the Iran deal, whatever you think of
Iran--and not many of us think much of Iran--we don't go to bed every
single night worrying about the possibility of waking up to a nuclear-
weaponized Iran.
Why would we put that at risk?
I agree with the chairman that transparency is important, and I agree
with everybody that Iran needs to be watched very, very skeptically.
But why would we want to be with Iran exactly where we are today with
North Korea?
Is this effort, which, in my opinion, is simply a continuation of the
efforts to end the Iran deal, to reverse President Obama's legacy, is
it worth going to bed at night not just worried about North Korea, but
worried about Iran? I would suggest that it is not.
I don't want to go back to the pre-Iran deal era when I became an
expert on centrifuges, on Uranium-235, on hardened bunkers and the
weaponry that we produced to penetrate hardened bunkers and to the
realization that, if we had to go to war against Iran to prevent a
nuclear Iran, the consequences would be as awful as if we went to war
with North Korea to prevent a North Korea nuclear-weaponized state.
Why would we do this? Why would we put at risk a deal that has given
comfort to a lot of us for some period of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, this deal is not a perfect deal. I don't know
that there are perfect deals in this realm. But I do know that, for the
next 7, 8, or 9 years, we are not going to have the worry that so many
of us had before the Iran deal.
Let's engage on that. Let's figure out what comes behind the Iran
deal. Let's figure out other ways to address the behavior of Iran with
respect to terrorism and the money laundering. Let's remember that this
deal was about removing the existential threat, not making Iran a
perfect regime, but removing the existentia threat to the United States
of America, and let's not put that deal at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I urge a strong ``no''
vote against this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend, the sponsor of this legislation, and a
great member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to speak in
support of my bill, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's
Access to Finance Act.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 will improve congressional oversight of any
financing that Treasury authorizes for aircraft sales to Iran.
Every 6 months, Treasury would need to certify to us that finance
authorizations would not benefit an Iranian person who is transporting
items for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction nor
providing transportation for sanctioned entities. Treasury would also
have to certify to us that those authorizations don't pose a
significant money laundering or terrorism finance risk to the U.S.
financial system, and that any banks engaging in this business have
appropriate due diligence procedures in place. If the Treasury
Department cannot make this certification, the Department must tell us
why, and it must explain to Congress the course of action it intends to
take.
I note that my bill was reported out of the Financial Services
Committee last month by a vote of 38-21, with five of my Democratic
colleagues voting in its favor.
{time} 1745
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will label this
bill as a simple attempt to dismantle the Obama administration's Iran
nuclear deal. We have already heard it.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about U.S. commitments under the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It is not about
reimposing nuclear sanctions. It is not about prohibiting these
aircraft sales or the financing of these sales.
What this legislation is about is providing Congress with information
on the implications of these deals so that we can better understand
their impact on the integrity of our financial system.
I would like to take a step back and discuss how we got to this point
and why this legislation is necessary. As most of you know, under the
JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the United States to license
the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. In addition to providing
licenses for aircraft sales, the licenses also allowed for banks to
engage in the financing of these aircraft.
All of this was permitted, despite the fact that Iran remained
classified as a jurisdiction to primary money laundering concern by the
Treasury Department and as the world's foremost state sponsor of terror
by the State Department.
Let us be abundantly clear on the facts. It was the Obama Treasury
Department that highlighted the role that Iran and Iranian aircraft
played in the destabilizing activity across the Middle East and in
supporting the atrocities committed by the rogue Assad regime in Syria.
On September 9, 2012, David S. Cohen, the Treasury Undersecretary for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence under President Obama, released
the following statement:
``The identification of Iranian aircraft also further highlights
Iran's ongoing effort to support the Assad regime's weapons of mass
destruction programs and crackdown against the Syrian people.''
This quote followed the Treasury Department's announcement to impose
sanctions against entities that support the Assad regime in Syria.
So quoting from the same September 9, 2012, Treasury statement: ``As
a result of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act,
foreign financial institutions that knowingly engage in significant
transactions with . . . Iran Air, Mahan Air, or Yas Air, including any
of 117 aircraft operated by these airlines, risk losing access to the
U.S. banking system.''
Mr. Speaker, this week I received a memo from the National Iranian
American Council urging members to oppose my bill. This is the same
council that opposes President Trump's travel ban, which was recently
upheld by a Supreme Court decision of 7-2, and the same organization
that took concern with new sanctions imposed on Iran's support for
Hezbollah.
This memo and the pro-Iran principles that it represents could not be
a better endorsement for the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access
to Finance Act.
I would ask this to my colleagues on both sides: At what point did we
relegate ourselves to negotiating with those who wish us harm? At what
point did we prioritize the interest of a rogue government that paints
their bombs with sayings like ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to
America''? When did that happen?
[[Page H9884]]
There are simply two sides to this issue. You can either protect the
interests of the United States, her citizens, and the U.S. financial
institutions, or you can make important the wishes of the Ayatollah and
his revolutionary guard.
Which side do you choose to be on? That is the question.
I represent the red, white, and blue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My commitment to the safety and well-being of these
United States is unwavering.
I urge my colleagues to do the same: support the red, white, and
blue, and support H.R. 4324.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access
to Finance Act, would impose a new and unilateral certification
requirement on the administration in order to meet current U.S.
obligations under the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, with respect to the sale and
financing of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran.
This certification requirement would call for the Treasury Secretary
to consider factors that fall well outside the scope of the nuclear
deal and beyond the specific conditions that the U.S. is allowed to
place on the license of commercial aircraft to Iran under the nuclear
accord.
By moving the goal posts on our commitments under the deal, H.R. 4324
clearly aims to force the United States into a violation of the
agreement. Under the Iran nuclear deal, the United States is broadly
committed to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and
related parts and services to Iran. This involves licensing the sale of
aircraft and related parts and services to Iran, including the
financing for such sales.
Under the JCPOA Annex II, the only condition on the U.S. commitment
is that licensed items and services must be used exclusively for
commercial passenger aviation. Moreover, the only allowable conditions
the U.S. can place on authorizations for the sale of commercial
passenger aircraft to Iran apply to the licensed aircraft themselves
and the use of such licensed aircraft, not on activities or services
provided that have no relationship to the licensed aircraft or related
goods or services.
Yet, H.R. 4324 would impose new conditions on the licensed sale of
aircraft to Iran, including, notably, the condition that the recipient
airline has not used nonlicensed aircraft for purposes other than
commercial passenger aviation. That is, under this bill, the
administration would have to certify that Iran is not engaged in
certain activity unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct but also unrelated
to the use of the aircraft itself. If the Treasury Secretary is unable
to make such a difficult certification, the Secretary must then report
to Congress as to whether the Secretary intends to suspend, revoke,
amend, or approve, notwithstanding such noncertification, any license
facilitating the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran.
Supporters of the bill will likely note that the bill will not
require the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend or revoke an
authorization in the event that the Secretary is unable to make the
necessary certification, but the obvious political conclusion is that
the Secretary will be forced to revoke such license if the Secretary is
unwilling to make the certification.
As we have now seen, the President detests the fact that his
administration has to take affirmative steps to keep the deal in place,
and he refused to do so. In the case of the last recurring 90-day
congressional certification requirement, proponents of this bill
undoubtedly hope Trump will react the same way to these additional
certifications and block the sale of commercial aircraft, which is a
key element of the deal.
In a break from reason and logic, this legislation plays directly
into the hands of the President, who is desperate to find any pretext
to say that Iran is in violation of the deal or to force Iran to walk
away, and thereby, avoid having to take the blame for pulling the plug
on the deal.
But let me be clear. By seeking to render impermissible that which is
expressly permitted by the JCPOA, the legislation is clearly intended
to undermine the nuclear agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services
Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Strengthening
Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act introduced by my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).
Since the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and the taking of 66 American
hostages during the 1979 revolution, Iran has taken a long view on its
global ambition, supporting terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah,
and the Houthis in Yemen.
From 1983, when Iran-supported Hezbollah bombed a U.S. Marines
barracks in Lebanon, killing 243 servicemembers, to the killing of over
500 soldiers in Iraq by the elite Quds Force leader, Qasem Soleimani,
Iran has earned its reputation as the world's leading state sponsor of
terrorism.
Most recently, Iran Air, an Iranian state-owned airline, was
sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2011 for using its commercial
passenger aircraft to transport weapons to terrorists helping the Assad
regime in Syria and for transporting military cargo to the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is in addition to what the world
already well knows, that the Iranian regime has covered up and lied
about its nuclear program for decades, deceiving international
inspectors, agreeing to intrusive inspections, and then allowing those
inspections to be implemented only provisionally and selectively.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, regularly chants ``Death
to America'' and ultimately calls for the annihilation of the Jewish
people.
In 2015, the Obama administration made a historic mistake by agreeing
to the ill-conceived Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or as it is
also called, the Iran nuclear agreement or JCPOA. The agreement removed
financial sanctions on Iran, enabling greater financial resources for
Iranian-funded terrorism.
Adding insult to injury, later, in 2016, due to the agreement, the
Obama Treasury Department authorized the sale of more than 200 planes
to Iran, the same Iranian airline that was sanctioned in 2011, and the
Department also authorized U.S. banks to finance these transactions.
But there is evidence that the carrier has continued its illicit
behavior.
According to an April 2017 hearing in our subcommittee, Dr. Emanuele
Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, testified that Iran Air operated at least 114 flights to
Syria between January 16, 2016, which was Implementation Day of the
JCPOA, and March 30, 2017. These flights are known as weapons resupply
routes and stopovers in Iran with a suspected IRGC logistical hub that
supports airlifts to the Assad regime.
In communications with the committee, Dr. Ottolenghi later confirmed
that Iran Air had run at least 134 such flights between Implementation
Day and May 4, 2017, which means the Iran nuclear agreement facilitated
Iran helping the brutal murderous regime of Assad.
In exchange, what did the United States get out of this?
Only managed access to suspect nuclear sites in which international
inspectors must appeal to Iran, Russia, and China in a bureaucratic
process that takes at least 24 days, during which Iran can remove
anything covert and in violation of the agreement.
International inspectors have also been denied access to military
sites, the most likely places in Iran where illicit nuclear activity is
occurring. But even if the JCPOA was delivering on its core promise of
a denuclearized Iran, the agreement was sold with specific assurance
that the JCPOA would not limit the United States' ability to stop
Iran's nonnuclear activities and their support of terror activities.
Then Secretary of State John Kerry, in defense of the agreement,
selling the
[[Page H9885]]
agreement to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, testified that:
``If we catch them funding terrorism, they are going to have a problem
with the U.S. Congress.''
Mr. Speaker, apparently not, because Members of Congress don't have a
problem with this evidence that Iran is funding terrorist proxies and
the Assad regime.
For these reasons, it is imperative that Congress pass the
Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which would
require the Treasury to provide a report to Congress describing these
connections. This is a reporting bill. Even if you support the JCPOA,
you should support congressional oversight.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial
Services Committee, so he can clear up some of the information that we
just heard.
Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a question.
Why is this bill so long?
Last year, we had a bill, H.R. 5729, to block the sale of Boeing
aircraft to Iran. It was short and clear. It was only 2 pages long. I
didn't like it and I didn't support it; but the truth is, I always
respect people putting forth their honest beliefs.
H.R. 5729, last year, blocked the licenses to sell U.S. planes--
straightforward. Torpedoing the plane sales endangered the JCPOA
because, as we have indicated, it is an affirmative requirement and an
obligation on the U.S. to approve plane sales if a sales agreement is
reached. That was part of the deal: You won't build or continue to
develop nuclear weapons, we will do certain things, including sell you
planes.
Everyone knew what the bill would do and they could decide if they
thought that was a good idea or a bad idea. It was very
straightforward. It was effectively a proxy on the JCPOA.
This year, we have another bill to block the sale of aircraft to
Iran. It is neither short nor clear. In fact, it is six times as long
as last year's bill.
{time} 1800
It subjects the licenses to an ongoing and complex certification
requirement. It literally names and shames U.S. banks providing
financing. And, again, it does this purposefully so that it might deter
the sale of airplanes so that it might undermine the JCPOA.
Frankly, what I interpret, what I have heard this evening, is
tantamount to that. This is, yet again, a proxy on the JCPOA. If you
are against the JCPOA, vote ``yes.'' If you are for it, vote ``no.''
This bill, however, obscures its end purpose, that objective of
undermining the JCPOA behind process and ambiguity. Why?
If you oppose the sale of aircraft, oppose it. Have the courage of
your convictions. Don't just engage in this fearmongering. No matter
how many times you say that people in Iran chant ``Death to Israel,
Death to America,'' and whatever other form of fearmongering you engage
in, at least have the courage of your own convictions. You did last
year.
Stand up for what you believe in. If you want Iran to buy Airbus
aircraft instead of Boeing aircraft, then say that. Stand up for
yourself. Stand up for what you believe.
But let's be clear. That is what this bill will do. Don't dance
around.
For my part, I think blocking the sale of American planes is a big
mistake on so many levels. Let's be clear. It doesn't deny Iran the use
of aircraft; it just will deny them American-made aircraft. It will
deny American machinists jobs to work on them.
And need I remind anybody here what it means to be an engineer or a
machinist at an aircraft company in this country? It means the kind of
jobs that we all aspire to for our constituents. You know the kind; the
kind that pay enough that you can buy a home, have decent healthcare,
save enough money to send your kid to college if you want to, have
regular vacations, and have a secure retirement. Those are the kinds of
jobs we are taking away if we pass this bill.
It doesn't just prevent Iran from misusing aircraft, as has been
suggested. It just prevents Americans from having maintenance and
service agreements that keep eyes on the aircraft because, you see, if
Airbus sells them these planes, we have no idea. If they are American-
made planes, they come with after-sale maintenance and service
agreements. We will have eyes on the planes.
It doesn't force Iran back to the bargaining table. It just
jeopardizes and cuts the legs out from under the gains we have made in
the JCPOA that I thought my colleague and friend from Connecticut spoke
about so eloquently. We don't go to sleep at night worried that Iran is
getting closer to a bomb, as we would have, as North Korea has.
So my friends, in summary, passage of this legislation will do three
things:
Number one, it will cost America jobs, and good-paying jobs;
Number two, it will make us less safe because it will undermine the
JCPOA and, in so doing, not allow us to ensure that these planes are
not being used for a nefarious purpose;
And number three, it will actually make us less safe as well, in the
sense that if it does, in fact, defeat the purpose of JCPOA-- The
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walberg). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HECK. If it does cut the legs out from JCPOA, as is its purpose,
as is clear, then, of course, we are back on the track of Iran
developing nuclear weapons as North Korea has. Fewer jobs and less
safe; not sure what it is about that proposition that would be
appealing to anyone.
So, my friends, I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, be for
American jobs. Be for America being safer. Be for us living up to our
commitments, and vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4324, which I
cosponsor, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act,
introduced by Congressman Roger Williams.
I stand with the courage of my convictions while I listen to others
stand with the courage, apparently, of a conviction to coddle the
world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.
I have a problem, and I am not going to apologize for it, and my
colleagues aren't going to apologize for it; when we have an adversary
of our Nation overthrowing foreign governments, financing terror,
developing intercontinental ballistic missiles in violation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions, calling Israel the Little Satan and
America the Great Satan, pledging to wipe Israel off the map, chanting
``Death to America.''
Just a few weeks ago, the CIA dropped 470,000 documents collected in
May of 2011, in the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound. In those
documents, it shows a strong relationship between Iran and al-Qaida,
and Iran offering finance and arms for carrying out attacks against
America.
I signed up to run for the United States Congress and take an oath to
protect this country, and, right now, while we are here this holiday
season--tonight is the second night of Hanukkah. We are about to have
Christmas, New Year's--we have people who are overseas, sometimes on
their 8th, 9th, 10th deployment, willing to risk everything in defense
of our freedoms and liberties, putting themselves in harm's way.
So when 10 Navy sailors end up getting held hostage and embarrassed
with photography and videography, being shamed by the Iranians, and
then we say, as a matter of response, thank you? That was our response
when they released our 10 detained Navy sailors.
And you want to question the conviction of Congressman Williams
introducing legislation that is incredibly important for protecting the
United States and our servicemembers and our allies; and you want to
mock us for having a problem with them chanting ``Death to America?''
Whose side are you on?
For anyone who has the courage of conviction to coddle the world's
largest state sponsor of terror.
Since the U.S. entered the JCPOA, Iran's state-owned airline, Iran
Air,
[[Page H9886]]
has used its access to the U.S. aviation industry to purchase planes
that aided the Assad regime in carrying out its war crimes in Syria
against its own citizens, innocent women and children.
Courage of convictions to stand with the United States, with our
allies, and on behalf of the women and children being targeted by the
Assad regime in Syria. We have a problem with that, and we want to do
something about it.
Don't try to shame us into being apologetic and unwilling and afraid
to stand up for all of those right principles. That is the courage and
conviction that I stand up with today, with Congressman Williams, with
Chairman Hensarling, and all the others who are encouraging a strong
``yes'' vote for more accountability, for a stronger national defense,
for a better future.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody
to know we are not trying to shame anybody. If we were going to shame
someone, we would shame them and that party about connection to Russia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price), an ardent supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to
this bill. The Iran nuclear agreement stands as a major diplomatic
achievement that has destroyed Iran's capacity to develop a nuclear
weapon.
Detractors point to Iran's bad behavior in other realms--ballistic
missiles, support for Hezbollah, violations of human rights. We
acknowledge these problems. Nobody is talking about coddling Iran or
apologizing for Iran. I resent that implication by the last speaker.
The fact is, we take these problems and these challenges very, very
seriously; but we also note that there is not a one of them that
wouldn't be much more serious if we were dealing with a nuclear-capable
state. So we have got to protect this agreement. We have got to be wary
of any proposals that would directly or indirectly threaten it.
And that brings us to the bill before us, H.R. 4324, the so-called
Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which would
make it much more difficult for Iran to purchase commercial aircraft
from firms that do business with the United States.
Now, as we all know, Iran's ability to replenish its aging civil
aviation fleet, which was depleted by decades of sanctions, was a key
incentive for Tehran to sign on to the JCPOA.
Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service said: ``Iran
would view the bill's enactment into law as a breach of the JCPOA. The
agreement contains a clear U.S. commitment to undertake such sales to
Iran.''
But this bill imposes reporting and certification requirements that
could well prompt the Treasury Department to cease issuing licenses
allowing for such sales if this certification were to be contingent on
non-nuclear factors, factors outside the deal.
Richard Nephew, the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. negotiating
team, put it this way. He said: ``My take on this bill is that, if
implemented the way I expect, it probably would violate the JCPOA.''
Now, I suppose we have to entertain the possibility that that
actually is what the authors of this bill have in mind. Maybe that is
the idea, to give the Trump administration and the Iranian hardliners a
way of sabotaging the agreement.
Already, President Trump has tried to undermine the JCPOA by refusing
to certify Iran's compliance with the deal when, by all accounts, Iran
is, in fact, complying.
Now, by directly blocking a specific provision of the agreement,
namely, the permissible sale of commercial passenger aircraft, this
legislation would send a clear message to Iran that the United States
does not negotiate in good faith. It would imply that we expect to have
it both ways, with Iran dismantling its nuclear facilities and getting
nothing in return.
The bill before us today would also break faith with our P5+1
negotiating partners in a reckless and dangerous way.
Because of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, the breakout time for Iran to
develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon went from 2
or 3 months to more than a year.
Because of this agreement, the international community has 24/7
access to Iran's nuclear sites, an unprecedented degree of access,
intrusive inspections.
And because of this agreement, we possess an enforcement mechanism to
ensure Iran's compliance. Why on Earth would we give up these
capabilities by failing to uphold our end of the bargain?
That is the way agreements work. We uphold our end of the bargain. We
don't sabotage agreement by deceptive legislation like that bill before
us.
So, in light of renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula, now is
especially not the time for the United States to go back on its word to
our allies and to the international community.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4324.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), an outstanding member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Williams, for
introducing H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to
Finance Act. This act is needed.
Tonight, we are not here to rehash the failings of the JCPOA, but we
are really here to honor Secretary Kerry's commitment of oversight of
Iran outside that agreement. He made it quite clear to Congress in his
briefings that we would monitor the world's largest exporter of terror
around the world; that we would do everything outside the agreement to
enforce sanctions; that we would not stop reviewing their behavior.
This piece of legislation comes at an important time, as the Trump
administration is taking significant steps to protect our homeland by
reviewing actions around rogue regimes and sponsors of terror around
the world, including Iran.
Now, my friend from Washington brought up the subject of the American
worker, and, of course, we all are blessed by the brilliance and
success of Boeing. We couldn't come to our jobs without them.
But there are 5,000 airlines in the world, Mr. Speaker. There are
10,000 Boeing aircraft in service, and there are 5,700 airplanes on
order from the Boeing corporation to help make up that $41 billion of
annual revenue.
The question here is not about selling airplanes, the question here
is about protecting the homeland and interests of our country around
the world.
Unfortunately, civil aviation is commingled with military Quds Force
action; not just in what has been said tonight about transporting
military action to Syria, supporting a war that has killed some 500,000
people, but what about Boeing transport from Damascus to Caracas?
{time} 1815
What about the Boeing aircraft operated by the Iranian regime back
and forth between Russia and Iran, back and forth between Tehran and
Damascus, between Damascus and Venezuela?
It is not just the civilian aircraft, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we
want to be alert, and our American citizens need to know if their bank
deposits are being used to extend credit to a regime that seeks
pleasure in murdering innocent people, murdering our men and women in
uniform and even innocent civilians in their own country.
We may differ on our views on the JCPOA, but we can all agree that
nothing in the nuclear deal prevents the sharing of information between
an administration and this Congress about financing aircraft for the
world's largest state supporter of terrorism. That is what this piece
of legislation is trying to achieve. That is what Mr. Williams' point
is in bringing it to the floor, and I appreciate his thoughtful work to
implement this much-needed policy and to help keep the citizens in my
district safe from Iran's global terror advance.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter addressed to the Members of
Congress from a highly respected organization that is pro-Israel and
pro-peace advocacy. I am a member, and I look to the recommendations,
the advice, and
[[Page H9887]]
the assistance of this organization on all issues related to the Middle
East and related to Iran and related to Israel. It is known as J
Street, and I am a proud member and a proud participant.
J Street urges Members:
Oppose the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's
Access to Finance Act, that is H.R. 4324, which is clearly
intended to lead to a U.S. violation of the JCPOA.
This bill would impose additional certification
requirements on the administration in order to carry out
current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales
under the JCPOA.
These new obligations require the administration to certify
that Iran is not engaged in certain nonnuclear activity or
issue a national security waiver saying they will allow the
planes to be sold anyway. In other words, it imposes new
unilateral terms for a continuation of the JCPOA that are
unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.
It has been widely reported in connection with the
President's recent refusal to make the necessary
certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act that the President resents having to undertake
official actions to keep the United States in compliance with
the JCPOA.
Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to make use of
the President's apparent resistance to taking such steps by
adding a new certification requirement that they hope he will
also fail to meet, thereby blocking the sale of commercial
aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of the agreement.
Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need
look no further than the first finding, which makes clear
that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA
vehicle and not a serious attempt to legislate on a
bipartisan basis on threats emanating from Iran.
No one who wants to see the JCPOA continue to be
implemented should support this bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dylan Williams, the vice president of
government affairs who signed this bill, said:
Congress just gave the administration powerful tools to
conquer other countries, support of the Assad regime when it
passed new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea a few
months ago that the President signed into law. Implementation
and assessment of the impact of that law should occur before
consideration of any new sanctions legislation.
Again, in addition to the supporters of this body who have worked
very hard to try and convince the Members of this body to be on the
side of peace, to try and get the Members to understand the seriousness
of undermining the JCPOA, the Members of this body who work very hard
for peace and who join with groups like J Street and advocate for peace
are trying to make sure that the United States stands up to its
agreements, understanding how this undermines our leadership in the
world.
If we sit down and we negotiate with other countries, as we have done
on the JCPOA, and they expect us to live up to the agreements and then
they hear that we have various Members of Congress with ideas of their
own putting together legislation that is supported by the opposite side
of the aisle, coming in not with one piece of legislation, not with two
pieces of legislation, but we don't know how many will continue if they
are successful in passing the legislation that they are putting before
us, if this continues, then I am certain that our allies will not trust
us. They will not want to negotiate with us on other deals that are
important to peace in this world. I would simply ask the Members on the
opposite side of the aisle to pay attention to highly respected,
credible organizations like J Street and take their advice about how to
give support to the JCPOA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Williams' legislation,
H.R. 4324. I want to thank him for his leadership on this front.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that much of the terror funding and the
civil unrest that we see in the Middle East can be traced directly back
to Iran.
Since we have lifted sanctions on that regime--and, in particular,
against state-owned entities like Iran Air--we have opened up ourselves
to potentially financing Iran's destabilizing activity in the region.
Congress has a right to know if banks are linked to financing or
doing business with Iran, again, the world's largest state sponsor of
terror.
This bill is significant, considering what we have recently seen with
Iran Air. As recently as 2011, Iran Air was transporting weapons and
missiles on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; and even
this year--not 2011, but this year--we have seen Iran Air continue to
fly well-known weapons resupply routes to pro-Assad-controlled areas of
Syria.
Iran will always continue to find new and creative ways to bypass
sanctions and to fund their worldwide terror network. We have to be on
constant alert. Mr. Williams' legislation gives us the tools to do
exactly that.
His bill gives the people's House, this House, more oversight on
business that the Treasury Department authorizes with Iran. This is
important because it conveys the importance of staying alert about our
financial institutions when they get involved financially with Iran.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague and my friend, Mr.
Williams, for his leadership on this issue, and I urge adoption of this
bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman emeritus of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on the
Middle East and North Africa.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our esteemed leader for this
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4324, the Strengthening
Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, authored by our good friend
Mr. Williams of Texas, who is swinging for the fences.
When the Obama administration signed this terrible Iran nuclear deal,
in addition to the lifting of sanctions and sending billions of dollars
to this hideous regime, it also authorized licenses for the export of
commercial passenger planes to Iran.
After selling the world a bill of goods, the administration then
turned around and agreed to allow the sale of planes to the world's
biggest exporter of terror. Not only that, but U.S. financial
institutions would be needed to finalize these sales, meaning American
taxpayers' dollars could be used to finance these sales.
The results were predictable, Mr. Speaker. Iran has been using its
commercial planes to transport fighters, to transport weapons, to
transport material to Hezbollah in Syria, just to mention one. The list
could go on and on, many illicit activities.
This is not something that Americans would be supporting, let alone
underwriting. That is why Mr. Williams' bill is so important, and I
thank Mr. Hensarling for bringing it to the floor. It protects the U.S.
financial system, and it protects the taxpayers by giving us in
Congress greater oversight. That is what this bill is about: oversight
over business that the Treasury authorizes with Iran.
As we have heard speaker after speaker, Iran is the number one
leading state sponsor of terror. It is responsible for the deaths of
countless brave American men and women fighting overseas. It is the
destabilizing force in Syria, to name just one of the countries.
The Supreme Leader calls for the destruction of our most trusted
ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel; and the calls for ``death
to America,'' Mr. Speaker, they go on and on, and it is written on
walls.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the JCPOA was flawed. We all know
that. It was weak and it was dangerous.
Let's ask our constituents, our taxpayers, if they want their dollars
to fund the purchase of planes for the number one state sponsor of
terror. I think that the answer would be ``no.''
We are actually being asked to supposedly support American jobs by
helping Iran, the number one terror state, to buy planes so this horrid
human-rights abuser of a country, this killer of Americans can use
these very planes to continue exporting its terror activities
throughout the world.
[[Page H9888]]
This is preposterous. It is a false choice.
Mr. Speaker, this bill protects the American consumer; it protects
our constituents; it protects the taxpayer; and it gives us in Congress
the proper oversight. Let's pass what this is: a commonsense bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time I have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 4
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since
January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation
of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that,
``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear
verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with
its JCPOA commitments.
The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to
certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which
gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re-
introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress
did not do so.
Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear
accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a
highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the
Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's
destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was
never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It
was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program.
As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful.
{time} 1830
Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends
it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find
any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take
the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for.
But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and
would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the
future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a
diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to
violate an existing one with the same partners.
The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the
duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive
and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic,
given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to
changing its terms while Iran remains compliant.
If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the
path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed
on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran
and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on
a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North
Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may
determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean
nuclear missile challenges.
But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be
seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement
dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to
remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad
range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges
become even more daunting.
I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me
in rejecting this terrible bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small
Business Committee.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for yielding.
This really isn't that complicated. The JCPOA is a failed policy that
was put up by a President who had no interest in protecting this
country as it should be. President Trump is finally bringing this back
to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4324, the
Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act. This important
legislation is critical to hold Iran accountable and ensure the
integrity of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Roger Williams for his great work on
this legislation. The Iran deal allows the United States to license the
sale of passenger aircraft to Iran to update their civilian commercial
airliner fleet. Despite the deal, Iran's behavior has not changed, and
they still remain a principal state sponsor of international terrorism,
a direct contributor in propping up the Syrian regime, and a major
facilitator of money laundering.
However, enabling commercial aircraft sales could only fortify Iran's
rogue behavior. Many, including the Department of Treasury, are
concerned that commercial aircraft could be used for noncivilian
purposes, considering the state-controlled airline, Iran Air, has
facilitated Iran's destabilization of Syria by transporting missile and
rocket components to the Syrian regime.
Justice Louis Brandeis once stated that, ``Sunlight is said to be the
best of disinfectants,'' and that is what this legislation seeks to do.
It simply adds a crucial layer of reporting requirements, certifying
that the sale of passenger aircraft does not pose a money laundering
risk or violate U.S. sanctions.
Iranian continues to threaten the stability of the Middle East, and
it poses a threat to U.S. national interests. Holding Iran accountable
and preventing them from continuing to destabilize Syria should not be
controversial at all.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to strongly
support this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time in my Congressional career I come to
the House floor, and I have a surreal moment. Iran is the world's
foremost state sponsor of terror, and we have Members on the other side
of the aisle saying: Well, we shouldn't learn anything about them. We
shouldn't learn about who is financing their aircraft. We shouldn't
learn whether or not aircraft will be converted for military purposes.
Iran is a regime where every day the leadership wakes up shouting:
``Death to Israel, Death to America.'' Yet I have friends on the other
side of the aisle who say: Well, we shouldn't have any reporting on
Iran because it might hurt their feelings.
This is a surreal moment, Mr. Speaker, an absolute surreal moment. We
have been told over and over that somehow this stops the JCPOA, the
nuclear deal with Iran. I wish it did, but it doesn't. I would suggest
to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they actually read the
bill, it is 10 pages long, 6 pages of findings. You can put the
findings aside and read the 4 pages. It is a reporting bill.
It has certifications. And guess what the implications are if the
administration can't give the proper certifications? Nothing. The deal
continues to go on. It is perhaps the single worst foreign policy
agreement in the history of America that legitimizes Iran's nuclear
program and, on its best day, slows up their nuclear weapons by maybe a
few years, at best, on its best day.
When the JCPOA was sold to us by the previous administration, we were
told: This would be for civilian aircraft use only. Don't worry about
it. This is not going to exacerbate terrorism in any way. But we know
Boeing itself says their aircraft, which are being sold to Iran, can be
used for combat purposes, and, in fact, have been. Iran Air was cited
in 2011. It was sanctioned for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps, which has been designated as a terrorist organization.
[[Page H9889]]
This isn't just theory, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. Then we had my
colleague, the gentleman from Washington, say: Well, it is important
that we sell aircraft to Iran so companies can make profits. Well,
using his logic, maybe we ought to sell weapons to North Korea if some
company can make a profit. I think not, Mr. Speaker.
There are some things that are more important. Our security is even
more important than the profit of any one particular company. So,
again, this is a simple reporting requirement.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his
leadership here. It is incredibly important that we understand from
those who sold us this terrible Iranian deal, they need to make good on
their promises.
We need to make sure that civilian aircraft are being used for
civilian purposes. We need to make sure that the banks who are
financing these deals are not financing terrorism. Yet those on the
other side of the aisle say: No, let's put our heads in the sand. Let's
just trust--let's trust the world's foremost state sponsor of
terrorism. They will do the right thing. Let's just ignore this
terrorism thing.
No. No, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that we enact
H.R. 4324, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is important
to America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act,
introduced by my friend Roger Williams. This bill is critical to
Congress' sustained effort to roll back the most egregious concessions
from the Obama Administration's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times about how the Iran deal
endangers our national security, namely by acquiescing to Iran's
ambition to become a nuclear threshold in less than a decade. As if
this concession--and the woefully inadequate inspections regime
President Obama agreed to--were not troubling enough, the deal came
with dozens of additional sweeteners for Iran that were folded into the
main text of the agreement and an unknown number of side-deals.
These inducements were wrong on principle and they are downright
dangerous in practice. On principle, Iran should not be gently
incentivized to come clean about its nuclear program--it should be
strictly compelled to comply with international norms. In practice,
these numerous U.S. concessions to Iran effectively handed the world's
largest sponsor of terrorism more resources to advance its campaign for
regional hegemony. By providing $115 billion in sanctions relief, a
$1.7 billion ransom payment, and an $8.6 million payment for excess
heavy water that violated the terms of the deal, the Obama
Administration's calamitous deal generated a windfall for the Iranian
regime.
Mr. Speaker, one especially troubling concession was the Obama
Administration's agreement in the text of the deal to sell commercial
passenger aircraft to Iran while at the same time lifting sanctions on
Iran Air, a national carrier notorious for ferrying Iran's military
manpower and materiel around the region. Iran Air was sanctioned by the
United States in July 2011 under Executive Order 13382 for ``for
providing material support and services to the Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps and Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces
Logistics.'' Lest we believe Iran Air has straightened up its act since
2011, the Washington Free Beacon reported in August on images from this
summer showing Iranian militiamen flying Iran Air to join the civil war
in Syria.
Mr. Speaker, it's also clear that Iran has never had a greater
incentive than it does today to double down on its hegemonic schemes as
it expands its footholds in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere
in the region. We have long known of Iran's genocidal intentions toward
our critical and democratic ally, Israel. For years Iran has poured
money and resources into Hizballah and Hamas to develop proxies that
can threaten Israel on its borders. Today, however, Iran is closer than
ever to achieving its own toehold near the Israeli-controlled Golan
Heights from which to menace Israel and terrorize its people.
Why, in this context, would the United States knowingly furnish Iran
with aircraft it needs to move its military assets around the region?
Yet, as we speak, a sale of 80 Boeing aircraft to Iran Air, worth as
much as $16.6 billion, is on track to proceed unless the Administration
wisely intervenes or Congress hits the brakes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 is crucial to applying necessary and thorough
scrutiny to this deal or others like it. This bill will require the
Department of the Treasury to certify that the beneficiaries of any
such deal do not include Iranians known to be involved in transporting
materiel or other resources for designated individuals or groups. Given
Iran Air's sinister past, it is only logical to demand this sort of
certification.
Furthermore, the bill would require the Treasury to certify that any
such transaction does not pose a ``significant money laundering or
terrorism financing risk to the U.S. financial system.'' Again,
considering that Iran remains the world's largest financier of
terrorism and on the Financial Action Task Force's blacklist of
countries that pose a high risk of money laundering, it is only
responsible to establish this sort of standard for major U.S.
transactions with Iranian companies.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to support H.R. 1638, the Iranian
Leadership Asset Transparency Act, introduced by my friend Bruce
Poliquin. This bill requires common sense reporting to Congress on the
terrorism financing and money laundering threat posed by Iran to help
us address it more effectively.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these timely and
critical measures.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gaetz
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Banks of Indiana). The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 18, strike ``or''.
Page 6, after line 18 insert the following (and redesignate
the subsequent subclause accordingly):
(II) has knowingly transported items used to establish in
Syria a permanent military presence of either Iranian
military forces or Iranian backed militia; or
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 658, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas, Chairman Hensarling, for his guidance and leadership in
assisting me with this amendment. I would also like to thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for ensuring this Congress takes
the strongest possible position as it relates to Iran and ensuring that
we use every arrow in the proverbial quiver, financially speaking, so
that U.S. assets and U.S. resources are not used to proliferate terror
in a way that is consistent with Iran's paradigm and their budding
hegemony.
Across the Middle East, we see Iran funding terrorist proxies,
destabilizing the region, threatening their neighbors, and functioning
as an eyesore for the world. So I am glad to be here offering an
amendment to ensure that, as we use the tools at our disposal to limit
Iran's power to be a destabilizing sponsor of terror, we pay particular
focus to the activities going on currently in Syria.
In Syria now, a ceasefire has had an unintended consequence of giving
Iran space to be able to move in and make attempts to harden long-term
military assets, installations, so that troops could be housed and
potentially launch other attacks and fund and equip Iran's terrorist
proxies throughout the area.
It is no surprise that the facility that Iran most recently worked on
would have housed upwards of 5,000 soldiers. It is believed that,
potentially, Israel took action to ensure that the construction did not
continue on that particular facility.
My amendment, Mr. Speaker, conditions the provisions of this bill on
an attestation that Iran has not set up permanent, present military in
southern Syria. I think that is critically important.
In the last conversation I had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he
indicated that Israel was most concerned, in all of the world, about
the risks posed by Iran setting up a permanent military presence in
southern Syria, and that that would cause potentially kinetic conflict,
war, and even more dramatic, catastrophic outcomes.
Again, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Mr. Williams for their strong
leadership. I offer this amendment to back our ally, Israel, and to
ensure that Iran does not have the capability to establish a permanent
military presence in southern Syria.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
[[Page H9890]]
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
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. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
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.
4324 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 6, line 23, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 7, add ``and'' at the end
Page 7, after line 7, insert the following:
(iv) no financial institution participating in such
transaction 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;
{time} 1845
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. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to a final passage vote, as
amended.
My amendment would add an additional certification requirement from
the Treasury Secretary for financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues across the aisle. Iran is a
threat to our national security, and we should seek to hold them
accountable, protect Americans, and defend our allies. The first major
step in the last decade to do so was with the Iran nuclear agreement
taking a nuclear power off the table. But we should also seek to hold
accountable Iran's chief enabler and best friend in the world, Russia,
which my amendment will seek to do.
My amendment would add a requirement that the Treasury Secretary
certify that an institution financing the export of commercial aircraft
to Iran did not engage in business with any foreign entity which
engaged in or authorized cyber attacks targeting American elections.
This is a commonsense provision to ensure that companies are aware of
the effects their financial dealings have on supporting those who
engage in election interference.
We should think carefully about letting financial institutions do
business with countries that choose to conduct this new cyber warfare.
While it may have been unthinkable before 2016 that a foreign adversary
would interfere in one of our elections, we know now that the threat is
all too real.
Our intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in our
2016 elections; and it also concluded that this was ordered by
President Vladimir Putin, with the goal of helping its preferred
candidate, Donald Trump. Why this is something that the President and
some of my colleagues across the aisle still question is beyond
shocking. It is also a slap in the face of the dedicated men and women
who serve and toil for our intelligence communities.
The 2016 election, Mr. Speaker, is behind us. We shouldn't relitigate
it. We should learn, though, from how a foreign adversary, a friend of
Iran, sought to influence the American voter. This is not a Democratic
Party or Republican Party issue. It is about our freedom of choice: who
gets to choose when we go to the ballot box.
Iran is not our friend. Guess who else is not our friend? Iran's
friend Russia. But if you don't believe me, if you are cynical enough,
as the President is, to dismiss the findings of our intelligence
community, then believe the Russians. Believe their own declarations.
In September, a Duma parliament member, Nikonov Vyacheslav, stated
that the United States intelligence community slept while Russia
elected a new United States President of the United States.
Does anyone in this House want to do something about that?
In this attack, did Russia work with the Trump campaign?
That is a serious question that remains outstanding. Every day seems
to bring new revelations about the connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. We must do all we can to allow Bob Mueller and his
team to pursue that evidence unimpeded by Presidential obstruction.
We also must be able to conduct our investigations on the House
Intelligence Committee to do all we can to get to the bottom, to tell
the American people how we were so vulnerable, who in the United States
was responsible, whether the U.S. Government response was adequate, and
what we can do to make sure it never happens again.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the President and many of his own enablers
in Congress are seeking to fire Bob Mueller, which would set us back
and greatly affect our ability to prevent another attack by Russia. But
what we can do with this amendment today is not only stand up to Iran,
but also stand up to their chief enabler, someone who finances them and
assists the terror that they enact across the globe.
Vote for this motion to recommit, and, by doing so, Members will show
their concern not only about Iran, but also about their chief enabler.
Members will show their concern for our democracy and the interference
that Iran's best friend, Russia, carried out in our last election.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the
aisle seem to be schizophrenic. They can't seem to figure out whether
they want to coddle Iran or to ``stand up to'' Iran. We were also told
that H.R. 4324 was designed to ``blame and shame'' financial
institutions, and now they offer a motion to recommit to blame and
shame financial institutions.
So here is what is going on, Mr. Speaker: What we have is a regime
that wakes up every morning shouting ``Death to America; death to
Israel,'' and yet we have a motion to recommit trying to relitigate the
2016 Presidential election.
We have a regime which has been certified as the world's foremost
state sponsor of terrorism whom we are trying to hold accountable and
from whom we are trying to get information, and our friends on the
other side of the aisle are trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential
election.
We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supports the Assad
regime in Syria. According to the U.N., the Assad government, with the
help of Iran, has now carried out 27 chemical weapon attacks since the
start of the Syrian conflict, including an April 2017 sarin gas attack
that killed more than 80 people, including scores of women and
children, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to
relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.
Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to imprison foreign nationals, including
Americans--including Americans--including 81-year-old Baquer Namazi,
who has lost his teeth in prison due to malnutrition. We have had
another American prisoner, a student at Princeton, who has suffered
health problems, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle,
with their motion to recommit, want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential
election.
This is a serious moment, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4324 by the gentleman
from Texas is an important piece of legislation to ensure that civilian
aircraft sales to Iran remain civilian aircraft and that our financial
institutions are not unwittingly helping to finance this rogue
terrorist regime, and it is no time to relitigate an election that my
friends on the other side of the aisle lost.
[[Page H9891]]
We need to reject the motion to recommit, and we need to enact H.R.
4324.
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 clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________