[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 16, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2437-H2441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IRAN COUNTERTERRORISM ACT OF 2023

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1149, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 6323) to modify the availability of certain waiver 
authorities with respect to sanctions imposed with respect to the 
financial sector of 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 (Mr. Bergman). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1149, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6323

       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 ``Iran Counterterrorism Act of 
     2023''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF WAIVER AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO 
                   SANCTIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCIAL 
                   SECTOR OF IRAN.

       (a) FY 2013 NDAA.--Section 1247 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (22 U.S.C. 8806) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (f)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``determines that such 
     a waiver'' and inserting the following: ``determines that--
       ``(i) the Government of Iran has ceased to provide support 
     for acts of international terrorism; or
       ``(ii) such a waiver''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``before issuing a 
     waiver pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii),'' before 
     ``submits''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Period for Review by Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the period of 30 calendar days 
     beginning on the date on which the President submits a report 
     under subsection (f)(1)(B), the appropriate congressional 
     committees should, as appropriate, hold hearings and 
     briefings and otherwise obtain information in order to fully 
     review the report.
       ``(2) Exception.--The period for congressional review under 
     paragraph (1) of a report required to be submitted under 
     subsection (f)(1)(B) shall be 60 calendar days if the report 
     is submitted on or after July 10 and on or before September 7 
     in any calendar year.
       ``(3) Limitation on actions during initial congressional 
     review period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the period for congressional review provided for under 
     paragraph (1) of a report submitted under subsection 
     (f)(1)(B) proposing a waiver of the imposition of sanctions 
     under subsection (a), including any additional period for 
     such review as applicable under the exception provided in 
     paragraph (2), the President may not issue the waiver unless 
     a joint resolution of approval with respect to that waiver is 
     enacted in accordance with subsection (h).
       ``(4) Effect of enactment of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if 
     a joint resolution of disapproval relating to a report 
     submitted under subsection (f)(1)(B) proposing an action 
     described in subsection (f)(1)(A)(ii) is enacted in 
     accordance with subsection (h), the President may not issue 
     the waiver.
       ``(h) Joint Resolutions of Disapproval or Approval 
     Defined.--In this subsection:
       ``(1) Joint resolution of approval.--The term `joint 
     resolution of approval' means only a joint resolution of 
     either House of Congress--
       ``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A joint resolution 
     approving the President's proposal to issue a waiver relating 
     to the application of certain sanctions with respect to 
     Iran.'; and
       ``(B) the sole matter after the resolving clause of which 
     is the following: `Congress approves of the issuance of a 
     waiver relating to the application of sanctions imposed with 
     respect to Iran proposed by the President in the report 
     submitted to Congress under section 1247(f)(1)(B) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 on 
     _______ relating to ________.', with the first blank space 
     being filled with the appropriate date and the second blank 
     space being filled with a short description of the proposed 
     waiver.
       ``(2) Joint resolution of disapproval.--The term `joint 
     resolution of disapproval' means only a joint resolution of 
     either House of Congress--
       ``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A joint resolution 
     disapproving the President's proposal to issue a waiver 
     relating to the application of certain sanctions with respect 
     to Iran.'; and
       ``(B) the sole matter after the resolving clause of which 
     is the following: `Congress disapproves of the issuance of a 
     waiver relating to the application of sanctions imposed with 
     respect to Iran proposed by the President in the report 
     submitted to Congress under section 1247(f)(1)(B) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 on 
     _______ relating to ________.', with the first blank space 
     being filled with the appropriate date and the second blank 
     space being filled with a short description of the proposed 
     action.
       ``(3) Introduction.--During the period of 30 calendar days 
     provided for under subsection (g)(1), including any 
     additional period as applicable under the exception provided 
     in subsection (g)(2), a joint resolution of approval or joint 
     resolution of disapproval may be introduced--
       ``(A) in the House of Representatives, by the majority 
     leader or the minority leader; and
       ``(B) in the Senate, by the majority leader (or the 
     majority leader's designee) or the minority leader (or the 
     minority leader's designee).
       ``(4) Floor consideration in house of representatives.--If 
     a committee of the House of Representatives to which a joint 
     resolution of approval or joint resolution of disapproval has 
     been referred has not reported the joint resolution within 10 
     calendar days after the date of referral, that committee 
     shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint 
     resolution.
       ``(5) Consideration in the senate.--
       ``(A) Committee referral.--A joint resolution of approval 
     or joint resolution of disapproval introduced in the Senate 
     shall be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       ``(B) Reporting and discharge.--If the committee to which a 
     joint resolution of approval or joint resolution of 
     disapproval was referred has not reported the joint 
     resolution within 10 calendar days after the date of referral 
     of the joint resolution, that committee shall be discharged 
     from further consideration of the joint resolution and the 
     joint resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       ``(C) Proceeding to consideration.--Notwithstanding Rule 
     XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at 
     any time after the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs reports a joint resolution of approval or joint 
     resolution of disapproval to the Senate or has been 
     discharged from consideration of such a joint resolution 
     (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been 
     disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the 
     joint resolution, and all points of order against the joint 
     resolution (and against consideration of the joint 
     resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not 
     debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. 
     A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed 
     to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
       ``(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a joint resolution of approval or joint 
     resolution of disapproval shall be decided without debate.
       ``(E) Consideration of veto messages.--Debate in the Senate 
     of any veto message with respect to a joint resolution of 
     approval or joint resolution of disapproval, including all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection with the joint 
     resolution, shall be limited to 10 hours, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the majority leader and 
     the minority leader or their designees.
       ``(6) Rules relating to senate and house of 
     representatives.--

[[Page H2438]]

       ``(A) Treatment of senate joint resolution in house.--In 
     the House of Representatives, the following procedures shall 
     apply to a joint resolution of approval or a joint resolution 
     of disapproval received from the Senate (unless the House has 
     already passed a joint resolution relating to the same 
     proposed action):
       ``(i) The joint resolution shall be referred to the 
     Committee on Financial Services.
       ``(ii) If a committee to which a joint resolution has been 
     referred has not reported the joint resolution within 2 
     calendar days after the date of referral, that committee 
     shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint 
     resolution.
       ``(iii) Beginning on the third legislative day after each 
     committee to which a joint resolution has been referred 
     reports the joint resolution to the House or has been 
     discharged from further consideration thereof, it shall be in 
     order to move to proceed to consider the joint resolution in 
     the House. All points of order against the motion are waived. 
     Such a motion shall not be in order after the House has 
     disposed of a motion to proceed on the joint resolution. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The motion 
     shall not be debatable. A motion to reconsider the vote by 
     which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
       ``(iv) The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the joint resolution and against 
     its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except 2 hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the joint 
     resolution (or a designee) and an opponent. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall 
     not be in order.
       ``(B) Treatment of house joint resolution in senate.--
       ``(i) If, before the passage by the Senate of a joint 
     resolution of approval or joint resolution of disapproval, 
     the Senate receives an identical joint resolution from the 
     House of Representatives, the following procedures shall 
     apply:

       ``(I) That joint resolution shall not be referred to a 
     committee.
       ``(II) With respect to that joint resolution--

       ``(aa) the procedure in the Senate shall be the same as if 
     no joint resolution had been received from the House of 
     Representatives; but
       ``(bb) the vote on passage shall be on the joint resolution 
     from the House of Representatives.
       ``(ii) If, following passage of a joint resolution of 
     approval or joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate, 
     the Senate receives an identical joint resolution from the 
     House of Representatives, that joint resolution shall be 
     placed on the appropriate Senate calendar.
       ``(iii) If a joint resolution of approval or a joint 
     resolution of disapproval is received from the House, and no 
     companion joint resolution has been introduced in the Senate, 
     the Senate procedures under this subsection shall apply to 
     the House joint resolution.
       ``(C) Application to revenue measures.--The provisions of 
     this paragraph shall not apply in the House of 
     Representatives to a joint resolution of approval or joint 
     resolution of disapproval that is a revenue measure.
       ``(7) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This 
     subsection is enacted by Congress--
       ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     and supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.
       (b) FY 2012 NDAA.--Section 1245(d)(5) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 
     8513a(d)(5)) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subparagraph (A), by striking ``determines that such 
     a waiver'' and inserting the following: ``determines that--
       ``(i) the Government of Iran has ceased to provide support 
     for acts of international terrorism; or
       ``(ii) such a waiver''.
       (2) In subparagraph (B), by inserting ``before issuing a 
     waiver pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii),'' before 
     ``submits''.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
     ``The provisions relating to period for review by Congress 
     described in subsections (g) and (h) of section 1247 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (22 
     U.S.C. 8806) shall apply with respect to a report submitted 
     under subparagraph (B) proposing a waiver of the imposition 
     of sanctions under paragraph (1) in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as such provisions apply with respect to a 
     report submitted under subsection (f)(1)(B) of such section 
     1247 proposing a waiver of the imposition of sanctions under 
     subsection (a) of such section.''.

  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 or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, we witnessed Iran's unprecedented 
attack on our greatest ally and the lone democracy in the Middle East, 
Israel.
  Tehran struck our friends in Israel with a swarm of missiles and 
drone attacks launched from Iranian soil. Thankfully, most of the 
attack was intercepted by Israeli defense systems with the support from 
the mighty U.S. military and other partners in the region and across 
the world.
  This assault was just the latest sign that the ayatollahs seek to 
destroy Israel from all sides.
  In addition to this direct attack, Iran has sought to encircle our 
Israeli allies through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
  Hamas' terrorist strike last October on innocent Israeli civilians 
was a wake-up call for many around the world. It underscores the 
brutality of the Iranian proxies.
  In response to this aggression, my friend and colleague from 
California (Mrs. Kim) authored the bill we are considering today, H.R. 
6323, the Iran Counterterrorism Act. This legislation will provide 
Congress a stronger role in any future sanctions relief for Iran.
  Under current law, the U.S. imposes so-called secondary sanctions 
against foreign banks that deal with Iran, restricting the ayatollahs' 
access to hard currency. At the same time, the President enjoys certain 
waiver authorities that he can invoke for national security purposes.
  For example, last September, while Hamas was preparing to wage war 
against Israel, the Biden administration issued a waiver that allowed 
for $6 billion in Iranian funds to be unfrozen.
  However, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue we are bringing 
forward here. Administrations from both parties have used waivers in 
the past.
  Additionally, Congress routinely enacts waiver authorities so the 
executive branch can use discretion in order to convince bad actors to 
change their behavior.
  The issue when it comes to Iran is the status quo is simply 
unsustainable. Congresswoman Kim's bill recognizes this.
  The regime in Tehran is so hostile, and the threat it poses to Israel 
and American interests are so high that lawmakers need a greater say 
when waivers are granted to the ayatollahs' access to the global 
financial system.
  This bill before us ensures U.S. sanctions against Iran can only be 
waived if Iran has ceased support for international terrorism.
  If the administration cannot certify that Iran is no longer financing 
terrorism, the bill also provides Congress with a chance to review any 
national security interest waivers of these sanctions.
  When H.R. 6323 was passed by the Financial Services Committee, it 
received bipartisan support because Members are no longer comfortable 
delegating blanket waiver authorities that benefit Iran.
  Tehran's continued aggression, from its efforts to destroy Israel, to 
its pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its export of drone technologies to 
Russia, demonstrates that our waiver policies need closer scrutiny.
  Congresswoman Kim's legislation draws on a similar congressional 
review process already in place for Russian sanctions. This review was 
established under legislation from 2017 that passed both the House and 
the Senate with near unanimous support.
  I am hopeful that our Democratic colleagues will take the threat 
posed by Iran as seriously as they did Russia when Congress enacted 
that law.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition, Mrs. Kim's bill retains the sanctions 
exemptions we already have in place for humanitarian assistance to 
ordinary Iranians. Our challenge is with the regime in Iran, not the 
Iranian people. Her bill focuses on targeting Tehran's ability to 
finance terrorism, not on punishing innocent Iranian civilians.
  This bill also is about ensuring that waivers benefiting the Iranian 
Government receive an appropriate vetting in Congress. After the 
attacks inflicted on

[[Page H2439]]

our Israeli allies and friends over the past 7 months, surely, we can 
all support this commonsense measure.
  I thank Mrs. Kim for her work on this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the Rules Committee yesterday, the sponsor of this 
bill, Mrs. Kim, said that we would need to pass this bill in order to 
send a strong message to Iran that its unprecedented attack over the 
weekend was unacceptable.
  I agree that the attack was unacceptable. It is wholly unclear how 
this bill, in any way, sends any such message. The bill would do 
nothing to deter another act by Iran. Instead, it would make it harder 
for the President to respond to emergency situations, including 
humanitarian crises.
  Under current law, a President has the authority to waive sanctions 
only if they determine that such a waiver is vital to the national 
security of the United States and submits a report to Congress 
providing justification for the waiver. The authority also limits a 
President to a waiver period of 180 days, and they must comply with the 
same requirements in order to renew the waiver.

  This is an authority that has been in place for decades and has been 
used effectively by Republican and Democratic Presidents to protect our 
national security. It is designed to allow the President to be nimble 
in response to situations that threaten our national security.
  This bill would hamstring this limited waiver authority by 
prohibiting the President from moving forward with a waiver until a 
waiting period of up to 70 days have passed.
  Let me repeat: It would prohibit the President from moving forward 
with a waiver until a waiting period of up to 70 days has passed.
  During this waiting period, American hostages could be languishing in 
a foreign prison, victims of a major catastrophe could be suffering, or 
tensions between American allies and adversaries could be escalating to 
result in a war.
  While any number of major threats to our national security are 
unfolding, this bill would impose an unreasonable waiting period during 
which the President would be required to jump through hoops as Congress 
holds hearings, receives briefings, and requests further information. 
This is an untenable way to handle emergency situations.
  Further, by hamstringing our ability to respond quickly, this bill 
could very well create a rift between us and our allies abroad who are 
relying on us to support them in critical moments.

                              {time}  1715

  Let's be clear: The current law already provides for transparency on 
any waivers by requiring reports to Congress explaining the rationale 
for any waivers. Congress already has every right to do robust 
oversight by holding hearings, receiving briefings, and requesting 
further information to better understand the justification for any 
waivers. We don't need this bill to allow us to do that.
  The difference in this bill is that the President is subjected to a 
long waiting period, during which untold damage could be inflicted on 
the United States, our relationships with our allies, and our standing 
on the international stage.
  After decades of a shadow war between Israel and Iran, and months of 
combat between Israel and Hamas that has resulted in thousands of 
civilian casualties, this weekend's attack by Iran has brought us even 
closer to the precipice of an all-out war in the region.
  This is not the time to be tying the hands of our President to 
respond to emergencies, and this is not the time to be risking a rift 
in our international relationships with allies.
  Moreover, limiting our ability to facilitate the funding to provide 
humanitarian relief for people in need, as this bill would do, is 
simply shameful. It degrades basic American values supporting the life 
and dignity of all people.
  At the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, the bill's sponsor also 
claimed that the Biden administration had weakened sanctions on Iran 
and that this bill was designed to make it harder for the President to 
do so in the future, but the Biden administration's Iran sanctions 
program is the most extensive set of comprehensive sanctions against 
any country.
  In fact, the Biden administration has ramped up pressure on Iran 
since the Trump administration by imposing sanctions on hundreds of 
additional individuals and entities for activity related to Iran, 
including the illicit sale of Iranian oil.
  The Biden administration also successfully seized a tanker carrying 
Iranian oil, which was ``the first-ever criminal resolution involving a 
company that violated sanctions by facilitating the illicit sale and 
transport of Iranian oil,'' according to the Department of Justice.
  In fact, some of the examples that Republicans have cited for 
sanctions waivers that Biden has implemented were merely renewals of 
waivers that were initiated under the Trump administration. National 
security interest waivers, including those that facilitate humanitarian 
exceptions to sanctions, have long had bipartisan support, including 
under the Trump administration.
  This is just another example of the double standard that Republicans 
use to fuel their political talking points. They are desperately trying 
to find a way to blame the Biden administration for Iran's latest 
attack when there is simply no real basis to make that connection.
  Republicans are also applying a double standard to Ukraine and 
Israel. They are jumping to support our ally Israel and punish Iran, 
but they have been holding up badly needed funding for Ukraine, thereby 
emboldening our shared enemy, Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6323 will do nothing to stop or even deter Iran 
from attacking Israel again, nor will it end the humanitarian disaster 
and war in Gaza or help any of our allies under attack by authoritarian 
regimes. This bill does nothing to help Ukraine or provide Taiwan with 
any assurance that we have their back. Instead, this bill will have 
America sitting on its hands while any number of threats to our own 
national security unfold.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and affirm that 
America will continue to be a beacon of hope for people around the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mrs. KIM of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
6323, the Iran Counterterrorism Act.
  Israel is confronting a critical moment as it fights for its right to 
exist. Iran and its proxies continue to attack our greatest ally in the 
Middle East and the lone democracy in the region.
  As a key financial supporter of Hamas, Iran has sought to indirectly 
wage war against our Israeli allies. This was demonstrated by Hamas' 
barbaric attack on October 7.
  Now, Iran's hostility has become direct. Last weekend, Iran attacked 
Israel with drones and missiles launched from Iranian soil. This shows 
how the ayatollahs are seeking to open up another front as Israel 
fights for survival.
  Iran's aggression underlines the need for greater congressional 
oversight when the executive branch waives U.S. sanctions on Tehran. 
That is the focus of H.R. 6323.
  Under current law, the United States imposes secondary sanctions 
against foreign financial institutions that do business with 
blacklisted Iranians. However, using the law's waiver authority, 
President Biden eased some of these sanctions last September.
  Just as Hamas was preparing its assault, the Biden administration 
greenlit the transfer of $6 billion in Iranian funds in exchange for 
the release of five American hostages. The waiver did nothing to deter 
Iran from its continued attempts to destroy Israel.
  H.R. 6323 does not affect past waivers, but it will help ensure that 
waiver authority cannot be abused. This bill would require Iran to end 
its support

[[Page H2440]]

for international terrorism before another waiver could be invoked.
  If Iran continues to fund terror and the White House seeks a 
sanctions waiver, this legislation will give the Congress a period to 
review that action. It will also give Congress an opportunity to reject 
a misguided waiver. That is common sense.

  This bill does not discriminate between Republican and Democratic 
administrations. Any President who wishes to facilitate Iran's access 
to the global financial system will have to notify Congress 30 days in 
advance, so contrary to the ranking member's assertion, this is a 
reasonable measure that puts on guardrails.
  Right now, the President has to notify Congress 15 days before 
waiving the sanctions. With this bill, we are extending that to 30 days 
and 60 days if we are in an August recess.
  The review period will allow Congress to examine the merits of the 
waiver and pass a joint resolution of disapproval under expedited 
procedures, which would prevent the waiver from taking effect. 
Alternatively, Congress can choose to support a waiver or not to act at 
all. In both of those cases, the waiver would go forward.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said yesterday 
that they will not be supporting because they don't trust Congress to 
act. I will emphasize that if there is inaction from Congress, the 
President will be able to proceed with that waiver.
  Additionally, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
say that this bill does nothing to counter Iran and its growing 
aggressiveness. Well, I have to disagree with those of my colleagues 
who say that. Certain actions by the administration have paved the way 
for Iran to not fear the consequences of its actions.
  H.R. 6323 does not prejudge future waivers. It simply gives Members a 
say before Tehran can get its hands on any additional funds.
  This congressional review process is taken from an existing law 
targeting Russia, the Countering America's Adversaries through 
Sanctions Act, which passed the House in 2017 by a vote of 419-3. We 
can all agree that Tehran deserves as much scrutiny as Moscow.
  I will finish with this. Nothing in H.R. 6323 affects existing 
sanctions exemptions for food, medicine, and medical devices. These are 
blanket exemptions that Congress has already built into the sanctions 
laws that we are discussing today, and nothing in this legislation 
would change that.
  The Financial Services Committee passed this legislation in November 
in a bipartisan vote of 30-19. I am confident that it will receive 
support from Members on both sides of the aisle if it is considered on 
the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
Democrats and Republicans, to take action to confront Iran, stand with 
our greatest ally, Israel, and support H.R. 6323.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if my GOP colleagues want to combat terrorism finance, 
the way to do that is not through convoluted congressional waiting 
periods and lengthy proposal processes, tying the President's hands. 
Rather, I have a solid, bipartisan bill to propose, one which passed 
our Financial Services Committee markup with a unanimous vote of 50-0. 
That bill, my bill, is the Stopping Illicit Oil Shipments Act of 2023, 
H.R. 6365.
  The bill would target Iran's oil shipments and the Iranian ghost 
fleet, which is one of the biggest sources of funds for the terrorist 
Iranian regime. Iran and Russia both use this tactic to circumvent U.S. 
and allied sanctions. In fact, it is estimated that 2 million barrels 
of oil are transported daily on these ghost ships.
  If Republicans were serious about countering Iran and Russia, they 
could have brought this bill to the floor with these other provisions, 
a bill that passed markup with the same bills considered this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member of the full Financial Services Committee for yielding, and I 
thank the chairman of the full committee as well for giving me the 
opportunity to raise concerns and to say that we all stand with our 
ally Israel and the horrors of waking up and being targeted by 300 
drones and being absolutely struck by this terrorist attack.
  I just came from a meeting with an Iranian-American diaspora 
organization working for a free democratic Iran who were stunned by 
Israel being attacked by 300 drones. This bill has consequences which I 
think are extremely important and worth looking at by our constituents 
and our community, which is what I wish to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the Iran Counterterrorism Act would 
require the President to obtain a congressional resolution of approval 
before waiving certain sanctions on Iran. This would cause us to have 
greater deliberation with the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring concerns but to recognize that this is 
an important step that we need to digest and discuss in order to make 
the right decision to safeguard the people in the region but also the 
free, democracy-wanting people of Iran.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  In September of this year, the Biden administration negotiated an 
exchange with Iran for the release of five American citizens detained 
by Iran. In exchange, the Biden administration agreed to not block the 
transfer of the Trump-approved $6 billion in Iranian assets that were 
the proceeds of Iranian oil purchased by South Korea.
  Under the agreement, the funds would be transferred from a restricted 
account in South Korea to a restricted account in Qatar, where funds 
would be used exclusively for the purchase of humanitarian goods for 
Iranian citizens. The transfer did not authorize disbursement of funds, 
and the sanctioned Government of Iran has not and will not see a penny 
of that money.
  Moreover, Treasury has stated that the U.S. and Qatar have agreed to 
effectively block the funds for the foreseeable future. Contrary to 
Republican claims, it is not accurate to tie this $6 billion to Hamas' 
attack on October 7 because that attack was being planned for multiple 
years, likely beginning under the Trump administration.
  Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, we received notice that the majority would 
be moving several Financial Services bills the very next day. This has 
put Members and staff in the difficult position of assessing and 
understanding multiple complex bills in a matter of hours in order to 
cast an informed vote.
  The justification for jamming these bills through so quickly is 
allegedly to respond to Iran's attack on Israel over the weekend. 
Instead of taking the time to work in a bipartisan manner on bills that 
would actually increase pressure on Iran, Republicans are politicizing 
this moment, pointing the finger at the Biden administration, and 
rushing to pass bills like this one that don't actually provide any 
real solutions.
  In response to Iran's latest attacks, they are just desperately 
trying to prove that they are doing something instead of taking the 
time to do something meaningful that actually has a chance to pass the 
Senate also.
  Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be doing everything 
possible to crack down on Iranian leaders and terrorists. Instead of 
debating legislation that will accomplish this shared goal, we are here 
debating legislation that will only make it harder for us to respond 
quickly to crises.
  Put simply, this bill would endanger our own national security and 
degrade our international standing. For these reasons, I oppose this 
bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just underscore a few points here. This 
bill was reported out of committee in November and was publicly 
available to Members. We reported this bill out

[[Page H2441]]

with bipartisan votes coming out of committee. My expectation here on 
the House floor is we would likewise have a bipartisan vote, number 
one.
  Number two, this is applying the same standard to the Iranian regime 
that we have applied to the Russian regime, which says if you are going 
to waive sanctions, we have got to have a say here in Congress. We have 
to know what you are doing and why.
  Now, that was the standard for my Democratic colleagues for a 
Republican administration, but now my Democratic colleagues don't have 
that same standard for a Democratic administration, which I think is 
more partisan than it is in the national interest.
  Additionally, it is not just a question of the administration. It is 
a question of our relationship and our approach to Iran.
  Are we going to take Russia more seriously than Iran? I don't think 
that is in our national interest. I don't think that is in the interest 
of international stability.
  There are a number of things that I raise here that I think are 
important parts of the debate. This is a bipartisan approach to waivers 
which is a good standard whether it is a Democratic administration or a 
Republican administration, whether or not Republicans or Democrats run 
the House or the Senate. It says to Iran that we are going to treat 
them similarly to how we treat the Russian regime.
  We have got to stand against the aggression of Tehran and its efforts 
to destroy Israel, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its export of 
drone technology to Russia. We should stand against that. This week we 
are making a statement that we do stand against that.
  This Congress is making bold statements this week, and I predict we 
will make more bold statements this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1149, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. 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.

                          ____________________