[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.
____________________