[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2476-H2480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      RESCISSION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND LICENSES RELATING TO IRAN

  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1149, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5947) to provide for the rescission of certain waivers 
and licenses relating to 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 1149, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5947

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

     SECTION 1. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND LICENSES.

       (a) In General.--On the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     following measures shall be terminated:
       (1) The waiver exercised on the pursuant to section 
     1245(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012 and sections 1244(i) and 1247(f) of the Iran 
     Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and transmitted 
     to Congress on September 11, 2023, for the transfer of 
     certain funds from the Republic of Korea to Qatar.
       (2) Any general or specific license issued by the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control at the Department of the Treasury 
     directly or indirectly related to the funds cited in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Limitation.--The President may not reissue any new 
     waiver or license described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a) for the same or similar purposes.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LICENSES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President may 
     not--

[[Page H2477]]

       (1) exercise the waiver authority described in section 
     1245(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012 and sections 1244(i) and 1247(f) of the Iran 
     Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 permitting the 
     Government of Iran or any Iranian person access to any 
     account established or maintained pursuant to or in 
     accordance with section 1245(d)(4)(D)(ii)(II) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012; or
       (2) issue a general or specific license, frequently asked 
     question, or any other licensing action or guidance 
     permitting the Government of Iran or any Iranian person 
     access to or to benefit directly or indirectly from any 
     account established pursuant to or in accordance with any 
     account described in 1245(d)(4)(D)(ii)(II) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, we saw Iran unleash an unprecedented 
missile and drone attack on our ally Israel. Iran launched over 350 
missiles and drones. We are incredibly fortunate that Israel, the 
United States, and other partners successfully intercepted 99 percent 
of those weapons. Had they not, the damage would have been 
catastrophic.
  How did a regime that has been subject to international sanctions for 
decades have the resources to develop such advanced weaponry? The 
answer is that Iran is incredibly skilled at illicit finance, sanctions 
evasion, and exploiting every possible loophole to fund their malign 
activities.
  Time and time again, we have allowed ourselves to accept the fiction 
that we can issue sanctions waivers that give Iran access to funds for 
limited use on allegedly humanitarian transactions without enabling the 
regime's malign activities.
  We need to face facts. This is patently false.
  Money is fungible, and the Iranian regime does not care about its 
people, as evidenced by their wide-scale human rights abuses and 
repression.
  Under President Trump's maximum pressure campaign, Iran was starved 
for foreign reserve currency. This forced the Iranian regime to make 
hard choices.
  With these waivers in effect, every dollar or euro that we provide 
the Iranian regime, even if purportedly for purchases of agriculture 
equipment or other humanitarian uses, frees up another dollar or euro 
that Iran's regime will spend on missiles, drones, its nuclear program, 
or its terrorist proxies.
  Beyond the question of money being fungible, Iran has a demonstrated 
track record of falsifying humanitarian purchases.

                              {time}  1430

  In fact, the Department of Justice has previously charged a bank for 
``facilitating transactions fraudulently designed to appear to be 
purchases of food and medicine by Iranian customers, in order to appear 
to fall within the so-called `humanitarian exception' to certain 
sanctions against the Government of Iran, when in fact no purchases of 
food or medicine actually occurred.''
  Enough is enough. With this bill, H.R. 5947, we are eliminating the 
sanctions waivers tied to the $6 billion in Iranian funds in restricted 
accounts in Qatar and tied to the $10 billion Iran has received from 
Iraq in electricity payments. It is too dangerous to allow Iran 
continued access to these funds, even with the nominal restrictions on 
how they are used.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to revoke 
these sanctions waivers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5947. This 
legislation may be short, but it is equally shortsighted with 
considerable long-term consequences.
  Let's start with the impact this would have on Iraq. This bill would 
rescind a waiver that currently allows Iraq to pay for electricity from 
Iran.
  This waiver is what allows the Iraqi Government to keep the lights 
on. Without it, massive blackouts would leave millions without 
electricity and cause precipitous chaos. It would hamper the fragile 
stability that Iraq has achieved over the past several years.
  I don't believe anyone in this body wants to see a return to Iraq of 
the past, where Iraqis from previous decades suffered from never-ending 
wars and repression like that of the Saddam Hussein era.
  Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill goes even further than that. It 
would harm and cause the Iraqi people terrible consequences. An Iraq 
without electricity serves no American interest and would do nothing to 
promote our, the United States', national security.
  Let's not forget, ISIS emerged from a chaotic Iraq. ISIS, I will 
repeat, emerged from a chaotic Iraq--long-term consequences, 
shortsighted bill.
  When ISIS emerged, the result was not just widespread disorder, 
destruction, and violence in the Middle East but the growth of a global 
terrorist movement that struck my home city and State of New York, 
Orlando, San Bernardino, as well as Paris, Brussels, and Barcelona.
  I agree that we absolutely need to help Iraq find alternative sources 
of energy besides Iran, but it is simply not true that Iran is filling 
its coffers with payments from Iraq. There is roughly $10 billion in 
Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity being held in escrow. Only very 
small portions of the money have been transferred to an account in 
Oman, into which the United States has oversight. Iran can only access 
that account to purchase humanitarian goods, like food or medicine. 
None of the funds--zero, nada--are going to nefarious purposes.
  Maybe we have a difference and some don't care about humanitarian 
causes, humanitarian aid, and things of that nature. I know my side of 
the aisle does.
  Human life, innocent human life, is very important, and it is also 
how we show what our values are.
  This bill would risk our ability to have oversight and control of the 
$6 billion in Iranian funds we are monitoring in Qatar, and much more. 
This measure would have the opposite effect of what it intends to do, 
leading to less control of Iranian assets.
  I am deeply concerned that this bill removes all flexibility from our 
current Iran sanctions program. The point of sanctions, again, is to 
bring Iran back to--as I have said over and over on the various bills 
we have seen today--the negotiating table.
  Sanctions are not an end but a means to an end. A diplomatic path, I 
say again, is the best path, and this measure removes the flexibility 
necessary for that strategic objective and the utilization of 
diplomacy.
  Let me also say a quick word about process. Yes, we need to respond 
to global events, and that is why I supported seven Iran-related 
measures on the floor just yesterday. While I disagree with some of the 
other bills on the floor today, at least those pieces of legislation 
received proper committee consideration.
  Yes, we do, on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, practice what I 
believe is some diplomacy. My friend and chairman,   Michael McCaul, 
and I talk. We give a chance to trying to work it out first. Sometimes 
we do; sometimes we don't. These bills never gave us a chance to do 
that.
  This bill did not follow that process. It has not been marked up by 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs or, for that matter, the Committee on 
Financial Services or, for that matter, the Committee on Ways and Means 
or, for that matter, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
even though every single one received a referral on this bill--process.
  Mr. Speaker, in my tenure as the former chair of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, now the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, this week is the first time ever that we are considering a 
bill under a rule that

[[Page H2478]]

had not gone through the committee process--not only in my time as a 
chair or ranking member, but almost an entire 25 years that I have been 
on the committee.
  This is, I believe, a very unfortunate precedent that we are setting 
here. If we actually want to support--I know I do fully--our ally, 
Israel, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan Senate national 
security aid bill that would send important funds to Israel so that 
they could defend themselves against Iranian aggression, as well as, of 
course, supporting our friends in Ukraine and Taiwan, and providing 
necessary humanitarian assistance.
  I know we have been negotiating, which is okay. We know that, and we 
are going to try to figure out some of the things, from what I am 
hearing. What we should be doing, what really is necessary right now, 
given the needs of our allies, is just pass a bipartisan bill. Seventy 
Members of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it. It is waiting for 
us to vote on it.

  Many of us, I think at least over 300 of us, will agree that if that 
bill just had the light of day on the floor, because our Ukrainian 
friends are at a desperate end--they need assistance right now. What 
took place in the Middle East, the strikes against Israel, they need 
the money right now. Our Taiwanese friends need the money right now. 
The innocent individuals in Gaza, in Sudan, and around the world need 
the assistance right now.
  If today, we put that bill on the floor and let Congress do its will, 
it would be on the desk of the President of the United States either 
later this evening or first thing tomorrow, signed into law, and our 
allies that we claim we care for would get the aid and assistance that 
they need now.
  That is the bill we should have been debating in February. That is 
the bill we should have been debating in March. That is the bill we 
should be debating today, really, not this bill, which will have a far 
greater impact on innocent Iraqi civilians than any minuscule impact on 
Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess you know that I oppose this legislation, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my colleague and friend, the author 
of this bill, and a member of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, the theme that we are talking about right 
now is a complete overturning of a maximum pressure campaign on Iran 
from 2017 through the end of 2020.
  In 2021, we began a new theme, and that theme was appeasement: 
appeasement of Iran; appeasement of its policies; an overturning of the 
JCPOA; a message to the world that: We trust you, Iran, the largest 
state sponsor of terrorism on the globe. We don't think you are going 
to do anything.
  That strategy has clearly not worked.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go back in time to September 11, 2023. Instead 
of mourning our Nation and standing firm against terrorism, the 
President of the United States took the anniversary of 9/11 as an 
opportunity to give Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, a 
$6 billion present.
  It is no coincidence that shortly following this foreign policy faux 
pas, the Iranian-backed terrorist group was emboldened to launch a 
barbaric attack against our democratic ally, Israel, murdering over 
1,400 innocent civilians and abducting hundreds of hostages, some of 
whom still remain inside Gaza.
  In the 6 months following those attacks on that fateful morning of 
October 7, Iran's proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, the Shia militia 
groups, and others--have continued carrying out terrorist attacks 
against Israel and the Middle East, culminating in Iran's direct and 
unprecedented attack this past weekend against Israel.
  When it comes to foreign policy, the theme that I mentioned, a 
turning away from maximum pressure, a turning away from deterrence, a 
turning away from holding a hard line and toward appeasement, the 
President has gotten it wrong every single time.

                              {time}  1445

  In fact, on September 10, 2001, one day before the attacks on 9/11, 
then-Senator Joe Biden criticized President Bush's proposed missile 
defense system as dangerous and potentially disastrous and that it 
weakens us.
  In reality, President Biden's decades-long strategy of appeasement is 
what weakens us. His choices have made our country less safe. They have 
resulted in the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. They have emboldened 
our adversaries to attack around the world.
  When asked what his message to Iran was in the lead-up to a possible 
attack on Israel, that we knew about, the President simply said: 
``Don't.''
  Well, Mr. President, they did.
  I agree with my colleague, the ranking member, that innocent human 
life is important. The disagreement at this point in time is that we 
have had 3-plus years of a strategy of appeasement that has not 
resulted in deterrence. It has weakened our interest, our allies, 
Israel and others, not just in the region but throughout the world.
  I want to talk about electricity. Yes, Iraq needs electricity. The 
fact is that the waiver given by Secretary Pompeo at the end of the 
Trump administration was predicated on the theory that Iraq would 
reform its electricity system and this would not be needed for a long 
time. This was 4 years ago.
  At what point is there accountability?
  At what point after waiver and waiver and waiver given do we cut the 
dependency; do we reform the system; do we make sure that the Iraqi 
citizens have what they need?
  This administration has taken the opposite approach.
  When you look in the news just today, everyone around the world, all 
the major organizations, the major nation-states, are considering 
additional sanctions on Iran. They understand that appeasement doesn't 
work. The U.N., the G7, and even France have made the decision to 
enforce stronger sanctions with no waivers.
  President Biden over 3 years ago made a decision to go from maximum 
pressure on Iran that resulted in unprecedented deterrence and peace to 
a strategy of appeasement.
  The examples are many. Appeasement and weakness have led to chaos and 
aggression. In fact, every intelligence briefing, every national 
security pundit, every talking head on TV, every person who knows 
anything about this subject has said the same consistent theme for 3-
plus years, that the threat from the Iranian regime toward the United 
States and our allies and partners and our interests has only 
increased. It culminated this weekend with an unprecedented drone 
attack.
  We are so lucky, along with our brothers and sisters in arms, the 
U.S. military and our partners like the Jordanians and the Israelis, 
that the air defense systems worked, that these brave airmen and these 
brave air defense personnel were able to take out these drones and 
prevent not a single loss of life, to prevent the death of anyone 
inside Israel. It is unbelievable that that was able to happen.
  The reason that we are doing this, I believe, is because the Founders 
of this country knew that there would be a time when checks and 
balances had to be issued, there would be a time when we had to have a 
check on the executive branch because they got it wrong.
  This doesn't have to be a partisan exercise. In fact, I hope it is 
bipartisan. I hope that we can all join together and say we don't 
believe in appeasement, that that strategy has not worked. They have 
had 3\1/2\ years to see if it works, and it doesn't.
  Now is the time to stand fast. Now is the time to come together and 
to check the executive branch and to pass legislation that prevents the 
rescission of these waivers that prevents the $6 billion gift and other 
gifts from funding the Iranian war machine, the terror war machine that 
is sowing chaos across the Middle East and even broader than that 
region.
  If we remember back to September 11, then we know this threat is 
real. Let's believe the Iranians when they have threatened us over the 
weekend. Let's believe their threats, but let's not cower to their 
threats. Let's stand strong. Let's show deterrence.
  Not a single dollar should be allowed to go to the Iranian 
Government. Not a

[[Page H2479]]

single dollar should be allowed to go to the largest arbiter of 
terrorism on the planet.
  I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join in regaining our 
Article I authority, will join in asserting American leadership around 
the globe, to send a strong message not just to Iran but to other 
would-be adversaries, that we are serious about defending freedom, that 
we are serious about defending Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle 
East.
  My legislation permanently freezes all Iranian-sanctioned assets and 
prevents the President from using any waiver authority, including 
licenses and guidance and otherwise, to lift sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand 
strong, to support this legislation, to pass H.R. 5947, to protect 
Israel, and to stop the Iranian war machine.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the neocon march into another war 
in the Middle East. It is the same chorus. This time it is Iran.
  John Bolton, who blundered us into Iraq, now is calling for strikes 
on Iran all over CNN and cable news. Then you have Senator Marsha 
Blackburn saying that we need retaliatory strikes into Iran. Who can 
forget Senator Lindsey Graham saying: Hit them hard. Blow them off the 
map.
  This is foolishness. Let me be clear. The American people, Democrats 
or Republicans or Independents, do not want another war in the Middle 
East. They do not want us to make the same mistake we made in Iraq. 
They do not want trillions of our tax dollars going into foreign wars. 
Instead, they are demanding that we invest in jobs here at home, in 
childcare, and in healthcare in America.

  I call today for the American people to stand up against the foreign 
policy blob and against the establishment and prevent them from getting 
us into another war in the Middle East.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  I strongly oppose this measure, which would remove all flexibility 
from our Iran sanctions program and thereby strike a fatal blow to our 
ability to conduct nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
  Now, I have heard several times during the course of this debate 
about the failure of the JCPOA, of which at the time the IAEA had 
oversight, individuals were knowing what and where the nuclear material 
was. Most of it, as it has been said now, was moved out of the country.
  The fact of the matter is, if I recall correctly, General Mattis, who 
was initially an opponent of the JCPOA, after seeing what it was doing 
and how it was functioning, became a proponent of the JCPOA. He said it 
publicly, that it was a way through diplomacy to prevent Iran from 
having a nuclear weapon.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with joy that the 
former President pulled us out of the JCPOA.
  I ask: What was accomplished by pulling us out? Are we safer? Is that 
what it did? If we are safer by being pulled out, what are we talking 
about now? Are we in more danger?
  Does Iran now have a greater opportunity to get a nuclear weapon? Do 
we know where the materials are now, since it was a good thing to pull 
out of the JCPOA, or do we know less? Do we have more access now, since 
we pulled out of the JCPOA, or do we have less? Why was this thing 
about pulling out of the JCPOA such a great thing?
  I am more worried today about Iran getting a nuclear weapon than I 
was when we were in the JCPOA. I ask my colleagues: Were you more 
worried when we were in the JCPOA than you are right now?
  I hear that you are worried right now about where Iran is with a 
nuclear weapon. Back then what we were talking about was diplomacy to 
try to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. Are you telling me 
now, because we don't know, that we should just go to war?
  There are choices to be made here. I think we were much better off 
using diplomacy, getting access to what was going on, watching them 
move nuclear material outside of the country, than just saying we are 
going to blow you up.
  No oversight, nothing; no contact; no one looking in; no information 
other than that and they are free to do whatever the heck they want to 
do now. They are free to do it because they no longer have to be at the 
negotiating table.
  Are we safer now or were we safer under the JCPOA?
  Additionally, let me say this bill would have greater consequences 
across the entire Middle East, particularly in Iraq, which this bill 
would restrict from purchasing Iranian energy.
  I will remind us again, let's not be shortsighted. With no energy, 
there is chaos in Iraq. What happened before? ISIS was created. 
Blackouts across Iraq would sow societal chaos in Iraq.
  Does that help serve our national security objectives in the region? 
I don't think so.
  If implemented, this bill would undermine the tenuous stability Iraq 
has worked to establish after decades of war. Are they perfect now? No. 
Four years is a short period of time when we are trying to do some 
major accomplishments here.
  Importantly, this measure may also cost us our ability to do what we 
say we want to do, to monitor and control the Iranian funds in Qatar 
and elsewhere. Do we want to lose control, not have oversight of that 
either? Then you want this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  A smart sanctions policy has a purpose. It is not a blunt tool to 
wield in an effort to induce regime change. That does not work. It has 
never worked when it was used just to try to have regime change.
  Our sanctions policies must be flexible and allow for United States 
national security objectives to be realized through thoughtful--and I 
will use this word one more time--thoughtful diplomacy.
  A waiver is always necessary for that purpose.
  Our Middle East national security objectives should be about 
providing Israel aid as part of our national security supplemental and 
providing humanitarian aid to starving individuals. That is what it 
should be about. That is what we should be voting on. That is what we 
should be debating on, not just today. We should have done it months 
ago.
  It shouldn't be about cutting off Iraqis from electricity and 
creating chaos and the possible rise again of another terrorist group 
similar to ISIS that killed Americans and allies abroad.
  This bill should be opposed. This bill is shortsighted. This bill 
doesn't accomplish what we needed to do and what we need to do. Let's 
vote it down.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, returning our attention to the consideration of the bill at 
hand, H.R. 5947, Congress granted these waiver authorities over a 
decade ago hoping that they could be used to help the Iranian people 
without compromising our national security.
  What we have seen in the last 10 years is that Iran cannot be 
trusted. These waivers failed. The JCPOA itself granted access to at 
least $50 billion to the primary sponsor of terrorism around the world.
  Since then, we have seen some $70 billion at least given to the 
Iranian regime by the Biden administration.
  Iran continues its dangerous, deadly buildup of weapons and other 
capabilities. The Iranian people continue to suffer at the hands of the 
regime which uses evasive tactics to divert money that should be spent 
on their people to support other malign activities.
  Again, Iran is the primary sponsor of terror around the world, and 
now our partners and allies all over the Middle East are also victims 
of Iran and its proxies.
  We have a responsibility to the freedom loving people of the Middle 
East not to be funding their oppressors. We need to revoke these 
waivers, and we need to do it today.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.

[[Page H2480]]

  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 the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SELF. 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.

                          ____________________