[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.
____________________