Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, 19 August 2015, and I quote the President of the United States:

I made sure that the United States reserved its right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns, which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant.

It is imperative that we take steps to deal with Iran's destabilizing activities and support for terrorism. This involves continued enforcement of international and United States law, including sanctions related to Iran's nonnuclear activities.

I am quoting the President:

We will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for groups such as Hezbollah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home.

This was in direct response, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman who is saying that he is not for upholding these things today. We had many in a bipartisan fashion who voted against this agreement. The President has stated clearly that, under the terms of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, he would not interfere with the terrorist list, that he would not interfere with the human rights list.

But the simple fact is--and I have read every single word of the joint agreement--there are hundreds of people in Annex II on that sanctions list. Among them are more than 50 that are on the terrorist list and the human rights list as violators. The President said that they will not be lifted off, and yet there they are. That is what this bill does.

It is interesting that last week--and I quote a letter by our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker--and here is the letter that they sent to the President of the United States reinforcing why this bill is such a good idea:

Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region and continued support for terrorism represent an unacceptable threat to our closest allies as well as our own national security. As the international community prepares for implementation of the joint agreement, Iran must understand that violating international laws, treaties, and agreements will have serious consequences. We call on the administration--this is their words, Mr. Speaker--to immediately announce new, U.S. sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program to ensure Iran is held accountable for its actions.

I continue to quote this letter:

Inaction from the United States would send the misguided message that, in the wake of the joint agreement, the international community has lost the willingness to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its support for terrorism and other offensive actions throughout the region--including Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. This behavior--including ballistic missile tests, as the chairman spoke about--poses a direct threat to American national security interests and those of our allies.

Mr. Speaker, this was signed by Representative Lowey; our esteemed colleague that is at the podium now on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Engel; the leader of the Democratic National Committee for Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz; and our esteemed colleagues Mr. Sires, Mr. Connolly, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Nadler.

Do you know what? We agree with them. We agree totally with them that these sanctions should be upheld, that the law is the law, and that the 2010 Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is still the law. That is what this bill does.

There have been claims that it was not done in a bipartisan fashion, and I find this somewhat puzzling because I personally talked to Mr. Engel about this bill. I went item by item through it and what its content was. I reached out to the Democratic leadership in August. I have been working this bill since July. So, yes, we can do it in a bipartisan fashion.

I regret, because I am a freshman and only have fought on three continents and have a foreign affairs and national security background, that I am not on the Foreign Affairs Committee. But that doesn't denote, Mr. Speaker, a lack of understanding of the way the world works and what the threat is in the United States of America when we have made a law that says that, if you are a terrorist or a human rights violator, we are not going to allow you to have sanctions relief under the JCPOA. The President said that that is what he is going to do. Democrats and Republicans have said that is what they will uphold. That is what this bill does, and yet we see, puzzlingly, opposition to these very things.

Here is what the bill is: Annex II of the joint agreement lifts sanctions for hundreds of individuals for nuclear proliferation or human rights violation or terrorist violation. More than 50 of these individuals and entities have been identified on the joint agreement for sanctions relief. This simply requires that, before those are delisted, the President certify why. It doesn't say they can never come off. Read section 4. It is pretty clear. It says that the President must certify justification on why that is the case.

What this bill is not: a knee-jerk reaction, a partisan ploy that is quickly crafted due to recent events. We have been working for months on this.

The bill was crafted without major efforts--not true, as I have proven this morning. This is upholding the law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we have the discussion. I know my colleagues feel deeply about this. I know that they also would like to see this continued. Let's pass this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill.

There have been a lot of accusations about what is in this bill and the content. The fact of the matter is, what is being quoted is simply not in the bill.

It says that it would deprive the President of the authority to make decisions. That is simply not the case. Page 2, line 20; page 5, line 17; page 7, line 7: ``The President may lift''--spelled out--if he meets the certification criteria. What is that criteria? That they are no longer conducting activity and they have justification for that relief.

Where this language ``never at any time'' is being quoted, Mr. Speaker, by my esteemed and caring colleagues on this issue--I know how they feel about this issue personally, and I commend them for it because we are on common ground here--but they are quoting something that is simply not in the bill. When they say ``never at any time,'' that is simply not there.

The President may lift the sanctions. What we are calling for is a certification as to why. If he comes in and makes the case--look, this bank has corrected its behavior, general Soleimani has had some epiphany and he is no longer a terrorist--then, fine, we can have that certification, and the President does that.

Talking about several of them and that there was no bipartisan effort, every single speaker that has said that there was not a bipartisan effort I have personally been in contact with--personally-- talking on this particular issue. So that is simply not the case. I am kind of hurt by that because I reached out to all of them, and I didn't deny any of them a chance for amendment, for dialogue, or discussion. I do think that we have much common ground to go on here.

I think it is also important that it says that it doesn't advance goals. It is upholding the law. The law, which is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act of 2010, says that if there are people on terror and human rights list, that they shouldn't come off without certification. We agree. That is why we are saying we have to have the similar certification for those that overlap on the joint agreement. That is why we have identified them.

The hundreds of others that were mentioned by the opponents of this measure, Mr. Speaker, they weren't on those lists. That is why they are not there. They weren't targeted for this. Only those that are on the terror and human rights or nuclear proliferation with missiles list, if they are there, then that is why they have been targeted.

This isn't apparently about the merit of the measure or how we feel about the national security of the United States. It has now become an issue about process. Well, I guess that experience doesn't matter. It is about process. We need to do what is right for the country, Mr. Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source