Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us now, H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, represents what the Republican majority has become very good at doing, advancing bad public policy while claiming to advance the public interest.

H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the estimated total assets under direct or indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are employed, regardless of whether such individuals are subject to U.S. sanctions.

Although increasing transparency into corrupt regimes is a laudable goal, H.R. 1638 works counter not only to its own stated objectives, but also U.S. national security interests.

First, the level of scrutiny that would be needed to produce a credible report would place a very real strain on the Treasury Department, diverting significant resources away from Treasury investigators who are tasked with targeting conduct that is actually sanctionable; implementing existing U.S. sanction programs; and uncovering illicit conduct across the globe, including, importantly, efforts to identify the web of business interests that continue to enable North Korea to evade U.S. and international sanctions.

In addition to diverting scarce and critical resources, the bill's required report will have little use as a compliance tool, given that the most important parts would be classified, undercutting the legislation's own stated objective to help make financial institutions' required compliance with remaining sanctions more easily understood.

In fact, the creation of such a list, which would not be tied to any prohibition or legal action, would more than likely create confusion among the Office of Foreign Assets Control's regulated public and also mislead companies to believe that the Treasury list replaces the due diligence efforts that they should otherwise be doing prior to engaging in business in Iran.

Moreover, because the report would be largely classified, the bill would do little to draw the Iranian public's attention to the corruption and unjust enrichment of their leaders, which is another stated purpose of the bill. In fact, any classified portion would inevitably be rejected by both the Iran regime and its people as U.S. propaganda, and a predictable attack on the country's government by the United States.

The true purpose of this legislation is to create reputational risk for companies that might seek to do legitimate business with Iran. For this reason, the bill would be a strategic mistake, as its report would undoubtedly be seized upon by Iran as an intentional effort to discourage international investment in Iran, which would be viewed by Iran and likely by the major world powers who joined us in the JCPOA as well as a violation of the expressed U.S. commitment under the nuclear deal not to interfere with the full realization of the relief provided to Iran under the accord.

When a nearly identical version of this bill was considered last Congress, the Obama White House threatened to veto the bill, stating that it would, ``endanger our ability to ensure Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.''

Moreover, the Obama administration cautioned that the report called for in the bill would also compromise critical intelligence sources and methods. On that score, I would also note that the reporting requirement in the legislation calls for information about how sanctions evasion and illicit conduct is practiced, and potential countermeasures.

It seems far from prudent to give tips to our adversaries about how we learn about their misconduct and how we plan to respond. This legislation would have very limited practical utility, despite the huge diversion of resources it would take to produce. It also fails to meet its own stated objectives, including serving any usefulness as a compliance tool.

Finally, the measure would also likely have a negative impact on the continued viability of the nuclear deal, which is clearly a central objective. I am hard-pressed to think of a single piece of legislation that works so strongly against every single policy goal it claims to advance. Few issues are more important to global peace and security than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This bill would do nothing to advance that goal. In fact, if enacted, it could do grave damage to the important progress that has been made.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who is my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a longtime supporter of diplomacy with Iran and a strong supporter of the nuclear deal.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I would like the author of this bill, Mr. Poliquin, and perhaps the chairman of our committee, Mr. Hensarling, to answer the question that I am about to propose, and that is this: We have allies with us in this agreement. This is an agreement that was worked on for a long time. We have Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. What are our allies saying about our attempt to interfere with the agreement?

What are they saying about whether or not we can be trusted to live up to the commitments that we have made?

What are they saying about our attempts to add to, lengthen, and create new, really, what have become obstacles to peace?

I would ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, as they talk about targeting certain leaders--I don't know what leaders they are talking about--and wanting to know about their assets and where their assets came from and how they are being used, I ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle: Are you willing to do that for certain leaders in our own country?

I just heard from one of the speakers, I believe it was Mr. Royce from California, who identified the worth of one of the supposed leaders. It seems to me that it did not nearly match the worth of many of those who are in our Cabinet and who are in higher places in our government. And I wonder what we are trying to do.

First, answer the question, if you will, about what our allies are saying. And secondly, answer the question about disclosure as it relates to those at the highest office in our country and those who are serving in the Cabinet.

Also, when you talk about money laundering, answer the question about the relationship between the leader of this country and Deutsche Bank, that is known as a money laundering bank, that is involved with the President of the United States.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) will give some information that I think is very important to understand how this bill would work.

The gentleman who just spoke said that this has nothing to do with the agreement. Then what is it you are adding to? What is it you are trying to change or make better? If it has nothing to do with the agreement, then why are we doing it?

I yield to the gentleman from Maine to respond to that description of what this bill is all about.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you for wanting to talk about something else, but I yielded to you to see if you could help me with information about what was stated that the gentleman who spoke before you said that this bill had nothing to do with the agreement.

Is the gentleman prepared to respond to the question that I have raised?

If you are going to talk about what this bill has to do with the agreement, when the gentleman said it has nothing to do with the agreement, then I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Reclaiming my time, we know that there are individuals who are sanctionable in the deal.

What I thought you were attempting to do is to expand that and to identify more leaders and try and understand where the assets come from, what they use them for, whether or not they are involved in money laundering. But the gentleman said it had nothing to do with the deal.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a Statement of Administrative Policy from the previous President, where he advised us when this bill came before the House before that it would be vetoed by the administration.

I will read to you from one of the paragraphs in the veto message. He said, in addition: ``This bill's required public postings also may be perceived by Iran, and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, partners as an attempt to undermine the fulfillment of our commitments, in turn, impacting the continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.''

If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to our closest allies.

I think that is a very powerful statement. I do know that Iran is in compliance. We have a very strict and strong monitoring program, and they are in compliance.

So the questions become: If indeed they are in compliance, why would we interfere with the plan? Why would we jeopardize this plan that has been worked on with our strong allies in an attempt to try and find another way to say that Iran must be scrutinized?

Everything in this plan has to do with discontinuing the development of nuclear capability. I think we should respect the work that we have done with our allies and discontinue all of these attempts to undermine the deal that we have entered in with and caused our allies to distrust us.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information that is being shared by my colleague, Mr. Poliquin. I am going to yield more time to him to explain to me: The missiles that he is describing in Iran, that are not a part of the deal, of the plan, are they similar to the missiles that are being fired with nuclear warheads from North Korea.

Mr. Chairman, I said: The missiles that he is referring to, that he is concerned about with Iran, that are not a part of the plan, are they similar to the ballistic missiles that are being fired from North Korea with nuclear warheads possibly on them?

Are they more dangerous than the missiles from North Korea?

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a statement from J Street that is in opposition to this legislation.

J Street,

December 12, 2017.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: J Street urges Members to oppose

H.R. 1638 and H.R. 4324, which would undermine or violate the

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear

activities.

J Street again urges Members to oppose the ``Iranian

Leadership Asset Transparency Act'' (H.R. 1638). As we noted

in our statement opposing the bill when it was introduced

last year, it risks harming the U.S. Government's ability to

ensure Iranian and third party compliance with the agreement

and to counter Iran's dangerous non-nuclear behavior by

redirecting and tying up the very USG personnel and resources

charged with those tasks.

J Street also urges Members to oppose the so-called

``Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act''

(H.R. 4324), which is clearly intended to lead to a U.S.

violation of the JCPOA.

This bill would impose additional certification

requirements on the administration in order to carry out

current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales

under the JCPOA. These new obligations require the

administration to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain

non-nuclear activity, or issue a national security waiver

saying they'll allow the planes to be sold anyway. In other

words, it imposes new, unilateral terms for continuation of

the JCPOA that are unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.

It has been widely reported in connection with the

president's recent refusal to make the necessary

certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Review Act that the president resents having to undertake

official actions to keep the United States in compliance with

the JCPOA. Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to

make use of the president's apparent resistance to taking

such steps by adding a new certification requirement that

they hope he will also fail to meet--thereby blocking the

sale of commercial aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of

the agreement.

Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need

look no further than the first finding, which makes clear

that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA

vehicle, and not a serious.

Mr. Chairman, I also include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the previous Obama administration, which I read a paragraph from.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act

The Administration shares the Congress' goals of increasing

transparency and bringing Iran into compliance with

international standards in the global fight against terror

finance and money laundering. However, this bill would be

counterproductive toward those shared goals.

The bill requires the U.S. Government to publicly report

all assets held by some of Iran's highest leaders and to

describe how these assets are acquired and used. Rather than

preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this

bill would incentivize those involved to make their financial

dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for

Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. These

onerous reporting requirements also would take critical

resources away from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's

important work to identify Iranian entities engaged in

sanctionable conduct. Producing this information could also

compromise intelligence sources and methods.

One of our best tools for impeding destabilizing Iranian

activities has been to identify Iranian companies that are

controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)

or other Iranians on the list of Specially Designated

Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to non-U.S.

businesses, so that they can block assets or stop material

transfers. This process is labor-intensive and requires the

judicious use of our national intelligence assets.

Redirecting these assets to preparing this onerous public

report would be counterproductive and will not reduce

institutional corruption or promote transparency within

Iran's system.

In addition, this bill's required public postings also may

be perceived by Iran and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan

of Action (JCPOA) partners as an attempt to undermine the

fulfilment of our commitments, in turn impacting the

continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that

peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a

nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it

would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring

of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the

international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a

devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership

and our commitments to our closest allies.

As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program

through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration

remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for terrorism,

its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and

destabilizing activity in the region. The United States

should retain all of the tools needed to counter this

activity, ranging from powerful sanctions to our efforts to

disrupt and interdict illicit shipments of weapons and

proliferation-sensitive technologies. This bill would

adversely affect the U.S. Government's ability to wield these

tools, would undermine the very goals it purports to achieve,

and could even endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's

nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.

If the President were presented with H.R. 5461, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this bill not because we are not concerned about the security of our country and security of our allies in the Middle East. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle don't care any more than we care, but we respect when our leadership and our country gets involved and negotiates with another country, such as they have done with Iran, and they come to some agreements. We would like our country to live up to the agreement.

When we have included in that agreement a description of the monitoring that will be done, and when that monitoring is being carried out, and when it is represented to us by those that we have in charge of that monitoring that that country, Iran, is in compliance, we believe them. And when we trust our negotiators, when we trust our country, when we trust our leadership, and Iran is in compliance, there is no reason to try and undo the deal. There is no reason to come behind the agreement and what has been negotiated and begin to think of ways that they believe we ought to expand that agreement. We could, in the Congress of the United States, come up with a new idea every day. With all of the Members of this House, with all of the different thoughts and, possibly, ideas, and everybody thinking they are smarter than everybody else, we could come up with all kinds of plans to interfere with that agreement.

But I would advise the Members of this House and the Members on the opposite side of the aisle that they do not need to do this. This is a bad idea. I would advise them to put faith in the negotiations that have gone on and to accept the representations about compliance that we are being given. We are being assured that not only is the monitoring taking place, but Iran is in compliance.

So, again, I am so worried about our role in this country today and the fact that our leadership is being diminished day by day because of the way that our President and the White House is handling our relationships with other countries. As a matter of fact, we see a President that is endangering us and destroying relationships constantly.

I mention that we have in this deal Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. I asked the question: What are our allies in this agreement saying about our attempts to interfere with the agreement? Do they agree with them? Are they consulted? Are they unhappy about what is being done?

I suppose they could do the same in their countries every day. They could come up with new ways to interfere with the agreement. They could begin to ask questions about us and why we are doing what we are doing. They could even ask questions about why are we concerned about the assets of those who are not sanctionable when we are not concerned about the assets of our own President.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Poliquin's bill. He wants to know about the assets of leaders in Iran.

Has he seen his President's tax returns? Does he know about his assets? Does he know about where they have come from? Does he know about how they are utilized?

I don't think so.

So I think it is very, very important for us to do everything that we can to have our allies trust us, to live up to the deals that we make, not to ask more of others than we are willing to do ourselves, no.

We are not sponsors of terrorism. We are a people who have always tried to avoid war. Unfortunately, we have engaged in it, and we know that it is not the best answer to trying to deal with the problems that we encounter around the world. I do believe that we honestly try to avoid war and that we work for peace.

This is working for peace, and peace in the Middle East is one of the most important goals that we should have. I see the opportunities for that eroding every day.

So I would ask Mr. Poliquin to think about what he is doing. I believe that his intentions are good, but I think it is a bad bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is not needed. I think it creates problems with our allies, and they begin to wonder whether or not they can trust us. We are an honorable people and we are leaders in the world, even though it is being questioned more and more.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 658, I call up the bill (H.R. 4324) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to make certifications with respect to United States and foreign financial institutions' aircraft-related transactions involving Iran, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4324, which is a commonsense piece of legislation sponsored by my good friend and fellow Texan, Mr. Williams. His work as a member of the Financial Services Committee and as vice chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee has been invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues know, under the Iran nuclear bill, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the U.S. to license the sale of aircraft to Iran.

In addition to authorizing the sales, these licenses have authorized banks to engage in financing, even though Iran remains classified by the Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. On top of that, the State Department continues to label Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

The recipient of these aircraft would be Iran Air, the state-owned airline that was sanctioned as recently as 2011 for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which itself has been designated by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization. So, Mr. Speaker, so far, so bad.

And yet, while I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle find these aircraft sales and their financing deeply disturbing, Mr. Williams' bill is about something far, far simpler. All

his bill would do is bring about the implications of the aircraft finance for Iran out into the sunlight. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is a reporting requirement--nothing more, nothing less.

It would simply require Treasury to help Congress understand who is involved in these transactions. If it is an airline, has that airline stopped supporting terrorists or other sanctioned persons. If it is a bank, does that bank have the due diligence in place to guard against the immense illicit finance risk endemic to Iran.

All this legislation does is have Treasury certify this information for Congress. And, if Treasury can't make those certifications, it simply has to notify us what plans it has in response, even if it has no plans in response.

So, when we hear today from the other side of the aisle how this bill may impose new conditions on Iran or somehow stand in the way of commitments under the JCPOA, I suggest, again, everyone read the bill. It is simple. It is common sense. In fact, we should be considering this under the expedited process of the suspension calendar.

This legislation provides, again, for a simple reporting requirement, Mr. Speaker; that is it, a reporting requirement.

If my friends who oppose this bill don't care enough to even request the information from the executive branch, especially information that may reveal the use of their constituents' bank deposits for the benefit of enablers of terrorism, well, Mr. Speaker, that is a sad, sad day for congressional oversight and a sad day for the United States Congress.

But there are people who have read the bill, if everybody in this institution hasn't, people, for example, associated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who wrote recently in a November 22 policy brief for the Foundation's Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance: ``The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing approval process by codifying steps that are likely already central to the Department's evaluation process.''

They go on to write, Mr. Speaker: ``While not imposing any new standards for the approval of sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law through this bill makes the licensing process more transparent and gives the American people--through their elected representatives--a clear picture of a significant component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the nuclear agreement.''

Mr. Speaker, I include this report in the Record.

[From the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Nov. 22, 2017]

Congress Supports Financial Transparency for Iranian Transactions

(By Annie Fixler, Tyler Stapleton)

The House Financial Services Committee approved last week

the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act,

which codifies in law a set of conditions that the U.S.

Treasury must use to evaluate licenses for the sale of

commercial aircraft to Iran.

The bill requires the secretary of the Treasury to report

within 30 days whether transactions related to the export and

re-export of aircraft to Iran pose a ``significant money

laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States

financial system.'' The secretary must also determine whether

the transactions benefit any Iranian person that has

knowingly transported or otherwise supported the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or provided

material support to persons included on Treasury's sanctions

lists. If the secretary cannot certify that the transaction

meets these conditions, he must explain whether the licenses

authorizing the transaction will be revoked, modified, or

remain valid despite the potential for illicit transactions

or benefits going to sanctioned persons.

Under the July 2015 nuclear agreement known as the Joint

Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the United States

committed to allowing the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran

provided the planes are used ``exclusively for commercial

passenger aviation.'' The JCPOA specifically states that if

aircraft are either used for a prohibited purpose or

transferred or re-sold to individuals or entities on

Washington's sanctions lists, the U.S. would view this as

grounds to cease its approval of aircraft sales--but, by

implication, not abrogate the nuclear deal in full.

Upon the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016,

Treasury issued a Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) and

additional guidance reiterating and expanding on the relevant

language from the nuclear deal. The SLP and related guidance

indicate that Treasury would view license applications

favorably but would review applications on a case-by-case

basis and ``include appropriate conditions to ensure'' that

no sanctioned persons were involved in the transaction.

The SLP and related guidance are clearly consistent with

the JCPOA, which does not require the United States to issue

licenses for aircraft sales without conditions. Accordingly,

the SLP does not guarantee that all applications will be

approved. If Washington determines that certain criteria are

necessary in order to ensure that commercial aircraft are

used appropriately, it is permitted to reject an application

that does not meet those criteria.

The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing

approval process by codifying steps that are likely already

central to the department's evaluation process. First, for

more than two decades, Treasury has been at the forefront of

efforts to implement global anti-money laundering and

counter-terrorism financing standards. The bill emphasizes

that these standards should be a critical component in the

evaluation of licenses vis-a-vis Iranian aircraft

transactions. Second, the bill's requirement that no persons

knowingly supporting proliferation benefit from the deal

mirrors Treasury's statement that no persons on sanctions

lists be involved in the transactions.

While not imposing any new standards for the approval of

sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law

through this bill makes the licensing process more

transparent and gives the American people--through their

elected representatives--a clearer picture of a significant

component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the

nuclear agreement.

The most novel component of the bill is that it requires

the secretary of the Treasury to issue a report listing all

U.S. or foreign financial institutions that have conducted

authorized transactions in connection with the export or re-

export of commercial aircraft to Iran. While not classified,

this information is not currently part of the public record.

Objections to the publication of a list of companies and

banks involved in aircraft sales revolve around exposing

businesses to reputational risks for transacting with Iran.

Yet it is unavoidable for there to be reputational risk for

doing business--even legal business--with the world's leading

state sponsor of terrorism.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my fellow Texan, has given all Members an opportunity, no matter what their views on the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, to simply support transparency and Congress' right to basic information. I hope that my colleagues will seize that opportunity.

And, again, I thank Mr. Williams from Texas for his leadership and his excellent work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend, the sponsor of this legislation, and a great member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time in my Congressional career I come to the House floor, and I have a surreal moment. Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle saying: Well, we shouldn't learn anything about them. We shouldn't learn about who is financing their aircraft. We shouldn't learn whether or not aircraft will be converted for military purposes.

Iran is a regime where every day the leadership wakes up shouting: ``Death to Israel, Death to America.'' Yet I have friends on the other side of the aisle who say: Well, we shouldn't have any reporting on Iran because it might hurt their feelings.

This is a surreal moment, Mr. Speaker, an absolute surreal moment. We have been told over and over that somehow this stops the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran. I wish it did, but it doesn't. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they actually read the bill, it is 10 pages long, 6 pages of findings. You can put the findings aside and read the 4 pages. It is a reporting bill.

It has certifications. And guess what the implications are if the administration can't give the proper certifications? Nothing. The deal continues to go on. It is perhaps the single worst foreign policy agreement in the history of America that legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and, on its best day, slows up their nuclear weapons by maybe a few years, at best, on its best day.

When the JCPOA was sold to us by the previous administration, we were told: This would be for civilian aircraft use only. Don't worry about it. This is not going to exacerbate terrorism in any way. But we know Boeing itself says their aircraft, which are being sold to Iran, can be used for combat purposes, and, in fact, have been. Iran Air was cited in 2011. It was sanctioned for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been designated as a terrorist organization.

This isn't just theory, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. Then we had my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, say: Well, it is important that we sell aircraft to Iran so companies can make profits. Well, using his logic, maybe we ought to sell weapons to North Korea if some company can make a profit. I think not, Mr. Speaker.

There are some things that are more important. Our security is even more important than the profit of any one particular company. So, again, this is a simple reporting requirement.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his leadership here. It is incredibly important that we understand from those who sold us this terrible Iranian deal, they need to make good on their promises.

We need to make sure that civilian aircraft are being used for civilian purposes. We need to make sure that the banks who are financing these deals are not financing terrorism. Yet those on the other side of the aisle say: No, let's put our heads in the sand. Let's just trust--let's trust the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. They will do the right thing. Let's just ignore this terrorism thing.

No. No, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4324, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is important to America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be schizophrenic. They can't seem to figure out whether they want to coddle Iran or to ``stand up to'' Iran. We were also told that H.R. 4324 was designed to ``blame and shame'' financial institutions, and now they offer a motion to recommit to blame and shame financial institutions.

So here is what is going on, Mr. Speaker: What we have is a regime that wakes up every morning shouting ``Death to America; death to Israel,'' and yet we have a motion to recommit trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

We have a regime which has been certified as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism whom we are trying to hold accountable and from whom we are trying to get information, and our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supports the Assad regime in Syria. According to the U.N., the Assad government, with the help of Iran, has now carried out 27 chemical weapon attacks since the start of the Syrian conflict, including an April 2017 sarin gas attack that killed more than 80 people, including scores of women and children, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to imprison foreign nationals, including Americans--including Americans--including 81-year-old Baquer Namazi, who has lost his teeth in prison due to malnutrition. We have had another American prisoner, a student at Princeton, who has suffered health problems, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle, with their motion to recommit, want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

This is a serious moment, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4324 by the gentleman from Texas is an important piece of legislation to ensure that civilian aircraft sales to Iran remain civilian aircraft and that our financial institutions are not unwittingly helping to finance this rogue terrorist regime, and it is no time to relitigate an election that my friends on the other side of the aisle lost.

We need to reject the motion to recommit, and we need to enact H.R. 4324.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, introduced by my colleague and dear friend from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

This legislation requires the Treasury Secretary to report to Congress on the assets held by the Islamic Republic of Iran's most senior political and military leaders, and on the probable sources and uses of those assets.

A classified version, if necessary, would be available, as appropriate, to Congress, and a public version of the report would be posted on the Treasury Department's website in English and in the major languages used within Iran that could easily be downloaded.

The genius of this latter point is that it will allow the average Iranian to understand and circulate information of how their leaders are, in a phrase, robbing them blind, as well as aiding and abetting terrorists.

Iran's top political, military, and business leaders, if there is much of a distinction between those roles in Iran, fund terrorist- related activity, we know this, and through intricate financial arrangements that give them great flexibility in moving their money.

According to the nongovernmental organization Transparency International, Iran's economy is characterized by high levels of official and institutional corruption, and there is substantial involvement by Iran's security forces, particularly involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Unsurprisingly, then, members of Iran's senior political and military leadership have acquired significant personal and institutional wealth by using their positions to secure control of major portions of the Iranian national economy.

Some estimates put their iron grip at a third or more of the country's economy, and some individual holdings in the billions of dollars; all at a time when the average Iranian citizen earns the equivalent of about $15,000 a year.

The unwise sanctions relief provided through the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran resulted in the unwarranted removal of many Iranian entities that are tied to government corruption from the list of entities sanctioned by the United States.

Thankfully, however, the Trump administration has, in recent months, levied a number of needed new sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities. Still, the Transparency International index of perceived public corruption in Iran is higher than ever.

As well, the Treasury Department has identified Iran as a country of ``primary concern for money laundering.'' Separately, the State Department has continually identified Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is, the State Department tells us, a country that has ``repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,'' and ``continues to sponsor terrorist groups around the world, principally through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.''

The bill before us today, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, requires the Treasury Department again to list the known assets of senior Iranian officials in a form that is easily understandable and accessible to individual Iranians, as well as to those in the financial or business sector who might be concerned--hopefully concerned--about inadvertently doing business with a corrupt Iranian entity.

The bill also requires the Treasury to evaluate the effectiveness of existing sanctions against Iran and make any appropriate recommendations for improving the effectiveness of sanctions.

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last month with a bipartisan support vote of 43-16. The House approved a nearly identical bill just 18 months ago by a very strong vote of 282-143.

As passed by the committee, this year's version has an important addition, a sense of the Congress section, that urges the Treasury Secretary, in addition to other sources, to seek information for the report from private sector sources that search, analyze, and, if necessary, translate publicly available, high veracity, official records overseas, and provide methods of searching and analyzing such data in ways useful to law enforcement.

These source of services provide information that could augment information that is gathered, often by classified means, and provide a final public report that helps give the world a better picture of the true nature of Iran's economy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge immediate passage of Mr. Poliquin's thoughtful and bipartisan bill. I appreciate his leadership to bring us here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2017.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling: Thank you for consulting with the

Committee on Foreign Affairs on H.R. 1638, the Iranian

Leadership Asset Transparency Act.

I agree that the Foreign Affairs Committee may be

discharged from further action on this bill so that it may

proceed expeditiously to the Floor, subject to the

understanding that this waiver does not in any way diminish

or alter the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or

similar legislation in the future. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek an appropriate number of conferees

to any House-Senate conference involving this bill, and would

appreciate your support for any such request.

I ask that you place our exchange of letters into the

Congressional Record during

floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your

cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to

continuing to work with you as this measure moves through the

legislative process.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Royce,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to remind the ranking member that in the State Department's latest Country Reports on Terrorism, Iran is labeled the ``world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.''

Why we would want less information as opposed to more information on that rogue state is beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the sponsor of the legislation and a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is never an apologist for the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. He is a proud member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say in the time the ranking member was speaking, I went back, yet again, to read the nine-page bill. Nowhere is the JCPOA mentioned in the bill.

Iran was the leading state sponsor of terrorism before the JCPOA. They remain the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism after the JCPOA. We ought to know something about the leadership of this terrorist nation, and I think the next speaker will tell us even more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), another outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes again to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating how often the ranking member criticized our own President and didn't have one critical comment for the President of Iran, the nation which our State Department, including the Obama State Department, has labeled as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But yet, in the last almost hour we have not heard one single critical word.

We hear much about the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, perhaps one of the worst arrangements, international agreements that has ever been entered into by our country, but look as I may, in the legislation--and it is 9 pages long, not 900--you will not see the JCPOA in it.

Mr. Poliquin's bill, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, is just that. It is seeking to have greater international transparency for the leaders of this rogue nation, regardless of the JCPOA.

Let's remember what the gentleman from Ohio reminded us, that it was because of information, including radio-free Europe, that went across the Iron Curtain that ultimately brought that curtain down and freed millions. We want to make sure the Iranian people know about their own leadership.

Our own State Department has said the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force along with Iranian partners, allies, and proxies continue to play a destabilizing role in military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, but the ranking member says: Oh, let's not say anything about their leadership because we might hurt their feelings.

The State Department goes on to say: Iran continued to recruit fighters from across the region to join Iranian-affiliated Shia militia forces engaged in conflicts in Syria and Iraq and has even offered a path to citizenship for those who heed this call. And yet the ranking member says let's not report on the leadership of this rogue regime because they are very sensitive people.

The State Department goes on to say: Hezbollah continued to work closely with Iran in these conflict zones, playing a major role in supporting the Syrian Government's efforts to maintain control in the territory and providing training and a range of other support for Iranian-aligned groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Yet we continue to hear from the ranking member that we shouldn't learn anything about their leadership. Again, we might step on their toes after the JCPOA, and we wouldn't want to do that. We wouldn't want to be insensitive to international terrorists.

In 2016, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, boasted: ``We are open about the fact that Hezbollah's budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets are from the Islamic Republican of Iran.''

I mean, how much more do we need to know? Why do we continue to have Members of the United States Congress come to the floor of this institution and somehow want to seemingly protect the leaders of this rogue regime?

We want to know more information. We want to disseminate this information. We want the whole world to know about the leadership of the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. It is exactly what the gentleman from Maine is trying to. I salute him for his leadership.

I encourage all Members to vote ``aye'' for his bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her amendment. I note that she was a supporter of H.R. 5461, a nearly identical bill that passed the House in the last Congress. I think that her amendment is a valuable addition to H.R. 1638. Indeed, we should always know the effectiveness of the programs that we promote. In this case, we do need to understand how effective economic sanctions may be. So I appreciate her leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to vote ``aye'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, would impose a new and unilateral certification requirement on the administration in order to meet current U.S. obligations under the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, with respect to the sale and financing of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran.

This certification requirement would call for the Treasury Secretary to consider factors that fall well outside the scope of the nuclear deal and beyond the specific conditions that the U.S. is allowed to place on the license of commercial aircraft to Iran under the nuclear accord.

By moving the goal posts on our commitments under the deal, H.R. 4324 clearly aims to force the United States into a violation of the agreement. Under the Iran nuclear deal, the United States is broadly committed to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran. This involves licensing the sale of aircraft and related parts and services to Iran, including the financing for such sales.

Under the JCPOA Annex II, the only condition on the U.S. commitment is that licensed items and services must be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation. Moreover, the only allowable conditions the U.S. can place on authorizations for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran apply to the licensed aircraft themselves and the use of such licensed aircraft, not on activities or services provided that have no relationship to the licensed aircraft or related goods or services.

Yet, H.R. 4324 would impose new conditions on the licensed sale of aircraft to Iran, including, notably, the condition that the recipient airline has not used nonlicensed aircraft for purposes other than commercial passenger aviation. That is, under this bill, the administration would have to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain activity unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct but also unrelated to the use of the aircraft itself. If the Treasury Secretary is unable to make such a difficult certification, the Secretary must then report to Congress as to whether the Secretary intends to suspend, revoke, amend, or approve, notwithstanding such noncertification, any license facilitating the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran.

Supporters of the bill will likely note that the bill will not require the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend or revoke an authorization in the event that the Secretary is unable to make the necessary certification, but the obvious political conclusion is that the Secretary will be forced to revoke such license if the Secretary is unwilling to make the certification.

As we have now seen, the President detests the fact that his administration has to take affirmative steps to keep the deal in place, and he refused to do so. In the case of the last recurring 90-day congressional certification requirement, proponents of this bill undoubtedly hope Trump will react the same way to these additional certifications and block the sale of commercial aircraft, which is a key element of the deal.

In a break from reason and logic, this legislation plays directly into the hands of the President, who is desperate to find any pretext to say that Iran is in violation of the deal or to force Iran to walk away, and thereby, avoid having to take the blame for pulling the plug on the deal.

But let me be clear. By seeking to render impermissible that which is expressly permitted by the JCPOA, the legislation is clearly intended to undermine the nuclear agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee, so he can clear up some of the information that we just heard.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody to know we are not trying to shame anybody. If we were going to shame someone, we would shame them and that party about connection to Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), an ardent supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter addressed to the Members of Congress from a highly respected organization that is pro-Israel and pro-peace advocacy. I am a member, and I look to the recommendations, the advice, and

the assistance of this organization on all issues related to the Middle East and related to Iran and related to Israel. It is known as J Street, and I am a proud member and a proud participant.

J Street urges Members:

Oppose the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's

Access to Finance Act, that is H.R. 4324, which is clearly

intended to lead to a U.S. violation of the JCPOA.

This bill would impose additional certification

requirements on the administration in order to carry out

current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales

under the JCPOA.

These new obligations require the administration to certify

that Iran is not engaged in certain nonnuclear activity or

issue a national security waiver saying they will allow the

planes to be sold anyway. In other words, it imposes new

unilateral terms for a continuation of the JCPOA that are

unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.

It has been widely reported in connection with the

President's recent refusal to make the necessary

certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Review Act that the President resents having to undertake

official actions to keep the United States in compliance with

the JCPOA.

Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to make use of

the President's apparent resistance to taking such steps by

adding a new certification requirement that they hope he will

also fail to meet, thereby blocking the sale of commercial

aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of the agreement.

Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need

look no further than the first finding, which makes clear

that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA

vehicle and not a serious attempt to legislate on a

bipartisan basis on threats emanating from Iran.

No one who wants to see the JCPOA continue to be

implemented should support this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dylan Williams, the vice president of government affairs who signed this bill, said:

Congress just gave the administration powerful tools to

conquer other countries, support of the Assad regime when it

passed new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea a few

months ago that the President signed into law. Implementation

and assessment of the impact of that law should occur before

consideration of any new sanctions legislation.

Again, in addition to the supporters of this body who have worked very hard to try and convince the Members of this body to be on the side of peace, to try and get the Members to understand the seriousness of undermining the JCPOA, the Members of this body who work very hard for peace and who join with groups like J Street and advocate for peace are trying to make sure that the United States stands up to its agreements, understanding how this undermines our leadership in the world.

If we sit down and we negotiate with other countries, as we have done on the JCPOA, and they expect us to live up to the agreements and then they hear that we have various Members of Congress with ideas of their own putting together legislation that is supported by the opposite side of the aisle, coming in not with one piece of legislation, not with two pieces of legislation, but we don't know how many will continue if they are successful in passing the legislation that they are putting before us, if this continues, then I am certain that our allies will not trust us. They will not want to negotiate with us on other deals that are important to peace in this world. I would simply ask the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to pay attention to highly respected, credible organizations like J Street and take their advice about how to give support to the JCPOA.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that, ``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with its JCPOA commitments.

The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re- introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress did not do so.

Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program.

As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful.

Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for.

But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to violate an existing one with the same partners.

The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic, given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to changing its terms while Iran remains compliant.

If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean nuclear missile challenges.

But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges become even more daunting.

I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me in rejecting this terrible bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes of debate. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action came before Congress, I made my objections very clear. I believed then, as I do now, that the Iran deal too quickly removed the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, allowing Iran to remain a nuclear threshold state.

However, like it or not, the JCPOA is now law, and it will be wrong to undermine it for purely political reasons. Unfortunately, that is, in my opinion, what my Republican colleagues are doing here today. This is not the way to handle our country's foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, the most important question that you need to ask yourself at this time does not have to do with the substance of the legislation this rule provides for, but, rather, why on Earth this body is wasting what precious legislative time remains to bring these bills to the floor today.

The checklist of important items that need to be addressed is long and time is short. Thanks to the inability of my Republican colleagues to govern, even within their own conference, we face the specter of yet another government shutdown next week. The Band-Aid that Republicans came up with last week to provide funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which insures some 9 million children, expires at the end of the year. Utah, Colorado, Arizona, California, Ohio, Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and Oregon are just some of the States that have had to inform families that CHIP funding is nearing its end.

Why is this? Historically, the Children's Health Insurance Program funding has been a largely bipartisan effort. And why shouldn't it be? We are simply talking about helping to cover roughly 9 million low- income children and pregnant women.

It has been over 2 months since CHIP's authorization lapsed, and it is far past time for a sensible solution to this problem. Does today's legislation solve this issue? No, it does not.

We also have 800,000-plus DREAMers waiting for word from this Republican-

controlled Congress. Will my friends across the aisle allow these fine young people to remain in the only country they have ever known as home? Will you let those DREAMers who have served this country bravely stay in this country so that they may start their own families here in the United States, start their own businesses, and go to college?

The idea that my friends would drag their feet on such an issue, let alone actually allow DREAMers to be deported, is anathema to what this country stands for, and it will darken the beacon this country has been for millions of people since our founding: a place where those of differing backgrounds but dedicated to freedom and the rule of law come and make a life for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House; they control the Senate; they control the White House; and what has that control translated into for the American people? Absolutely nothing at this point. In fact, it is looking increasingly more like the first year of a unified Republican government in over a decade will end with nothing getting done.

In an attempt to distract from their failures, Republicans have taken to blaming, and I quote them, ``obstructionist Democrats.'' They point to this side of the aisle as the cause of their governing woes. That is a neat trick, but the American people are not going to fall for it, and I think you saw that last night in Alabama where new stars fell on Alabama.

It wasn't the Democrats who tried to take healthcare away from 32 million people. It was Republicans. Thank goodness they failed. It is not the Democrats who are trying to give the wealthy and rich corporations a tax break on the backs of hardworking Americans. It is the Republicans. I hope this equally misguided effort likewise fails.

I have some advice for my Republican friends. If, like this side of the aisle, you spent more time working on policies that help the American people instead of the wealthy and rich corporations that are doing just fine, you would likely see more legislative success.

Democrats remain ready to work in a bipartisan way to accomplish all that remains left to do this year. We are ready to fund the government and provide for smart investments for the future of our country. We are ready to pull the hundreds of thousands of DREAMers out of unnecessary limbo and provide them with the status they deserve. We are ready to provide the funding and authorization needed to give millions of low- income children the health insurance they need.

The list goes on and on. But, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans continue to not even allow Democrats in the room to address these issues and if they continue to burn legislative time on the bills we have before us today, then it won't be just the Republican majority that pays the price. It will be the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am expecting another speaker. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan bicameral bill H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.

Just last week, a group of 34 of my Republican colleagues sent a letter to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end on legislation that would protect the DACA recipients. This means, if we defeat the previous question and bring up the Dream Act, the bill would garner enough bipartisan support to pass the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much longer will this body be complicit in the Trump administration's assault on DREAMers? It is time we listen to the vast majority of Americans and this body and act to protect these courageous young people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, when my speaker arrives, I will allow Mrs. Torres to discuss this matter further. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, continuing, we are faced, as I said earlier, with another government shutdown. The National Flood Insurance Program, which is particularly critical to those of us in coastal States, is set to expire. The Republican Band-Aid to keep the Children's Health Insurance Program funded will run out, leaving millions of children without the healthcare they need.

The authorization of an important intelligence tool to keep this country safe is set to expire, and millions of Americans in California, Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands desperately wait to find out if they will receive the resources they need to recover from the devastating hurricanes and the wildfires that we have seen this year and that are continuing in California.

I have said repeatedly that FEMA is not only dealing with hurricanes and floods, they are dealing with tornadoes and with all sorts of matters, and the wildfires manifestly have kept them occupied over the course of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my good friend, as I previously noted, to discuss the proposal that I spoke of with reference to the DREAMers.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend that I have no further speakers and I will be prepared to close when he is prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of 2017, and with just a few legislative days left, the Republican majority is focusing on the wrong things. Plain and simple, the bills before us today are more evidence of that.

Over the next couple of weeks, we face a terrifyingly long to-do list, the outcome of which will affect every single American.

Let me be very clear. My friend from Maine and my friend from Texas, my friend from Maine, especially, passionately put forward significant matters having to do with Iran. My recollection is that I, for one, as did many members of the Democratic Party, voted for the transparency that he calls for and are likely to do so again.

While this is an important matter, it is not nearly as critical at this time that we be occupying this kind of legislative time. The simple fact of the matter is we could have put this on the suspension calendar and not been exercising ourselves in the Rules Committee, occupying legislative time that could be addressing the Flood Insurance Program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and intelligence tools that keep this country safe that are about to expire.

We could have been addressing the hurricane relief for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and southwest Louisiana.

We could have been addressing the fires in California, Oregon, Montana, and other areas of the country.

We could have been addressing the flood in Texas that devastated portions of that area, as well as, during that same period of time, we had tornadoes and other issues indicating how critical it is that we support these matters.

We could have been dealing with a real infrastructure measure. Everybody in this country knows that our roads and bridges are in despicable shape at this point, and it is not as if we do not have the ability to do something about it. We don't have the political will.

So we are wasting legislative time here today with these daunting tasks before us, and this is what the Republican majority chooses to focus on: trying to pass a tax bill, for example, that gives most of the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations while adding over more than $1 trillion to the deficit.

I have said before: Look out. When we finish whatever this tax bill is--and now it is being called what it is, a tax cut and not tax reform that is needed in this country. When we finish with that, the next words out of many of my colleagues' mouths next year are going to be, ``We need to address the entitlements,'' meaning Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. I can assure you that that is what we will hear from my former deficit hawk friends who are now in charge of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican friends, for the sake of the American people, to abandon this reckless tact and return to regular order. That is something that we are not doing and have not done. We have had more closed rules in this session of Congress than in the history of the United States Congress.

They need to work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. I think Alabama told us that last night, and I hope that that message is pervasive and allows for us in this body, as well as in the other body, to understand the importance of everybody, all of these brilliant people that Americans sent here to work, to work together to solve many of the issues of this country and address its needs in a meaningful way, not the needs of the wealthy few. Given everything there is to do, anything less is abdication of our duty as legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.