NICS Review Act of 2018

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, 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. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, and I am grateful to you for moving this very important bipartisan bill through the House Financial Services Committee.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who supported this bill last year. Unfortunately, it got stuck in the Senate, so we have got to do it again this year, but I am thrilled to be here.

Mr. Chairman, the primary responsibility of every Member of Congress, whether you are on the left side or the right side of the aisle, no matter what State you are from, what part of the country you are from, the major responsibility, the primary responsibility is to support and defend our Constitution. To me, that means protecting our families and those American citizens abroad.

Now, our moms and dads in Maine, Mr. Chairman, and across this country, are increasingly alarmed by the frequency of terrorist attacks here at home; another attempted 2 days ago in New York City. Today, Mr. Chairman, there are 1,000 investigations dealing with terrorist activities across this land in all 50 States. That is why H.R. 1638 is so important. This bill will help keep our families safe and keep them free.

In doing so, we must make sure this issue is not a political issue. National security never should be a political issue. Mr. Chairman, the Iranian Government, as Mr. Hensarling just mentioned, is the chief state sponsor of terrorism and instability in this world.

These senior political leaders and their military leaders, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they train, they arm, and they fund terrorist organizations around the world. They have become experts at using the internet and social media to radicalize, recruit, and direct terrorists around the globe, including here in the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, the Iranian Government has American blood on its hands. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 70 to 80 top political and military leaders in Iran that control about one-third of their domestic economy. They use their power to corrupt the telecommunications industry, the construction industry, and other important ones in that land.

Reuters has conducted an investigation through publicly available information that found the Supreme Leader of Iran alone has accumulated tremendous personal wealth through a foundation claiming to help the poor. Now, while the corruption has grown in Iran, the average citizen there earns the equivalent of $15,000 per year.

Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Iran and the people of this world should know how much wealth has been accumulated by those that sponsor terrorism and what that money is being used for.

Companies across the globe that are looking to do business with Iran should understand what they might be getting into. So I disagree with my colleague from California, the ranking member, who says that this is going to possibly create confusion; that it will possibly cause businesses around the world to hesitate from investing in Iran.

Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. That is a good idea.

My Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act is a straightforward, main, commonsense bill. It simply requires the Department of Treasury to collect, to maintain, and to post online the list of these 70 to 80 senior political and military leaders and the assets, their personal assets, how this money was acquired, and what it is being used for.

As Mr. Hensarling mentioned, it will require the Treasury Department to post this on their website in English as well as in Farsi, Arabic, and Azeri, the three languages that are mostly used in that country.

I might also add that my colleague on the other side of the aisle might be a little bit confused about this issue, but the information posted on this website will be that that is publicly available. There will be no information that should not be posted there that only Congress should have access to.

I have heard, Mr. Chairman, critics of this bill saying: Well, you know, it is not a good idea to expose the Iranian Government's corruption in funding of terrorism because, if you do so, well, the Iranian political and military leaders might not want to work with us.

Are you kidding?

These are the radicals who regularly chant ``Death to America.''

Hoping that these folks also abandon their support of terrorism by not shedding light on their corruption doesn't make any sense. Hope, Mr. Chairman, is not a national security strategy.

My bill makes sure that Congress gets its priorities straight. Protecting American families here at home and safeguarding our troops around the world who are fighting for our freedom is what we should be doing every way we can, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that using one click of a computer from any corner of the globe to help expose illicit activities by the chief state sponsor of terrorism is a very, very good idea.

Let's stand up for all the peace-loving nations in the world. Let's stand up to help our families protect their kids. Let's stand up to protect our homeland. I ask everyone, Republicans and Democrats, please vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, to the gentlewoman from California and to the other side of the aisle, I do want to make sure I make a few things clear.

First of all, I am not sure if it was the gentlewoman or someone else saying: Why in the dickens would we divert resources away from fighting terrorism to post this information on the Treasury website? It costs too much.

Well, with all due respect, the CBO estimates it will cost $500,000 to do this for 2 years. The United States Treasury Department has a budget of $14 billion per year. That is number one.

Mr. Chairman, the dangerous Iran nuclear deal that was put together a year and a half or 2 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with exposing the wealth that has cumulated through corruption by the top 70 to 80 Iranian political and military leaders and posting that for the world to see. I am sure the ranking member knows this has zero to do with the Iran nuclear deal.

Mr. Chairman, I did want to respond to the gentlewoman from California and to other folks who are on the other side of this bill.

First of all, I think it is very clear to the world that the Iranian Government has been cheating on the nuclear deal almost since day one. I think it was within months, Mr. Chairman, that they test-fired both medium-range and long-range ballistic missiles, in violation of an 8- year ban on developing those conventional weapons.

So I think it is kind of silly for us to be debating here about a government that sponsors terrorism and vows to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and kill as many Americans as they can, as a leadership regime that is going to abide by this agreement when they have proven they are not.

Second of all, as I have mentioned several times, my bill has nothing to do with this agreement. But, then again, someone on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, also said: Well, we think American officials, American leaders, should be responsible for disclosing that.

Well, here is the difference: America does not sponsor terrorism. The Iranian Government does.

That is exactly what we are trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to understand what folks who will not support this bill are going to say when they go back home at Christmastime, when they had an opportunity to shed sunlight on the top political and military leaders in Iran who are ripping off the Iranian people and who are sponsoring terrorism, why it is a bad idea to make sure this information is public to the world as well as to the Iranian people. I would like to understand what they are going to say when they go back home and talk to their constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity. This is a terrific bill. It does something very common sense: put pressure through sunlight, through transparency, on the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world--the Iranian regime.

Mr. Chairman, can the gentlewoman repeat the question again? I didn't understand it.

Mr. Chairman, the missiles that I was referring to are very clear to the gentlewoman from California. They deal specifically with the Iran nuclear deal, which is a dangerous deal for this world and for this country. It has nothing to do with any issue dealing with North Korea.

What difference does that have to do with the----

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming

my time, I will tell Mr. Poliquin what difference it makes.

Here we are with threats from North Korea and the President of the United States unwilling to be involved with diplomacy, who, rather, would like to basically mimic and mock the leader of North Korea by calling him ``Little Rocket Man,'' and by telling the Secretary of State: Don't talk to him. It is no use to talk with him.

So here we have North Korea, who has already indicated that they have missiles that will reach us right here in the United States, anywhere in the United States, and Mr. Poliquin is telling me about his concern about missiles in Iran that are not a part of the nuclear deal.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.

I would like to thank my colleague from Texas, Judge Poe, for joining me in this effort.

Iran is a bad and dangerous actor in a volatile region of the world, which is why Congress has enacted sanctions in response to Tehran's dangerous ballistic missile program and support for terrorist proxy groups, including Hezbollah. We must hold senior Iranian leadership accountable for destabilizing actions in the region and around the world.

The legislation on the floor today is an effort to shine a light and focus our

efforts on assets held by top Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader, members of the Council of Guardians, members of the Expediency Council, and high-ranking military leaders.

Specifically, the bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress information on the assets held by senior Iranian leaders. Included in this report are recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions to prevent these assets and funding from being used by Iranian officials to further develop Iran's ballistic missile program.

My amendment simply, but importantly, expands this requirement to include Iran's human rights abuses. We should be using every tool in our toolbox to make clear to Iran that its human rights abuses are unacceptable.

The human rights situation in Iran is appalling, and abuses permeate many aspects of Iranian society. In Iran, repression and persecution of members of different religious faiths, including Sunni Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is is pervasive. The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report of 2016 cites at least 103 members of minority religious groups imprisoned for their religious activities. Since 1979, Iran has executed more than 200 Baha'i leaders and, over the past 10 years, has conducted more than 850 arbitrary arrests of Baha'i individuals.

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected categories from discrimination under Iranian law, and same-sex acts are punishable by flogging and possibly even death.

Arbitrary and unlawful killings are numerous. The State Department's annual Human Rights Report says the Iranian Government announced 114 executions by August of 2016 and that unofficial reports suggest a total of 469 executions by the end of that year. The U.N. puts this number even higher at 530 executions in 2016.

Freedom of speech is limited, media is censored, and publications have been banned and closed by the government. Harassment and detainment of journalists continue, and Iran's citizens are not allowed to criticize the government, Supreme Leader, or official religion.

The electoral system in Iran is neither free nor fair. In 2016, 79 percent of the candidates running for the Assembly of Experts and 58 percent running for the Islamic Consultative Assembly were disqualified by the Guardian Council.

And we cannot forget about the Americans and other foreigners who Iran has unjustly detained and continues to hold on fabricated charges, including the following individuals whose family members testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year: Baquer and Siamak Namazi, Nizar Zakka, and, of course, Robert Levinson, who has been held for more than 10 years.

These are just a handful of examples of egregious human rights abuses by the Iranian Government. This amendment helps ensure that funds held by senior Iranian leaders do not contribute to these human rights abuses and that U.S. sanctions are best positioned to improve Iran's human rights situation.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Judge Poe, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy, and I appreciate her advocacy on this.

This is serious business. There are people--no secret--in the administration and there are people in Congress who would like to undermine this agreement. The mixed signals that have been sent by the administration are truly disturbing.

One has to wonder what North Korea is thinking about, that there are people who suggest that we ought to go ahead and blow it up when, in fact, they are abiding by the terms of the agreement, and officials in the administration agree with this. What sort of deterrent is that to North Korea in terms of its reckless action with nuclear weapons? It seems to reinforce that behavior.

But there are also elements in Iran, hardliners who didn't agree with this agreement, who felt that it was too evenhanded, who felt that the leadership gave up too much, and who don't want closer relationships with the United States or the other Western powers that worked with us--including China and Russia--to enact this historic agreement, which, as I pointed out, was agreed to even by officials in the Trump administration that Iran has abided by.

Are they a nation of bad actors? Absolutely. There are forces within the government that are very destructive. But the point is we focused on something that all of us agree is absolutely critical, and that is not having Iran rushing forward to become another nuclear state. We have seen that the breakout time under this agreement has lengthened. It is acting as we intended.

It was also one of those rare areas where we actually had Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China working with us to negotiate an agreement.

Now, this is going to be perceived as an effort by the United States to undermine the agreement. Should we give them and the hardliners in Iran an excuse to walk away because we violated it? What is going to be the assessment of our allies who are deeply committed to this and have resisted efforts to unravel it?

We need all the help we can get in the international arena. We have watched this administration systematically isolate us, this last week with the reckless decision to go ahead and relocate the Embassy--or at least claim we are going to relocate the Embassy--condemned by virtually everybody else in the world. We are standing alone with an action to destabilize a very volatile situation.

This comes forward at a time when Iran is abiding by it, to go ahead and crank up the report on the assets of a variety of Iran's senior political, religious, and military leaders, including people who aren't subject to the sanctions.

It is placing, it has been mentioned, strain on the Department that has finite resources--it needs to focus on things--taking away resources from efforts to target on actual sanctionability. It seems to be decidedly wrongheaded.

It is interesting that Congress had until this week to reimpose the sanction lifted under the agreement per Trump's decertification in October. Congress chose not to. I think that was a wise decision. To me, it indicates, at least, that the agreement has been largely successful.

But, if we are going to jeopardize the framework, giving the hardline elements an opportunity to claim that we are repudiating, while giving a green light to some of the folks there who have no intention of being able to work on a cooperative basis, we ought not to fan the flames. We ought to be trying to nurture opportunities for cooperation.

We should focus on areas where they are doing things we don't agree with. If you want to target some specific sanctions that we somehow haven't imposed that are within the purview of the framework and wouldn't violate it, go ahead. But having these actions, I think, sends the wrong signal. It is the wrong resource.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to reject this legislation.