Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018

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 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 the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. This is not simply the gathering of information. This is not simply oversight.

Under H.R. 4324, a condition would be imposed on the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was very clear. It is broadly committed to ``allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran.'' The only condition on the U.S. commitment is that ``licensed items and services be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.''

H.R. 4324 would impose a new condition, a new condition which would require certification by the Secretary of State and all of the process that would ensue.

It is not a stretch--in fact, it is fairly clear--that if H.R. 4324 were to pass, the Iranians and others could credibly claim that we have violated our obligations under the JCPOA. Now, nobody should be surprised by that.

Despite the advice of his National Security Advisor, despite the advice of the Secretary of Defense, despite the advice of pretty much everyone around him, President Trump chose not to recertify Iranian compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.

We have seen bill after bill, including the bill just voted on, attempting to reverse the Iran nuclear deal, and we have heard this since this deal first came to the floor.

Let's reflect for one second on what the implications are:

This bill puts the Iran nuclear deal at risk. It arguably takes American aircraft manufacturers out of competition for lucrative contracts. My colleague from Washington will address this shortly.

I don't understand how putting American jobs at risk and taking American manufacturers out of contention in favor of companies like Airbus is about keeping America great again. I don't understand why, when we focus on jobs, this should be an action we should take.

However, I will say something, and I speak as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to the passage of the Iran nuclear deal, it is not an exaggeration to say I didn't worry every night in a way that we worry today about North Korea. I went to bed every night thinking about Iranian centrifuges spinning, about military technology being created that could ultimately deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel or to Europe or to the United States, and our intelligence community believed that we were 2 to 3 months away from an Iranian nuclear weapon, kind of where we are today on North Korea.

I suspect everybody in this Chamber doesn't want to be where we are on North Korea with another state, with Iran.

I understand the skepticism on Iran, and I agree with everything that the chairman said with respect to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, with Iran being a location of money laundering, and I could go on, with Iran being an absolutely appalling regime.

But I speak as a member of the Intelligence Committee for a lot of people in this room when I say that, for the first time in a long time subsequent to the passage of the Iran deal, whatever you think of Iran--and not many of us think much of Iran--we don't go to bed every single night worrying about the possibility of waking up to a nuclear- weaponized Iran.

Why would we put that at risk?

I agree with the chairman that transparency is important, and I agree with everybody that Iran needs to be watched very, very skeptically. But why would we want to be with Iran exactly where we are today with North Korea?

Is this effort, which, in my opinion, is simply a continuation of the efforts to end the Iran deal, to reverse President Obama's legacy, is it worth going to bed at night not just worried about North Korea, but worried about Iran? I would suggest that it is not.

I don't want to go back to the pre-Iran deal era when I became an expert on centrifuges, on Uranium-235, on hardened bunkers and the weaponry that we produced to penetrate hardened bunkers and to the realization that, if we had to go to war against Iran to prevent a nuclear Iran, the consequences would be as awful as if we went to war with North Korea to prevent a North Korea nuclear-weaponized state.

Why would we do this? Why would we put at risk a deal that has given comfort to a lot of us for some period of time?

Mr. Speaker, this deal is not a perfect deal. I don't know that there are perfect deals in this realm. But I do know that, for the next 7, 8, or 9 years, we are not going to have the worry that so many of us had before the Iran deal.

Let's engage on that. Let's figure out what comes behind the Iran deal. Let's figure out other ways to address the behavior of Iran with respect to terrorism and the money laundering. Let's remember that this deal was about removing the existential threat, not making Iran a perfect regime, but removing the existentia threat to the United States of America, and let's not put that deal at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I urge a strong ``no'' vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324 will improve congressional oversight of any financing that Treasury authorizes for aircraft sales to Iran.

Every 6 months, Treasury would need to certify to us that finance authorizations would not benefit an Iranian person who is transporting items for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction nor providing transportation for sanctioned entities. Treasury would also have to certify to us that those authorizations don't pose a significant money laundering or terrorism finance risk to the U.S. financial system, and that any banks engaging in this business have appropriate due diligence procedures in place. If the Treasury Department cannot make this certification, the Department must tell us why, and it must explain to Congress the course of action it intends to take.

I note that my bill was reported out of the Financial Services Committee last month by a vote of 38-21, with five of my Democratic colleagues voting in its favor.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will label this bill as a simple attempt to dismantle the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal. We have already heard it.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about U.S. commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It is not about reimposing nuclear sanctions. It is not about prohibiting these aircraft sales or the financing of these sales.

What this legislation is about is providing Congress with information on the implications of these deals so that we can better understand their impact on the integrity of our financial system.

I would like to take a step back and discuss how we got to this point and why this legislation is necessary. As most of you know, under the JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the United States to license the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. In addition to providing licenses for aircraft sales, the licenses also allowed for banks to engage in the financing of these aircraft.

All of this was permitted, despite the fact that Iran remained classified as a jurisdiction to primary money laundering concern by the Treasury Department and as the world's foremost state sponsor of terror by the State Department.

Let us be abundantly clear on the facts. It was the Obama Treasury Department that highlighted the role that Iran and Iranian aircraft played in the destabilizing activity across the Middle East and in supporting the atrocities committed by the rogue Assad regime in Syria.

On September 9, 2012, David S. Cohen, the Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence under President Obama, released the following statement:

``The identification of Iranian aircraft also further highlights Iran's ongoing effort to support the Assad regime's weapons of mass destruction programs and crackdown against the Syrian people.''

This quote followed the Treasury Department's announcement to impose sanctions against entities that support the Assad regime in Syria.

So quoting from the same September 9, 2012, Treasury statement: ``As a result of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, foreign financial institutions that knowingly engage in significant transactions with . . . Iran Air, Mahan Air, or Yas Air, including any of 117 aircraft operated by these airlines, risk losing access to the U.S. banking system.''

Mr. Speaker, this week I received a memo from the National Iranian American Council urging members to oppose my bill. This is the same council that opposes President Trump's travel ban, which was recently upheld by a Supreme Court decision of 7-2, and the same organization that took concern with new sanctions imposed on Iran's support for Hezbollah.

This memo and the pro-Iran principles that it represents could not be a better endorsement for the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act.

I would ask this to my colleagues on both sides: At what point did we relegate ourselves to negotiating with those who wish us harm? At what point did we prioritize the interest of a rogue government that paints their bombs with sayings like ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America''? When did that happen?

There are simply two sides to this issue. You can either protect the interests of the United States, her citizens, and the U.S. financial institutions, or you can make important the wishes of the Ayatollah and his revolutionary guard.

Which side do you choose to be on? That is the question.

I represent the red, white, and blue.

My commitment to the safety and well-being of these United States is unwavering.

I urge my colleagues to do the same: support the red, white, and blue, and support H.R. 4324.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a question.

Why is this bill so long?

Last year, we had a bill, H.R. 5729, to block the sale of Boeing aircraft to Iran. It was short and clear. It was only 2 pages long. I didn't like it and I didn't support it; but the truth is, I always respect people putting forth their honest beliefs.

H.R. 5729, last year, blocked the licenses to sell U.S. planes-- straightforward. Torpedoing the plane sales endangered the JCPOA because, as we have indicated, it is an affirmative requirement and an obligation on the U.S. to approve plane sales if a sales agreement is reached. That was part of the deal: You won't build or continue to develop nuclear weapons, we will do certain things, including sell you planes.

Everyone knew what the bill would do and they could decide if they thought that was a good idea or a bad idea. It was very straightforward. It was effectively a proxy on the JCPOA.

This year, we have another bill to block the sale of aircraft to Iran. It is neither short nor clear. In fact, it is six times as long as last year's bill.

It subjects the licenses to an ongoing and complex certification requirement. It literally names and shames U.S. banks providing financing. And, again, it does this purposefully so that it might deter the sale of airplanes so that it might undermine the JCPOA.

Frankly, what I interpret, what I have heard this evening, is tantamount to that. This is, yet again, a proxy on the JCPOA. If you are against the JCPOA, vote ``yes.'' If you are for it, vote ``no.''

This bill, however, obscures its end purpose, that objective of undermining the JCPOA behind process and ambiguity. Why?

If you oppose the sale of aircraft, oppose it. Have the courage of your convictions. Don't just engage in this fearmongering. No matter how many times you say that people in Iran chant ``Death to Israel, Death to America,'' and whatever other form of fearmongering you engage in, at least have the courage of your own convictions. You did last year.

Stand up for what you believe in. If you want Iran to buy Airbus aircraft instead of Boeing aircraft, then say that. Stand up for yourself. Stand up for what you believe.

But let's be clear. That is what this bill will do. Don't dance around.

For my part, I think blocking the sale of American planes is a big mistake on so many levels. Let's be clear. It doesn't deny Iran the use of aircraft; it just will deny them American-made aircraft. It will deny American machinists jobs to work on them.

And need I remind anybody here what it means to be an engineer or a machinist at an aircraft company in this country? It means the kind of jobs that we all aspire to for our constituents. You know the kind; the kind that pay enough that you can buy a home, have decent healthcare, save enough money to send your kid to college if you want to, have regular vacations, and have a secure retirement. Those are the kinds of jobs we are taking away if we pass this bill.

It doesn't just prevent Iran from misusing aircraft, as has been suggested. It just prevents Americans from having maintenance and service agreements that keep eyes on the aircraft because, you see, if Airbus sells them these planes, we have no idea. If they are American- made planes, they come with after-sale maintenance and service agreements. We will have eyes on the planes.

It doesn't force Iran back to the bargaining table. It just jeopardizes and cuts the legs out from under the gains we have made in the JCPOA that I thought my colleague and friend from Connecticut spoke about so eloquently. We don't go to sleep at night worried that Iran is getting closer to a bomb, as we would have, as North Korea has.

So my friends, in summary, passage of this legislation will do three things:

Number one, it will cost America jobs, and good-paying jobs;

Number two, it will make us less safe because it will undermine the JCPOA and, in so doing, not allow us to ensure that these planes are not being used for a nefarious purpose;

And number three, it will actually make us less safe as well, in the sense that if it does, in fact, defeat the purpose of JCPOA-- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walberg). The time of the gentleman has expired.

If it does cut the legs out from JCPOA, as is its purpose, as is clear, then, of course, we are back on the track of Iran developing nuclear weapons as North Korea has. Fewer jobs and less safe; not sure what it is about that proposition that would be appealing to anyone.

So, my friends, I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, be for American jobs. Be for America being safer. Be for us living up to our commitments, and vote ``no'' on this legislation.