Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5461, the so-called Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act.
The administration has stated this bill would endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful. Indeed, this harmful bill is the latest in a series of Republican efforts aimed at undermining the landmark nuclear agreement reached last year by Iran and the world's six major powers.
The comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran was intended to address one specific problem, and it has so far been a success. This success should not be underestimated, given how much a nuclear-armed Iran would magnify risk in a turbulent region in a terrible way.
Despite the fact that the nuclear deal so far has delivered on its principal goal of blocking Iran's path to nuclear weapons for an extended period of time, opponents remain committed to undermining the ongoing viability of the deal, chipping away at it piece by piece, whether by passing legislation to block the sale of aircraft to Iran that was a central component of the agreement or accusing the administration of making extreme concessions to Iran by insisting, for example, that a legitimate legal settlement was an illegal ransom payment of some kind or by spreading rumors of suspected cheating by Iran. Republicans are intent on spreading this false narrative and dismantling the agreement.
So here we are, considering this bill, which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report on the total estimated funds or assets under direct or indirect control of as many as 80 senior Iranian leaders, along with a description of how the funds were acquired and employed. The report would not be tied to any specific prohibition or legal action against Iran and clearly plays into the hands of critics who are seeking to gin up prospects of reputational risks for companies that might seek to do business with Iran.
Moreover, the lack of a tie to any specific prohibition or legal action against the listed individuals will likely increase confusion regarding compliance obligations rather than make remaining sanctions more easily understood.
Undoubtedly, the report would be seized upon by Iran as an intentional effort to discourage international investment, which Iran would view as a violation of the express U.S. commitment under the nuclear deal not to interfere with the full realization of the relief provided under the accord. The major world powers that joined us in this agreement would also likely view the legislation as bad faith.
By denying Iran the economic benefits it was promised in exchange for dismantling critical elements of this nuclear program, this bill would remove the critical incentive for Iran to hold up its end of the bargain.
As the Statement of Administration Policy notes: ``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 commitment to our closest allies.''
In addition to my central concern that this bill destabilizes the Iran nuclear deal, I also share the administration's concerns that producing the report that is required under this bill would divert massive resources away from investigations and the targeting of sanctions on Iran related to terrorism, human rights violations, and ballistic missiles.
Meeting the requirements of this bill would place a very real strain on the Treasury Department and intelligence community. We need to think carefully about the national security implications of diverting resources away from the Treasury investigators who are tasked with implementing current sanctions on Iran and uncovering illicit conduct across the globe.
Proponents of this legislation have also underscored the importance of the need to show the people of Iran the corrupt practices in which their leaders are engaged. However, this bill would not accomplish that goal.
There is a profound trust gap between the United States and Iran, and any findings in this report would be met with a high degree of skepticism among the Iranian people and their leaders. Therefore, to the extent any portion of this report could actually be made public, since much of the most important facts would likely be classified anyway, it would do little to enlighten the people of Iran about their leaders. In fact, it would inevitably be rejected as United States propaganda by both the regime and by its people as a predictable attack on the country's government by the United States.
In light of the bill's limited practical utility, its failure to meet its own stated objectives, its diversion of resources away from investigations related to sanctions, and the destablizing effects it would have on the Iran nuclear deal, I urge its opposition. Moreover, the President has announced that he would veto this bill if it came across his desk.
I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill. Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act--September 21, 2016
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, let me end this part of my presentation by saying that the world is watching us. And for us to do anything to undermine an agreement that the President has entered into along with other major allies in the world would be devastating. And for us to do that and not understand the implications of that is beyond my ability to understand.
With the combination of Donald Trump, who they think is way out of line and crazy and does not know or understand what is going on, and these kind of actions in the Congress of the United States, who is standing up for this country? Who is supporting the President? Who is making sure that we are safe? I raise that question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a leading member of the House Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have received any number of letters and correspondence in opposition to this bill, but I thought it would be important to just share with you one such communication from J Street, which is an Israel lobbying group. They basically say that:
`` . . . in light of its limited practical utility--this bill appears to be yet another piece of a sustained effort by US opponents of the JCPOA and other diplomatic engagement with Iran to undermine the agreement by weakening the domestic standing of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his allies vis-a-vis Iranian hardliners who also oppose the agreement and bilateral dialogue. It is likely not a coincidence that proponents have arranged for floor consideration of this bill just as Rouhani is in the United States for the United Nations General Assembly, and that it would require the finalization of the first report around the time of the next Iranian Presidential election.
``Hindering the US Government's ability to enforce the terms of the JCPOA and sanctions on Iran's dangerous non-nuclear behavior while simultaneously undermining Rouhani's standing would make America and our allies less safe and redound to the benefit of the very Iranian hardliners who seek to do us harm. Risking these consequences for the sake of procuring information that could not be shared with its intended audience would be both pointless and reckless. We therefore urge Members of Congress to oppose this bill.''
That is from J Street, the Israel lobbying group.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the Financial Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said at the onset of this debate, it is clear that this bill is nothing more than an effort to derail the administration's diplomatic accomplishments with regard to the Iran nuclear deal.
After failing to block the deal from being implemented, opponents have shifted their focus towards unraveling and delegitimizing it bit by bit. This is despite the fact that over a year after the accord was signed, the JCPOA is widely seen as having diffused the global security threat of a nuclear armed Iran for at least a generation.
Despite the ongoing success of the agreement, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have gone to great lengths to promote a false narrative that the administration too readily concedes to Iran's demands, including by pushing claims that the U.S. made secret ransom payments to Iran. Other efforts to destabilize the agreement have been aimed squarely at violating the terms of the agreement itself.
For example, Republicans moved a spate of measures earlier this summer that would block the sale of aircraft to Iran, despite the fact that these sales were a central component of the nuclear agreement. Moreover, Republicans also rushed legislation to the floor before leaving for the last congressional recess to undermine Iran's conduct of banking transactions outside of the United States--activity that became permissible as part of the nuclear deal.
So while the bill before us today, H.R. 5461, may appear to contain a simple reporting requirement, it is most certainly not a bill that promotes our national security interests. By requiring an extraneous report on the assets of Iranian leaders without regard to current sanctions or other obligations, the bill would prevent the Iranian people from receiving the full benefits of this agreement. This would put the agreement in jeopardy and strengthen the hand of the hardliners in Iran who want nothing more than to see the nuclear deal fall apart. This scenario would threaten global security and deal a severe blow in our efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran.
In closing, I would like to ask critics of the deal what they believe their moral responsibility will be if their relentless efforts to undo the deal are successful? How do you think rejection by the U.S. of the nuclear deal will affect American leadership on any future foreign policy negotiations?
Some critics of the Iran nuclear deal express outrage that the deal has not curtailed Iran's other destabilizing influence in the region or support for what they say is terrorism at this time.
I think it is important to note that the Iran nuclear deal was quite deliberately focused on the nuclear issue as the paramount concern regarding Iran's foreign policy. The Iran nuclear deal is an arms control agreement, and in that respect, it has been successful to date.
It is my hope that the ongoing success of the nuclear deal might give us the leverage to work toward constructing a better policy towards Iran that will help us address the range of Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region, but I urge my colleagues not to confuse the legislation like H.R. 5461 with any serious effort to move us in that direction. So rather than force the President to veto this harmful and misguided legislation, I urge my colleagues to block this bill from moving forward here in the House.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to reiterate that the world is watching what we do here. I want to reiterate that we didn't just enter into this deal by ourselves. We have all of our allies who have agreed to this deal. If this is undermined, if it is seen to cause us to act in bad faith, then what are we to say to our allies? What are we to say to the rest of the world about a deal that was negotiated by the leader of this country, the President of the United States?
If the President of the United States of America can't count on the Congress of the United States to back him up in the world, if the President of the United States can't count on the Members of Congress to stand with him, and if the President of the United States can't be comfortable that the Members of Congress are not going to make him look as if he did not mean what he said, that he was not truthful in the negotiation, then what can a leader do? How can a leader lead a country?
All of us who claim to love this country and to care about its safety and security have ourselves on the line with this legislation. This is legislation that will be deemed to undermine that agreement and be seen as just another attempt to undermine the President of the United States of America. It is not concerned about whether or not we have stopped the nuclear proliferation in Iran, not concerned that we have caused all of that region to feel safe and us to feel safe for another generation, but rather, pursuing to undermine the agreement simply because they don't like some part of it or they are not able to make the President do what they want him to do.
This is outrageous. This cannot go forward in the way that it is intended by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle. I know that they are smart and they are bright and they are intelligent, but they cannot let their emotions about either not liking the President of the United States or simply not liking Iran to get in the way of this deal that will create safety in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, the Young amendment would add three additional requirements to the report that are called for under the underlying bill, including a description of how the administration views the effectiveness of its sanctions programs and recommendations for improving their enforcement.
I believe it would be a strategic mistake to disclose to our adversaries how we view the effectiveness of our sanctions programs and would be imprudent to signal to them how we might respond or alter our approach through the use of economic sanctions.
Furthermore, the amendment appears to be premised on the assumption that the administration isn't already actively enforcing sanctions related to Iran, particularly its pursuit of ballistic missile technology. Ironically, the extensive reporting requirements on roughly 80 senior Iranian officers in the underlying bill would detract from the administration's ability to implement the very sanctions that the Young amendment seeks to embrace.
Given its false premise, the increased burden the amendment would place on the Treasury Department, and the strategic folly of revealing our strategy for using sanctions to rein in Iran's nefarious behavior, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I simply don't believe that these Members who are engaging in this kind of activity really understand what they are doing. I refer to it as folly, but it is worse than that. It is weighing in on something they really don't know about. In doing so, they don't recognize the damage they are doing to their own country and to the President of the United States. I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I really should not spend my time on this. This is kind of ridiculous that this long list we have of which they want to find out about the assets--where they came from, how they are managed, who they give them to, et cetera--is kind of senseless anyway because, even if the Treasury Department took all of this time and effort that it should be using on enforcing sanctions, et cetera, it would be classified. I don't know how they expect to get this to the Iranian people to view as they are trying to have them think that they can somehow undermine what their government is doing and, I guess, create a war between Iran and the United States.
I don't know what they are doing, but I know this--it doesn't make good sense. It ties up the Treasury Department to do all of this useless stuff. And to have a list where you spend time on the floor of the United States Congress saying, I want to add one more name--give me a break. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source