Prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury From Authorizing Certain Transactions Relating to Commercial Passenger Aircraft to Iran
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am disappointed that we are here, yet again, debating another Republican bill to undermine the Iran nuclear deal--a deal that, so far, has delivered on its principal goal of blocking Iran's path to nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. This is a dangerous move that, if enacted, would put U.S. and global security at risk.
Specifically, H.R. 5711 would prohibit the Treasury Secretary from authorizing any transaction by a U.S.
financial institution to support the export of commercial planes to Iran. Doing so would violate a key component of the agreement in which the U.S. has committed to allowing the sales of these planes and the associated financial services that are necessary to support the sales.
Earlier this year, the Treasury Department issued a license to Boeing for the sale of 80 passenger planes to Iran--valued at $17.6 billion-- and authorized U.S. financial institutions to engage in all transactions necessary to allow Boeing to receive payment for the sale.
This legislation not only puts the Boeing deal in the crosshairs by prohibiting it from conducting a lawful sale under the agreement, but it also places the viability of the nuclear deal itself in question.
Moreover, this legislation would breach the good faith provision in the agreement by which all parties agreed not to undermine its successful implementation.
H.R. 5711 also includes language that prevents the Export-Import Bank from financing exports to Iran, which is a red herring because the Ex- Im Bank has not supported exports to Iran since the 1970s, and it is legally prohibited from doing so as long as Iran is a state sponsor of terror.
Notably, the bill removes the President's national security waiver with regard to these restrictions--a move that denies the President the flexibility that is necessary to work with our allies to find the most effective ways of changing Iran's behavior. The fact is that all previous Iran sanctions bills that have passed the House and that have become law have included a Presidential waiver that gives the President the flexibility to act quickly and maneuver when doing so serves the U.S. national security interest.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that this bill comes at a time of deep global uncertainty about U.S. foreign policy. We have a President-elect whose talk on foreign policy has ranged from vague and contradictory in some areas to utterly incoherent elsewhere. He has inserted unpredictability into the international arena, has questioned the value of U.S. alliances, and has threatened the cornerstones of decades of American foreign policy leadership.
Yet, instead of reassuring the world that the United States is committed to working with our global allies to promote our collective security, House Republicans have decided to push yet another piece of legislation through the House to destabilize the agreement that is central to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
I do wonder why their leadership decided to bring this bill to the floor now in the lameduck session when they know the President will veto it. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that in two short months, they will no longer have the luxury of legislating without consequences.
Come January, we will have a President who has called the Iran nuclear agreement the worst deal ever negotiated. Like most of his other nonsense policies, Mr. Trump has claimed he will either more strictly enforce the agreement or negotiate ``a much better deal'' or dismantle it altogether. We don't know, and he doesn't know.
So I am going to bet that, under the Trump administration, Republicans will not be so eager to move legislation to unravel this agreement because, like the rest of us, they do not know how Mr. Trump will govern and because they know there is no other reasonable approach to curbing Iran's nuclear ambition, short of military intervention.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and sending a strong message to the President-elect and our allies around the world that Democrats remain committed to a strong U.S. engagement in the world and will not tolerate any attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal or any other international arrangements that keep us safe.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sorry that Mr. Pittenger left because I really did want to share this point with him.
It is important to note that nothing in this legislation will keep new passenger aircraft out of the hands of Iran. The bill only prevents Boeing from selling civilian passenger aircraft to Iran, while foreign aircraft manufacturers, such as Airbus, will still be able to sell their passenger planes to Iran since they won't need U.S. financial institutions to help finance their deals.
What is this? Is this some kind of payback to Boeing? Is this some kind of----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Reclaiming my time, there is nothing in this legislation that will keep new passenger aircraft out of the hands of Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a portion of a letter from J Street: J Street Calls on Members of Congress to Oppose Anti-JCPOA Bill Restricting Commercial Aircraft Sales.
The last paragraph says:
``Additionally, the bill would not even achieve its intended objective of preventing Iran from acquiring commercial aircraft--it would merely ensure that Iran purchases them from a foreign producer, pointlessly denying jobs and income to working Americans and communities across the country. Like so many of the legislative attempts by JCPOA opponents to undermine or kill the agreement, this bill is just another cynical messaging exercise that hurts rather than helps America's essential interests, security, and standing in the world.
``J Street therefore urges Members of Congress to oppose H.R. 5711 and reaffirm the United States' commitment to uphold its international obligations.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I like Mr. Poliquin. He is a nice man. He always has a nice smile. But I don't trust him more than I trust J Street.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Illinois just repeating some of the outrageous statements that Mr. Trump made during the campaign where he talked about the airplane carrying billions of dollars to Iran. I guess we are going to be hearing a lot of that around here.
Mr. Speaker, next year, President-elect Trump will face a daunting array of international challenges. The most pressing of these will be curbing Islamic terrorism, reining in Russian corruption and hegemony, and dealing with the civil wars in Iraq and Syria.
The self-proclaimed Islamic State, though it is in retreat in Iraq and Syria, has demonstrated its ability to operate beyond the confines of the Middle East and sponsor attacks in Asia, Europe, and the United States. Moreover, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea will require an immediate and coherent policy response from the Trump administration.
So if ever there was a time when the U.S. should be affirming our commitment to the international agreements that promote our stability and security in such a volatile global environment, the time is now. We should be working to reassure our allies and the rest of the world that the U.S. is committed to internationalism and to shaping and preserving the world economic and political order. Yet, Republicans are intent on playing politics and continuing their futile attempts to undermine the Iran nuclear agreement and put the global community at risk of a nuclear Iran.
Over the past few months, this House passed Republican bills to reinstate a program denying Iranian financial institutions access to U.S. dollars; to prohibit the U.S. from buying heavy water from Iran, a key component for some nuclear reactors; and most recently, to prohibit so-called ransom payments to Iran, which would, in fact, put the U.S. in violation of its international obligations under the Algiers Accords, which have been in effect since 1981, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The White House has issued a statement of policy making it clear that the President would veto the bill before us today, stating: ``The United States has a long tradition of remaining faithful to our commitments and our international partners, and a reversal of this principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our ability to lead globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon in implementing the JCPOA.''
We know that this bill would violate a key provision of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that specifically committed to the sale of commercial planes to Iran by prohibiting our financial institutions from facilitating those sales. It also would put U.S. aircraft manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors, whose access to financing would not be subject to the same constraints.
The legislation is also concerning because it would remove the President's national security waiver with regard to restrictions on the Export-Import Bank's ability to finance exports to Iran. While the administration has never exercised this authority, I believe removing the President's discretion and leverage on critical national security matters would be a serious mistake.
So I strongly oppose this bill that aims to undo the hard-fought progress to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and undercuts our ability to exercise global leadership, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source