Rescission of Certain Waivers and Licenses Relating to Iran

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5947. This legislation may be short, but it is equally shortsighted with considerable long-term consequences.

Let's start with the impact this would have on Iraq. This bill would rescind a waiver that currently allows Iraq to pay for electricity from Iran.

This waiver is what allows the Iraqi Government to keep the lights on. Without it, massive blackouts would leave millions without electricity and cause precipitous chaos. It would hamper the fragile stability that Iraq has achieved over the past several years.

I don't believe anyone in this body wants to see a return to Iraq of the past, where Iraqis from previous decades suffered from never-ending wars and repression like that of the Saddam Hussein era.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill goes even further than that. It would harm and cause the Iraqi people terrible consequences. An Iraq without electricity serves no American interest and would do nothing to promote our, the United States', national security.

Let's not forget, ISIS emerged from a chaotic Iraq. ISIS, I will repeat, emerged from a chaotic Iraq--long-term consequences, shortsighted bill.

When ISIS emerged, the result was not just widespread disorder, destruction, and violence in the Middle East but the growth of a global terrorist movement that struck my home city and State of New York, Orlando, San Bernardino, as well as Paris, Brussels, and Barcelona.

I agree that we absolutely need to help Iraq find alternative sources of energy besides Iran, but it is simply not true that Iran is filling its coffers with payments from Iraq. There is roughly $10 billion in Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity being held in escrow. Only very small portions of the money have been transferred to an account in Oman, into which the United States has oversight. Iran can only access that account to purchase humanitarian goods, like food or medicine. None of the funds--zero, nada--are going to nefarious purposes.

Maybe we have a difference and some don't care about humanitarian causes, humanitarian aid, and things of that nature. I know my side of the aisle does.

Human life, innocent human life, is very important, and it is also how we show what our values are.

This bill would risk our ability to have oversight and control of the $6 billion in Iranian funds we are monitoring in Qatar, and much more. This measure would have the opposite effect of what it intends to do, leading to less control of Iranian assets.

I am deeply concerned that this bill removes all flexibility from our current Iran sanctions program. The point of sanctions, again, is to bring Iran back to--as I have said over and over on the various bills we have seen today--the negotiating table.

Sanctions are not an end but a means to an end. A diplomatic path, I say again, is the best path, and this measure removes the flexibility necessary for that strategic objective and the utilization of diplomacy.

Let me also say a quick word about process. Yes, we need to respond to global events, and that is why I supported seven Iran-related measures on the floor just yesterday. While I disagree with some of the other bills on the floor today, at least those pieces of legislation received proper committee consideration.

Yes, we do, on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, practice what I believe is some diplomacy. My friend and chairman, Michael McCaul, and I talk. We give a chance to trying to work it out first. Sometimes we do; sometimes we don't. These bills never gave us a chance to do that.

This bill did not follow that process. It has not been marked up by the Committee on Foreign Affairs or, for that matter, the Committee on Financial Services or, for that matter, the Committee on Ways and Means or, for that matter, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, even though every single one received a referral on this bill--process.

Mr. Speaker, in my tenure as the former chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, now the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this week is the first time ever that we are considering a bill under a rule that had not gone through the committee process--not only in my time as a chair or ranking member, but almost an entire 25 years that I have been on the committee.

This is, I believe, a very unfortunate precedent that we are setting here. If we actually want to support--I know I do fully--our ally, Israel, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan Senate national security aid bill that would send important funds to Israel so that they could defend themselves against Iranian aggression, as well as, of course, supporting our friends in Ukraine and Taiwan, and providing necessary humanitarian assistance.

I know we have been negotiating, which is okay. We know that, and we are going to try to figure out some of the things, from what I am hearing. What we should be doing, what really is necessary right now, given the needs of our allies, is just pass a bipartisan bill. Seventy Members of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it. It is waiting for us to vote on it.

Many of us, I think at least over 300 of us, will agree that if that bill just had the light of day on the floor, because our Ukrainian friends are at a desperate end--they need assistance right now. What took place in the Middle East, the strikes against Israel, they need the money right now. Our Taiwanese friends need the money right now. The innocent individuals in Gaza, in Sudan, and around the world need the assistance right now.

If today, we put that bill on the floor and let Congress do its will, it would be on the desk of the President of the United States either later this evening or first thing tomorrow, signed into law, and our allies that we claim we care for would get the aid and assistance that they need now.

That is the bill we should have been debating in February. That is the bill we should have been debating in March. That is the bill we should be debating today, really, not this bill, which will have a far greater impact on innocent Iraqi civilians than any minuscule impact on Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I guess you know that I oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I strongly oppose this measure, which would remove all flexibility from our Iran sanctions program and thereby strike a fatal blow to our ability to conduct nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Now, I have heard several times during the course of this debate about the failure of the JCPOA, of which at the time the IAEA had oversight, individuals were knowing what and where the nuclear material was. Most of it, as it has been said now, was moved out of the country.

The fact of the matter is, if I recall correctly, General Mattis, who was initially an opponent of the JCPOA, after seeing what it was doing and how it was functioning, became a proponent of the JCPOA. He said it publicly, that it was a way through diplomacy to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with joy that the former President pulled us out of the JCPOA.

I ask: What was accomplished by pulling us out? Are we safer? Is that what it did? If we are safer by being pulled out, what are we talking about now? Are we in more danger?

Does Iran now have a greater opportunity to get a nuclear weapon? Do we know where the materials are now, since it was a good thing to pull out of the JCPOA, or do we know less? Do we have more access now, since we pulled out of the JCPOA, or do we have less? Why was this thing about pulling out of the JCPOA such a great thing?

I am more worried today about Iran getting a nuclear weapon than I was when we were in the JCPOA. I ask my colleagues: Were you more worried when we were in the JCPOA than you are right now?

I hear that you are worried right now about where Iran is with a nuclear weapon. Back then what we were talking about was diplomacy to try to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. Are you telling me now, because we don't know, that we should just go to war?

There are choices to be made here. I think we were much better off using diplomacy, getting access to what was going on, watching them move nuclear material outside of the country, than just saying we are going to blow you up.

No oversight, nothing; no contact; no one looking in; no information other than that and they are free to do whatever the heck they want to do now. They are free to do it because they no longer have to be at the negotiating table.

Are we safer now or were we safer under the JCPOA?

Additionally, let me say this bill would have greater consequences across the entire Middle East, particularly in Iraq, which this bill would restrict from purchasing Iranian energy.

I will remind us again, let's not be shortsighted. With no energy, there is chaos in Iraq. What happened before? ISIS was created. Blackouts across Iraq would sow societal chaos in Iraq.

Does that help serve our national security objectives in the region? I don't think so.

If implemented, this bill would undermine the tenuous stability Iraq has worked to establish after decades of war. Are they perfect now? No. Four years is a short period of time when we are trying to do some major accomplishments here.

Importantly, this measure may also cost us our ability to do what we say we want to do, to monitor and control the Iranian funds in Qatar and elsewhere. Do we want to lose control, not have oversight of that either? Then you want this bill.

A smart sanctions policy has a purpose. It is not a blunt tool to wield in an effort to induce regime change. That does not work. It has never worked when it was used just to try to have regime change.

Our sanctions policies must be flexible and allow for United States national security objectives to be realized through thoughtful--and I will use this word one more time--thoughtful diplomacy.

A waiver is always necessary for that purpose.

Our Middle East national security objectives should be about providing Israel aid as part of our national security supplemental and providing humanitarian aid to starving individuals. That is what it should be about. That is what we should be voting on. That is what we should be debating on, not just today. We should have done it months ago.

It shouldn't be about cutting off Iraqis from electricity and creating chaos and the possible rise again of another terrorist group similar to ISIS that killed Americans and allies abroad.

This bill should be opposed. This bill is shortsighted. This bill doesn't accomplish what we needed to do and what we need to do. Let's vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source