[Pages H2471-H2476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAN SANCTIONS RELIEF REVIEW ACT OF 2023

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1149, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4691) to provide for congressional review of actions to
terminate or waive sanctions imposed with respect to Iran, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1149, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-30 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 4691

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Sanctions Relief Review
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATING TO
SANCTIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO IRAN.

(a) Submission to Congress of Proposed Action.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, before taking any action described in paragraph (2), the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees and leadership a report that describes the
proposed action and the reasons for that action.
(2) Actions described.--
(A) In general.--An action described in this paragraph is--
(i) an action to terminate the application of any sanctions
described in subparagraph (B);
(ii) with respect to sanctions described in subparagraph
(B) imposed by the President with respect to a person, an
action to waive the application of those sanctions with
respect to that person; or
(iii) a licensing action that significantly alters United
States foreign policy with respect to Iran.
(B) Sanctions described.--The sanctions described in this
subparagraph are sanctions with respect to Iran provided for
under--
(i) the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50
U.S.C. 1701 note);
(ii) the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.);
(iii) section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a);
(iv) the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.);
(v) the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012
(22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.);
(vi) the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 note); or
(vii) any other statute or Executive order that requires or
authorizes the imposition of sanctions with respect to Iran.
(3) Description of type of action.--Each report submitted
under paragraph (1) with respect to an action described in
paragraph (2) shall include a description of whether the
action--
(A) is not intended to significantly alter United States
foreign policy with respect to Iran; or
(B) is intended to significantly alter United States
foreign policy with respect to Iran.
(4) Inclusion of additional matter.--
(A) In general.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
that relates to an action that is intended to significantly
alter United States foreign policy with respect to Iran shall
include a description of--
(i) the significant alteration to United States foreign
policy with respect to Iran;
(ii) the anticipated effect of the action on the national
security interests of the United States; and
(iii) the policy objectives for which the sanctions
affected by the action were initially imposed.
(B) Requests from banking and financial services
committees.--The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate or the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives may request the

[[Page H2472]]

submission to the Committee of the matter described in
clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A) with respect to a
report submitted under paragraph (1) that relates to an
action that is not intended to significantly alter United
States foreign policy with respect to Iran.
(5) Confidentiality of proprietary information.--
Proprietary information that can be associated with a
particular person with respect to an action described in
paragraph (2) may be included in a report submitted under
paragraph (1) only if the appropriate congressional
committees and leadership provide assurances of
confidentiality, unless that person otherwise consents in
writing to such disclosure.
(6) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall not
be construed to require the submission of a report under
paragraph (1) with respect to the routine issuance of a
license that does not significantly alter United States
foreign policy with respect to Iran.
(b) Period for Review by Congress.--
(1) In general.--During the period of 30 calendar days
beginning on the date on which the President submits a report
under subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in the case of a report that relates to an action that
is not intended to significantly alter United States foreign
policy with respect to Iran, the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives should, as
appropriate, hold hearings and briefings and otherwise obtain
information in order to fully review the report; and
(B) in the case of a report that relates to an action that
is intended to significantly alter United States foreign
policy with respect to Iran, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives should, as appropriate, hold
hearings and briefings and otherwise obtain information in
order to fully review the report.
(2) Exception.--The period for congressional review under
paragraph (1) of a report required to be submitted under
subsection (a)(1) shall be 60 calendar days if the report is
submitted on or after July 10 and on or before September 7 in
any calendar year.
(3) Limitation on actions during initial congressional
review period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the period for congressional review provided for under
paragraph (1) of a report submitted under subsection (a)(1)
proposing an action described in subsection (a)(2), including
any additional period for such review as applicable under the
exception provided in paragraph (2), the President may not
take that action unless a joint resolution of approval with
respect to that action is enacted in accordance with
subsection (c).
(4) Limitation on actions during presidential consideration
of a joint resolution of disapproval.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if a joint resolution of disapproval
relating to a report submitted under subsection (a)(1)
proposing an action described in subsection (a)(2) passes
both Houses of Congress in accordance with subsection (c),
the President may not take that action for a period of 12
calendar days after the date of passage of the joint
resolution of disapproval.
(5) Limitation on actions during congressional
reconsideration of a joint resolution of disapproval.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a joint
resolution of disapproval relating to a report submitted
under subsection (a)(1) proposing an action described in
subsection (a)(2) passes both Houses of Congress in
accordance with subsection (c), and the President vetoes the
joint resolution, the President may not take that action for
a period of 10 calendar days after the date of the
President's veto.
(6) Effect of enactment of a joint resolution of
disapproval.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if
a joint resolution of disapproval relating to a report
submitted under subsection (a)(1) proposing an action
described in subsection (a)(2) is enacted in accordance with
subsection (c), the President may not take that action.
(c) Joint Resolutions of Disapproval or Approval.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Joint resolution of approval.--The term ``joint
resolution of approval'' means only a joint resolution of
either House of Congress--
(i) the title of which is as follows: ``A joint resolution
approving the President's proposal to take an action relating
to the application of certain sanctions with respect to
Iran.''; and
(ii) the sole matter after the resolving clause of which is
the following: ``Congress approves of the action relating to
the application of sanctions imposed with respect to Iran
proposed by the President in the report submitted to Congress
under section 2(a)(1) of the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act
of 2023 on _______ relating to ________.'', with the first
blank space being filled with the appropriate date and the
second blank space being filled with a short description of
the proposed action.
(B) Joint resolution of disapproval.--The term ``joint
resolution of disapproval'' means only a joint resolution of
either House of Congress--
(i) the title of which is as follows: ``A joint resolution
disapproving the President's proposal to take an action
relating to the application of certain sanctions with respect
to Iran.''; and
(ii) the sole matter after the resolving clause of which is
the following: ``Congress disapproves of the action relating
to the application of sanctions imposed with respect to Iran
proposed by the President in the report submitted to Congress
under section 2(a)(1) of the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act
of 2023 on _______ relating to ________.'', with the first
blank space being filled with the appropriate date and the
second blank space being filled with a short description of
the proposed action.
(2) Introduction.--During the period of 30 calendar days
provided for under subsection (b)(1), including any
additional period as applicable under the exception provided
in subsection (b)(2), a joint resolution of approval or joint
resolution of disapproval may be introduced--
(A) in the House of Representatives, by the majority leader
or the minority leader; and
(B) in the Senate, by the majority leader (or the majority
leader's designee) or the minority leader (or the minority
leader's designee).
(3) Floor consideration in house of representatives.--If a
committee of the House of Representatives to which a joint
resolution of approval or joint resolution of disapproval has
been referred has not reported the joint resolution within 10
legislative days after the date of referral, that committee
shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution.
(4) Consideration in the senate.--
(A) Committee referral.--A joint resolution of approval or
joint resolution of disapproval introduced in the Senate
shall be--
(i) referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs if the joint resolution relates to a report
under subsection (a)(3)(A) that relates to an action that is
not intended to significantly alter United States foreign
policy with respect to Iran; and
(ii) referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations if the
joint resolution relates to a report under subsection
(a)(3)(B) that relates to an action that is intended to
significantly alter United States foreign policy with respect
to Iran.
(B) Reporting and discharge.--If the committee to which a
joint resolution of approval or joint resolution of
disapproval was referred has not reported the joint
resolution within 10 calendar days after the date of referral
of the joint resolution, that committee shall be discharged
from further consideration of the joint resolution and the
joint resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(C) Proceeding to consideration.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any
time after the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs or the Committee on Foreign Relations, as the case
may be, reports a joint resolution of approval or joint
resolution of disapproval to the Senate or has been
discharged from consideration of such a joint resolution
(even though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the
joint resolution, and all points of order against the joint
resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not
debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed
to or disagreed to shall not be in order.
(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution of approval or joint
resolution of disapproval shall be decided without debate.
(E) Consideration of veto messages.--Debate in the Senate
of any veto message with respect to a joint resolution of
approval or joint resolution of disapproval, including all
debatable motions and appeals in connection with the joint
resolution, shall be limited to 10 hours, to be equally
divided between, and controlled by, the majority leader and
the minority leader or their designees.
(5) Rules relating to senate and house of
representatives.--
(A) Treatment of senate joint resolution in house.--In the
House of Representatives, the following procedures shall
apply to a joint resolution of approval or a joint resolution
of disapproval received from the Senate (unless the House has
already passed a joint resolution relating to the same
proposed action):
(i) The joint resolution shall be referred to the
appropriate committees.
(ii) If a committee to which a joint resolution has been
referred has not reported the joint resolution within 5
legislative days after the date of referral, that committee
shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution.
(iii) Beginning on the third legislative day after each
committee to which a joint resolution has been referred
reports the joint resolution to the House or has been
discharged from further consideration thereof, it shall be in
order to move to proceed to consider the joint resolution in
the House. All points of order against the motion are waived.
Such a motion shall not be in order after the House has
disposed of a motion to proceed on the joint resolution. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The motion
shall not be debatable. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
(iv) The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the joint resolution and against its
consideration are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except 2 hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the joint
resolution (or a designee) and an opponent. A motion to
reconsider the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall
not be in order.
(B) Treatment of house joint resolution in senate.--
(i) Receipt before passage.--If, before the passage by the
Senate of a joint resolution of approval or joint resolution
of disapproval, the Senate receives an identical joint
resolution from the House of Representatives, the following
procedures shall apply:

(I) That joint resolution shall not be referred to a
committee.
(II) With respect to that joint resolution--

[[Page H2473]]

(aa) the procedure in the Senate shall be the same as if no
joint resolution had been received from the House of
Representatives; but
(bb) the vote on passage shall be on the joint resolution
from the House of Representatives.
(ii) Receipt after passage.--If, following passage of a
joint resolution of approval or joint resolution of
disapproval in the Senate, the Senate receives an identical
joint resolution from the House of Representatives, that
joint resolution shall be placed on the appropriate Senate
calendar.
(iii) No companion measure.--If a joint resolution of
approval or a joint resolution of disapproval is received
from the House, and no companion joint resolution has been
introduced in the Senate, the Senate procedures under this
subsection shall apply to the House joint resolution.
(C) Application to revenue measures.--The provisions of
this paragraph shall not apply in the House of
Representatives to a joint resolution of approval or joint
resolution of disapproval that is a revenue measure.
(6) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This
subsection is enacted by Congress--
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively,
and supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is
inconsistent with such rules; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees and Leadership
Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees and leadership'' means--
(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the majority and
minority leaders of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Speaker, the majority leader, and
the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

General Leave

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, even after the Trump administration rightfully withdrew
from the dangerous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the
Biden administration entered office committed to pursuing a new nuclear
deal with Iran.
Throughout this administration's dealings with Iran, it was
abundantly clear that Iran was taking advantage of the administration's
blind commitment to negotiations just for the sake of negotiating.
A nuclear Iran is not acceptable--full stop. However, throughout 2021
and 2022, the Biden administration continued to push negotiations even
as Iran escalated its nuclear provocations. Iran suspended compliance
with the IAEA Additional Protocol. Iran installed new advanced
centrifuges. Iran increased its uranium stockpile toward enrichment.
Iran refused to cooperate with an IAEA investigation.
In fact, I met with the Director General of the IAEA at his office in
Europe, and he said that the Iranians had a cyberattack on their office
and stole all of their documents pertaining to their investigations
dealing with compliance from Iran on the sites.
That is not a sign of good faith. You can't negotiate with somebody
like that.
Still, they are intent on getting this nuclear deal done. It became
very clear that they are desperate to reach a deal, even if it was a
bad deal.
The irony, Mr. Speaker, is this: The very individual charged by
Congress and the administration, the special envoy to Iran, Mr. Malley,
is under FBI investigation for violations of his security clearance.
That is our top negotiator to Iran.
My colleagues and I have been gravely concerned that this
administration would lift Iranian sanctions in exchange for
insufficient limitations on Iran's nuclear program. These concerns grew
even more severe, again, after Rob Malley came under FBI investigation,
which the State Department failed to notify Congress. When I invited
him to testify about the Iran deal, I was told he was not available,
and now we know why.
It is deeply disturbing that the United States Government no longer
trusts the one who is spearheading our negotiations with an enemy
regime. We can't afford any strategic miscalculations when it comes to
Iran.
Again, as I said in the prior debate, deterrence is key, and you only
deter and get peace through projecting strength, including
strengthening our economic sanctions while they have eased them.
Every dollar that goes to the Iranian regime in any form has the
potential to be deadly. The events of this past weekend demonstrate
that. Iran launched over 350 missile and drone attacks on our ally,
Israel--unprecedented in history. Israel, the United States, and other
partners intercepted 99 percent of these weapons.
Iran is not 10 feet tall. That is why this legislation is so
important. Congress and the American people need an opportunity to
review any proposed plans to lift sanctions, especially the ones that
Congress has mandated, on this rogue regime.
I thank my good friend, Mr. Self, on the Foreign Affairs Committee,
who is also from the great State of Texas, for this bill. This bill
requires the President to report to Congress on any plans to terminate
or waive sanctions on Iran. It codifies a process for Congress to
conduct oversight of these proposed waivers and terminations.
We have that power under Article I of the Constitution. Yet, when
they waive sanctions that Congress passed, they are not notifying us.
We deserve that right. We have a responsibility to keep the American
people safe, and that requires the executive branch and Congress to
work together to determine the national security interests of the
United States. Congress must have a say in any attempts to broker any
kind of deal with Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2024.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on Financial Services regarding H.R. 4691, the Iran
Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023. I agree that the
Committee shall be discharged from further consideration of
the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House
Floor. The Committee takes this action with the mutual
understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4691
at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the
subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and
that the Committee will be appropriately consulted and
involved on this or similar legislation as it moves forward.
The Committee also reserves the right to see appointment of
an appropriate number of conferees to any conference with the
Senate involving this or similar legislation, and we request
your support for any such request.
Finally, as you mentioned in your letter, I ask that a copy
of our exchange of letters on this bill be included in your
Committee's report to accompany the legislation, as well as
in the Congressional Record during floor consideration.
Sincerely,
Patrick McHenry,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2024.
Hon. Patrick McHenry,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McHenry: Thank you for consulting with the
Foreign Affairs Committee and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief
Review Act of 2023, so that the measure may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
I will seek to place our letters on this bill into the
Congressional Record during floor consideration. I appreciate
your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward

[[Page H2474]]

to continuing to work together as this measure moves through
the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2024.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: I write regarding H.R. 4691, the Iran
Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023. Provisions of this bill
fall within the Judiciary Committee's Rule X jurisdiction,
and I appreciate that you consulted with us on those
provisions. The Judiciary Committee agrees that it shall be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
forgoing further consideration of this measure does not in
any way alter the Committee's jurisdiction or waive any
future jurisdictional claim over these provisions or their
subject matter. We also reserve the right to seek appointment
of an appropriate number of conferees in the event of a
conference with the Senate involving this measure or similar
legislation.
I ask that you please include this letter in your
committee's report to accompany this legislation or insert
this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration
of H.R. 4691 on the House floor. I appreciate the cooperative
manner in which our committees have worked on this matter,
and I look forward to working collaboratively in the future
on matters of shared jurisdiction. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Jordan,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2024.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan: Thank you for consulting with the
Foreign Affairs Committee and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief
Review Act, so that the measure may proceed expeditiously to
the House floor.
I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
I will seek to place our letters on this bill into the
Congressional Record during floor consideration. I appreciate
your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward
to continuing to work together as this measure moves through
the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Accountability,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2024.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The Committee on
Oversight and Accountability agrees to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief
Review Act of 2023, so that it may proceed expeditiously to
the House Floor.
I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4691 at
this time, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability does
not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained
in this or similar legislation. The Committee on Oversight
and Accountability should be appropriately consulted and
involved on this or similar legislation as it moves forward.
I support your effort to represent the House Committee on
Oversight and Accountability on the conference committee if a
conference on the bill becomes necessary.
As discussed, I appreciate your inclusion of a copy of our
exchange of letters on this bill in the bill report filed by
the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the Congressional Record
during House floor consideration thereof. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this bill and look forward to future
opportunities to work together on matters of shared
jurisdiction.
Sincerely,

James Comer,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight
and Accountability.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2024.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer: Thank you for consulting with the
Foreign Affairs Committee and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief
Review Act of 2023, so that the measure may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
I will seek to place our letters on this bill into the
Congressional Record during floor consideration. I appreciate
your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward
to continuing to work together as this measure moves through
the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4691.
As I have explained during committee consideration, I have serious
concerns about what this bill means to the overall practice of American
foreign policy and, therefore, must oppose it.
Some think that diplomacy is weak and that the only way you show
strength is to go to war. We have heard from generals that if war was
the only option that we had on the table, it would cost us much more in
bullets and armor, and that diplomacy helps deter military.
In fact, I would say it is strength. Anybody can say I am going to
fight. It is strength in trying to negotiate, in dealing with
diplomacy. If that should fail, going to war should be your last
alternative.
Diplomacy and people in the State Department who exercise it are
absolutely essential. It brings others with us so we are not out there
by ourselves but working in a multilateral way.

{time} 1400

It is hard for any Member, particularly me as a ranking member, to be
opposed to a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight of
sensitive foreign policy issues. However, in the specific case of this
bill as drafted, were it to be signed into law, I believe it would
damage America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy.
Here is why. When dealing with our enemies, a strong diplomatic corps
and a strong military are both necessary to achieve our goals. In the
specific case of Iran, they can clearly see from our consistent joint
military exercises, regional deployments, and last weekend's missile
defense that we mean business.
Our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. Case in point
was the successful implementation of the JCPOA, which verifiably cut
off all pathways to an Iranian bomb. The dangerous nuclear moment we
now find ourselves in, where Iran has stockpiled highly enriched
uranium and is limiting the access of inspectors is the direct result
of the shortsighted cancellation of that diplomatic agreement. The
Iranian nuclear threat has never been more dangerous than it is right
now.
Again, when we had the JCPOA, working in a multilateral way with our
other allies, and even at that point, two who are not allies, and when
you speak to most individuals, IAEA included, who had eyes on what was
taking place in Iran, once we pulled out and stopped using diplomacy,
they have no eyes now, which is why Iran is more dangerous today than
it was when they were in this agreement.
The United States must keep diplomacy on the table as a tool to
address the Iranian threat. If this proposed bill is set into law,
Iranian negotiators will know and allied negotiators will know that the
executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot independently
make decisions. Our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. Other
parties, friend or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions
implementation would become subject to a joint motion of disapproval.
Carefully negotiated multilateral agreements risk becoming subject to
partisanship right here in the United States House of Representatives,
in Congress. Such an action is worrisome and also without precedent.
I also believe that this bill directly interferes with the INARA
process, the bipartisan agreement currently in statute to provide
Congress the ability to approve or disapprove a negotiated nuclear
agreement.
Diplomatic agreements with Iran are already subject to congressional
review as a whole. This bill goes far beyond

[[Page H2475]]

that statute. Even if the United States Congress cleared an Iran deal
through a comprehensive INARA process, sanctions implementation would
once again become subject to binding congressional review, risking the
agreement itself.
This legislation could also harm efforts to deescalate tensions with
Iran shy of a comprehensive agreement. If this or a future
administration tried to negotiate a short-term diplomatic agreement on
nuclear or other issues, such as regional troop protection, this
legislation would interfere with that process.
I would also like to make a more general point about sanctions that I
believe this Congress sometimes forgets--one I feel that I have to make
over and over and over again nowadays in this Congress. Sanctions are
meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. You don't keep a sanction
if the goal has been achieved. Our nuclear sanctions were not passed to
foment regime change in Iran, no matter how much we hoped they were.
They were designed to drive Iran to the table to negotiate an end to
their nuclear weapons program. If we reach an agreement that clears
INARA, one that verifiably cuts off pathways to a nuclear weapon, we
have to live up to our end of the agreement.
Legislation like this one is designed to thwart our obligations,
damaging our diplomatic flexibility and trustworthiness if we care
about diplomacy. Now maybe we don't care about diplomacy; I think that
is the wrong way to go. I think that we should very much care about
diplomacy.
Finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a policy
vis-a-vis Russia. That is inaccurate. The scope of Russian sanctions in
CAATSA is much smaller. For instance, national emergencies past and
present are included in this proposed bill but not in CAATSA. The new
Russia sanctions EOs aren't covered in CAATSA, and any new Iran EO
would be. There are also many sanctions in CAATSA where there is no
congressional review. This bill, however, would apply to the entire
universe of Iran sanctions. Finally, CAATSA mechanisms were established
specifically to deal with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential
election. It wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate diplomacy, as
this bill will do.
My friends and colleagues, we must look beyond Iran before going down
this road. I have been around here 26 years, and I know that if passed
into law, this type of policy will not stop with Iran. If this were to
become law, it would only be a matter of time before the lifting of any
sanction, no matter how small, would be subject to a congressional
vote. It is our duty to provide the authority and the appropriations
for effective foreign policy, not to undermine diplomacy in this
manner.
We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State in a negotiating room. It
never happens that way. You do not negotiate that way. Diplomacy does
not work that way. I say: Please think. Think carefully before steering
us down this road. Think what it means if you think diplomacy is
important. If you don't think diplomacy is important and the only thing
that is important is going to war, then we have a difference of
opinion.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), a member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the author of this bill.
Mr. SELF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4691, my bill. In
response to the surprisingly bellicose comments by the ranking member,
Madam Speaker, no one wants to go to war with Iran, but when the
Iranian regime chants ``Death to America'' or ``Death to Israel,''
America's response must be swift with immediate deterrence.

While I cannot compare to the chairman and the ranking member's years
in this body, I did spend many years as a military planner, and I will
tell you, I agree with President Reagan: ``We know only too well that
war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are
weak.'' Case in point, Iran's massive attack on Israel just days ago.
Make no mistake, the Biden administration has covertly fueled Iran's
global sponsorship of terrorism. Three times in the last year, the
administration signed off on a sanctions waiver to Iran, unlocking $10
billion that were previously frozen.
Then, in September, the President agreed to give $6 billion to Iran
in exchange for hostages. Lifting sanctions freed up billions of
dollars that Iran used to support terrorist proxies, such as Hezbollah,
the Houthi rebels, and Hamas.
Shockingly, after Hamas terrorists savagely murdered 1,200 innocent
Israelis on October 7, the White House refused to correct course.
Before President Biden was sworn into office, Iran had $4 billion in
foreign reserves. That number today is $70 billion. Again, $4 billion
before, $70 billion today. Congress was never involved in these
decisions, and this is only the most recent tip of the iceberg.
Let's not forget Obama's Iran deal, which most agree was a disaster.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the JCPOA,
was a plan of action to benefit Iran. The JCPOA did not end Iran's
nuclear weapon production but lifted sanctions, including access to at
least $50 billion in liquid assets.
Later, in 2017, Congress passed a sanctions bill against the areas
overlooked in the Iran deal on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.
There is no reason to allow the White House to override Congress by
providing sanctions relief to the number one donor to Hezbollah, the
Houthi rebels, and Hamas.
My bill, the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act, will prevent just
that. This legislation establishes a detailed procedure for Congress to
review any action by the President to terminate, waive, or modify
sanctions on Iran. Under the bill, the President must report to
Congress on any proposed sanctions relief and the reasons for the
change in policy.
Congress must not allow the world's leading state sponsor of
terrorism to get a payday as it continues to spread its malign
influence on a global scale.
Madam Speaker, Congress must rein in the actions of a lawless
President. Congress must reassert Article I authority.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I think everyone has heard by now how
important diplomacy is. I think that we should show it in our budget. I
am a firm believer in diplomacy. The fact of the matter, the direct
quote from General Mattis was: ``If you don't fund the State Department
fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.''
I guess my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle
just want to buy ammunition, and that is why the State Department is
continually being cut, because they don't really focus on or put
diplomacy on the same level, and that is what is happening here with
this bill.
This bill would significantly impede America's ability to conduct
effective diplomacy with Iran. By requiring that any adjustment in
sanctions implementation be subject to a joint motion of disapproval,
the bill would undermine diplomacy and U.S. negotiators, and makes that
clear to anyone sitting across from them at the table. That is the
negotiating table, not the battlefield, where we hope we don't have to
go, but we are prepared and have shown that we are ready to do it if we
must, and that is discussed first at a negotiating table.

{time} 1415

This would also let them know when we are at the table--those that
are sitting across that table--that they have no authority to relax or
adjust sanctions. It would subject any negotiations to undue
congressional partisanship.
Can anyone deny that what we see happening on this floor--and what is
happening in this 118th Congress--partisanship plays a huge role? In
fact, we can't get anything done because of partisanship. Iran would
know this. In fact, our allies would know this.
We are tied up in partisanship. This would only weaken our position.
This only compromises the agility required

[[Page H2476]]

to address urgent international threats and opportunities.
Moreover, the stipulations of this bill undermine the very purpose of
sanctions which are intended as tools to bring nations like Iran to the
negotiating table--not as a permanent punitive measure. But if they do
something where they are disregarding, and we are not working together
and are aggressive at that negotiating table, we also are letting them
know that we are ready or what we have the capability of doing.
This bill hurts diplomacy. It hurts trying to make sure that we are
driving others to the negotiating table. As General Mattis said, he
doesn't have to buy more bullets. Let's fund the State Department.
Let's promote and speak good will of diplomacy. It is the best way to
move forward in a multilateral way with our allies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I agree with some of the things my good friend has said. Diplomacy is
extremely important. We deal with it on the committee all the time. It
is called soft power. Then we have hard power. We sign off on foreign
military weapons sales. Diplomacy at all costs needs to be tried, but
when the diplomats fail, often we go to war or we have conflict.
The question before us is twofold. One, has Iran negotiated in good
faith such that we would both waive or not enforce or let expire
sanctions, many of them passed by Congress?
The second question is, are Article I authorities under the
Constitution?
All we are simply asking for is when we pass a sanction--or the
administration does so--that they notify Congress.
And I will tell you why this is important.
For months I tried to get Robert Malley, our special envoy to Iran,
into the committee to testify on this Iran deal, but guess what? He
refused to come testify. Why? Because we then find out he was under
investigation by the FBI for potential violation of his security
clearance.
This great Iran deal that they talk about has only brought Iran
closer to a nuclear bomb, closer to weapons-grade uranium. They can go
to 90 percent in days. If they get a nuclear warhead from Russia or
North Korea, they have full capability, and they will become a nuclear
state. We cannot let that happen.
They failed to declare nuclear sites in Iran. They kicked out
investigators from the IAEA. Then in one of the most horrific displays
of bad faith in negotiations, Mr. Speaker, do you know what they did?
They launched a cyberattack on the IAEA to steal their documents
related to their investigations on the very sites that the JCPOA was
supposed to allow them in to examine. Then they blocked the inspectors
from having access to these sites.
Now, I am all for negotiating. I am all for diplomacy. I don't think
the Ayatollah is a good faith partner here, and I don't think he has
our best interests at heart. They chant ``death to America,'' and
``death to Israel'' and call us ``Great Satan,'' and they call Israel
``Little Satan.'' They are closer to a bomb than they have ever been.
All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is before you waive sanctions that
Congress passed, or not enforce sanctions, just let us know. I don't
think that is a big deal. I mean, Malley wouldn't testify before
Congress. We didn't know why because they were hiding it from us. They
didn't want us to know about the FBI investigation until the press
reported it. We found out from the press--not from the administration,
but from the press.
Let's look at some of the sanctions that they let expire and they
have waived, and you tell me if that makes sense. The sanctions on
energy, exporting energy to China, the majority going to China; we are
allowing this axis of evil--the Ayatollah, Putin, and China--to work
together with Iran exporting energy.
Mr. Speaker, $80 billion from China went into Iran to fund the very
missiles and rockets and drones that we saw last Saturday night. It was
the first attack from Iran into Israel in history.
Then they let the U.N. sanctions on exports to other countries for
their missiles and drones to expire. Now, we have a bill to reinstate
those sanctions. The very same drones and missiles were used to attack
Israel last Saturday night, the very same drones and missiles that have
been bought by Russia to kill Ukrainians. It is all interconnected.
China is in this, the Ayatollah is in it, Putin is in it, and they are
all profiting from Iran, who they provide technical expertise. Iran
makes the stuff and the energy that they then buy from them to put the
money in Iran to reign terror.
I think it only fair that the American people through their
Representatives under Article I have the opportunity to even know when
they are doing this and not operate behind a veil of secrecy. When a
Republican President gets into office, what will the Democrats say then
if they are hiding things on sanctions and investigations? I think we
will hear the same argument that we are making on this side.
That is why this is not a partisan issue. This is about this
institution under Article I. We have every right to know this,
especially the sanctions that we pass in Congress. We always put a
Presidential waiver in these things. Remember Nord Stream 2, we put a
Presidential waiver. Nobody thought that a President would waive
sanctions on a pipeline to put Europe in a state of dependency on
Russian energy. Look how that one worked out. Did we know about it in
advance? No. That didn't work out so well, did it?

Right after Afghanistan, guess what happens? Putin, the Russian
Federation went into Ukraine. Chairman Xi is watching it. He is looking
at Taiwan.
No. We have tried. We have tried acting in good faith with them. They
are not acting in good faith with us, and the American people through
its Representatives and the Congress, I say, have a right to know.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gimenez). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1149, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.

____________________