Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the cosponsors of the Digital GAP Act who helped me with this legislation, and the first among them is Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and then also Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Representative Grace Meng, and Chairman McCaul for their collaboration on this bill. The Digital GAP Act would increase Internet access with a relatively minor communications change. It would require that the United States- supported infrastructure projects are made transparent so that the private sector can coordinate their investments in Internet infrastructure. This is a commonsense approach that we should implement now. The Digital GAP Act also expresses the sense of Congress that the State Department should elevate and reform its efforts to address cyberspace policy internationally. As technological policy issues multiply and as they become more complex, it is important to identify clear lines of responsibility at the State Department so that problems do not fall between the cracks of the many different offices that touch on these issues now. Cybersecurity, Internet freedom, and Internet access are now core parts of our national security agenda and need to be treated as such by the State Department. Lastly, I will simply close by again recognizing the work of Nilmini Rubin on this legislation. She has been with the committee for over 3 years. She has done outstanding work on technology and trade and other issues promoting development worldwide. Nilmini will be leaving us and will be greatly missed, but she will be continuing to do impressive and important things, improving lives overseas and improving the welfare of Americans. Thank you, Nilmini. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, and he is the author of this measure.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material for the Record.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to recognize the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). Mr. Jim McDermott was also one of the original authors of the AGOA legislation. He worked for many, many years to see it come to fruition. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on the floor, also one of the original authors of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, along with Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Karen Bass, one of the most engaged on initiatives to put Africa on the map for U.S. trade and investment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Right, and International Organizations Subcommittee, and I thank him for his assistance with this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2845) to promote access to benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I have been to the factories across Africa, and I have seen the women employed. I have seen how AGOA is improving economies in Africa. AGOA is making a difference and could have even more impact on the continent if the measures included in this AGOA Enhancement Act are implemented. This bill improves how we offer assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation to increase the ability of people in Africa to trade, and helping cut the bureaucratic barriers and needless red tape that thwarts trade. This bill helps unlock the potential of AGOA so that people in Africa can strengthen their markets, and so Americans can improve trade relationships with countries in Africa. And yes, it has been slow going, slow progress. We have gotten a few more staffed positions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a few more ag inspectors positioned there. And Jim McDermott is right, we need to do more. We have been slow going, but we have more foreign commercial service officers now in these positions in AGOA. In 2 weeks' time, we will have the AGOA forum. We will again be bringing these issues up. In the following session, the effort will continue, as Jim McDermott laid it out, to see this through and to try to make AGOA as effective as we possibly can. In the interim, this legislation is a big step in the right direction. I really want to thank not only Congresswoman Karen Bass, but also my colleagues from their original efforts, Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott, and urge a unanimous vote, again, in support of the extension of AGOA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the Secretary was awarded several Pinocchios from The Washington Post for that statement on the amount of support that would give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The reason why is because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in fact, owns many of the largest institutions. They were nationalized after the 1979 revolution. Because of this, they are beneficiaries of the economic activity. It is the number one economic actor, according to our Department of Commerce, according to our State Department. The IRGC is the number one economic actor. So, in point of fact, yes, this deal is going to demonstrably benefit the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at a time when they are in charge of this ballistic missile program, intercontinental ballistic missile program, which you see them developing and advancing as we speak. I would just add one other point, and that is that there isn't a lot of debate here in terms of what message they are sending us when they go to the streets and, under the direction of the ayatollah, members of the IRGC chant ``Death to America.'' I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a member of the Committee on Financial Services and of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Part of the problem here is that money laundering in Iran has been proven to be tied to their efforts to support international terrorism. The unfortunate case here is what we are debating. Remember, we were originally assured, yes, we can push back on issues like their ballistic missile program, that we can push back on their support for terrorism or on their abject destruction of the human rights of the people inside Iran. We can put pressure on those fronts. We have somehow reached the point at which, despite the testimony of the administration that we were going to be pushing back, the administration feels that any steps we take to assert a position on these fronts is injurious to the relationship with Iran or, in some way, undermines the JCPOA. In terms of Iran, the entire country is designated by our Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern, and not just by our country and not just by our Treasury, but by the international system that looks at these financial systems. They have determined the same with respect to Iran. Secretary of State Kerry and his colleagues in the administration are in the midst of a campaign to reassure foreign firms that Iran is open for business. All right. We can trade with Iran, but it is an additional step beyond that to say that Iran is going to have the right to access U.S. dollars. Other administration officials, by the way, go so far as to say that Iranian economic growth is in our national security interest. I don't think it is in our national security interest. Frankly, if people are going to trade with Iran, they can do it without the use of U.S. dollars. It is a tough case to make in terms of this, in some way, being in our national interest when you consider that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been labeled--what?--by the U.S. Treasury Department as being the ``most powerful economic actor'' in the country, the IRGC. That is the same entity that is developing these ballistic missiles and that is supporting terror throughout the region. It is a terrorist IRGC by our own labeling here in the United States. That should be enough to put the brakes on the administration's plans to get Iran out from under restrictions that prohibit trade with Iran in dollars. You can trade, but you can't trade in dollars, okay? The pervasive influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps throughout Iran's economy means that extreme due diligence will be necessary to ensure that foreign companies and foreign banks are not complicit in Iran's terror finance or the range of other illicit financial activities in which Iranian entities regularly engage. That is why this legislation protects the integrity of the U.S. dollar from Iranian illicit finance by codifying existing restrictions, clarifying restrictions on foreign financial institutions involved in dollarization, and, again, links determination of these measures to the end of Iranian support of terrorists. Easy enough for Iran to solve the problem; just quit supporting terrorism. I urge all Members to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4992.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to make a point, this is not a breach of the nuclear deal. This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal. We did not agree to give Iran access to the U.S. dollar. As a matter of fact, the agreement that we all understood is that, without ending its support for terrorism and proliferation of missiles, they weren't going to get that access. There were things we have held in reserve as continued pressure against Iran to get its compliance. The difficulty is that the ayatollah wants this form of additional relief outside of the deal, which essentially declares that Iran is open for business. He wants to be able to do it without ending his proliferation of missiles and these ballistic missile tests. And we are saying: No, no, that was not in the deal. We are not giving you additional--additional--rewards while you are decrying the United States and saying ``death to the Great Satan,'' ``death to the Little Satan,'' ``death to America,'' and ``death to Israel.'' Why should we further give advantage to the build-up of Iranian power when it is going not into the economy but into the hands--the coffers-- of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps? That is the problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4992. This bill would prohibit trade with Iran in dollars, and that is the world's top currency. The Iranian access to the U.S. financial system here is what is at risk. When selling this Iran deal to Congress, Treasury Secretary Lew testified unequivocally that--and I am going to quote him; I am going to quote our Treasury Secretary--``Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.'' He testified: ``Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market.'' The Secretary strongly denied the administration was giving away the store to Iran. We were told that the restrictions on Iran's access to the U.S. dollar were key to pushing back on Iran's terrorism and on its missile proliferation. But for the past 6 months, as the Iranian Supreme Leader has ratcheted up complaints about the pace of sanctions relief, the Obama administration has shifted to ``making sure Iran gets relief.'' That is the theme. Indeed, the State Department has taken its advocacy for Iran to a new and disturbing level by trying to persuade major non-U.S. banks that doing Iran-related business is not only permitted, but is actually encouraged. As one witness told the committee in May, the United States is acting as the ``business development and trade promotion authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' And the administration is looking for ways for Iran to be able to conduct business in dollars. When challenged before the House Financial Services Committee in March, Secretary Lew would not answer authoritatively whether the United States may offer Iran the ability to access onshore or offshore dollar-clearing, to allow for dollar-denominated transactions and ease Iran's ability to trade internationally. The ayatollah wants this form of sanctions relief--to essentially declare that Iran is open for business--without ending its support for terrorism and ending its proliferation of missiles. Mr. Speaker, the United States should not be offering additional special exemptions to assist Iran with access to dollars while Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror, subject to serious sanctions. Notably, the Treasury Department's designation of Iran as a primary money laundering concern remains, and that is a recognition that any financial transaction with Iran risks supporting the regime's ongoing illicit activities. That is part of the reason that the Financial Action Task Force, which sets the global anti-money laundering standards, has warned of, in their words, ``the terrorist financing risk emanating from Iran and the threat this poses to the international financial system.'' Instead of granting such a significant unilateral concession of Iranian access to dollarized transactions, this legislation requires a reciprocal step by Tehran. Iran must stop its support for terrorism, one of the top concerns that administration officials promised that they were going to address using its remaining sanctions after the nuclear agreement. This is an approach that all Members should support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The first point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that, under the agreement, Iran has kept much of its nuclear infrastructure. It continues to develop advanced centrifuges. It continues to gain the ability to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. This means, if we are looking at the long haul on enforcement and challenges ahead, that the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be just steps away from a nuclear weapon when the clock runs out. In the meantime, tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief is now starting to flow to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Now, the assurances that we have been given--and these underlying concerns, by the way, are why so many Members, including many from the Foreign Affairs Committee, opposed the administration's deal with Iran in the first place. But these long-term problems now of Iran beginning to use that money for terrorist activity, for the IRGC, and for support for Hezbollah is what is prompting our effort now to try to get some kind of an enforcement, not necessarily on the deal itself, but on original assurances we had been given by the President. For example, when he presented this deal, he claimed that the United States would remain vigilant in countering Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, its support for proxies who destabilize the Middle East, its threats against America's friends and allies, like Israel. Some of us supported the nuclear deal with Iran; some of us didn't. But, regardless, I don't think any of us thought that Iran should be given carte blanche to continue and even escalate its dangerous hostility in that region and its hostility to us and our allies and hostility to the Iranian people, frankly, which is another issue. That is not what the administration told us last year. It makes sense to do all we can to check this very dangerous trend in Iranian activity. The problem is that the administration refuses to do this. This is what drives us to bring the bill to the floor. The administration refuses to negotiate, as I said before, on anything with the word ``Iran'' in it. So that is why we are here. I would ask my colleagues who oppose this measure: We were told, all right, we are going to hold them on human rights. How many Iranian officials has the administration designated for human rights abuses since the negotiations ended? The answer to that is zero. There have been no human rights designations in the past year. Talk about walking on eggshells. Despite the fact that Iran's Minister of Justice and head of the judiciary--they are clear human rights violators, but they have not been designated, as the number of executions inside Iran go up. Iranian regional aggression has increased exponentially since this agreement was reached. The administration has been reluctant to act decisively on that. In March, the CENTCOM Commander, General Joe Votel, testified that Iran has become more aggressive in the days since the agreement. Similarly, our Director of National Intelligence says Iran--in his words, the foremost state sponsor of terrorism--continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps, through the Quds Force, its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and its proxy groups. It also provides military and economic aid to its allies in the region. Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partnerships worldwide. Now, if the IRGC ends up with $100 billion--because it is the International Revolutionary Guard Corps that, in fact, nationalized most of the companies inside Iran. If they get their hands on this money and if this terrorist-sponsoring organization continues its proliferation, then Hezbollah is going to be the primary beneficiary of the sanctions relief. We were assured that steps were going to be taken on that point. That was supposed to be our end goal, right? Secretary Kerry even admitted immediately after the implementation day, ``I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled `terrorists.' You know, to some degree, I am not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.'' Okay, it can't all be prevented, but surely some of it can. The Secretary of State was basically saying that there was nothing the U.S. could do to prevent the IRGC and terrorists from benefiting exponentially from sanctions relief. No wonder Iran's efforts to destabilize the region are picking up steam. Consider Iran's smuggling of weapons to militants throughout the region. According to the State Department, Iran arms Hezbollah with advanced, long-range Iranian manufactured missiles, in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution. We are trying to do something to at least say: Stop that. Just days after the announcement of the JCPOA, here is what Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah asserted that that deal would not stand in the way of Iranian support for Hezbollah. How right he was, because in June 2016 Nasrallah boasted that all of Hezbollah's weapons and rockets came from the Islamic Republic of Iran--150,000 rockets pointed at our ally, Israel. And now they say they are going to be able to target those with GPS technology. Aren't we going to stand in the way of that? Similarly, Iran continues to destabilize our partners in the Gulf. They already overthrew the Government in Yemen with their support for the Shiite Houthis there; particularly, also, in Bahrain, where they carry out a low-level insurgency as well. I beg to differ with the Secretary of State. There is something we can do. We can act on the administration's stated commitment to our allies and hold Iran's feet to the fire on this issue. The Iran deal should not come at the cost of the domestic security of our regional allies. We could have the original deal, and we could still enforce what we were told on this floor would be enforced. For 8 years, they were not supposed to be proliferating or developing ballistic missiles. For 5 years, they were not supposed to be transferring to Hezbollah additional weapons capability. Now we are turning a blind eye. Now we are walking on eggshells with respect to their treatment of their own people, as the human rights violations and the executions become worse and as they hold two more Americans. Frankly, that is why this legislation is before us on the House floor. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I would just counter with some observations. First, the nuclear deal does not dismantle key aspects of Iran's nuclear program. That, in fact, is its fatal flaw. At its essence, this agreement traded permanent comprehensive sanctions relief for temporary, limited constraints on Iran's nuclear program. Under this deal, Iran will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure and continue to develop advanced centrifuges, gaining the ability to produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. Due to the deal's fatal flaw--and that is the sunset clause--the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be just steps away from a nuclear weapon. All he has to do is wait 10 or 15 years until the deal expires. We cannot be sure that Iran is truly living up to its obligations under this agreement. I heard the assertion that it was. It is certainly not. In its annual report, published last month, the German intelligence reports: The illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities by Iran in Germany, registered by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, persisted in 2015 at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level. This holds true in particular with regards to items which can be used in the field of nuclear technology. If this deal is working, why is Iran secretly violating it? Why is Iran buying nuclear technology? Now, the point is that these activities we are curtailing aren't related to the nuclear deal, and that is the other point I would make. Unlike the administration, I am not willing to be able to be held hostage to the nuclear deal, doing nothing as Iran develops ICBMs in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. We realize what is happening here, I hope, is the ayatollah, on a weekly basis, leads these chants of ``death to Israel,'' ``death to America'' and asserts that it is every military man's responsibility to figure out how to mass-produce intercontinental ballistic missiles. When he is talking about ``intercontinental,'' that means between continents; that means between there and here. ``Death to America'' is not a confusing thing that we might be misinterpreting. And it is worth noting that, in the last week, it surfaced that Iran continued trying to illegally procure nuclear equipment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I always prefer to work things out with the ranking member. Working together, we put three bipartisan bills on the President's desk this last week alone. In this Congress, Mr. Engel and I, working together on the Foreign Affairs Committee, have seen some 14 bills signed into law. So he is right, this isn't the norm. Earlier this year, there were intense discussions with the minority on legislation to push back on Iran's missile program. I compromised more than I wanted, inserting a waiver. We were close, but at the end of the day, it became clear that the White House would aggressively fight any legislation with the words ``Iran'' written on it. For the White House, it is accommodation of Iran at all costs, and that includes essentially giving the Supreme Leader the veto pen over steps Congress might press the administration to take. So on this, we are stuck. Until the Democratic leadership is ready to look past this President's legacy, I imagine we will be stuck. Lastly, I would note that these pieces of legislation are tightly focused on Iran's behavior outside of the nuclear agreement. That is the point. Whether one was for the agreement or against the agreement, these are outside of the nuclear agreement. These bills do not undo or kill the Iran deal but, instead, press back on the administration's promises when campaigning for their deal. This goes to the issue of what we were told, what was in the talking points on the floor of the House, in terms of how this deal would be implemented and that it would not impact our ability to stop this ballistic missile testing by Iran and these other abuses. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.