Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My motion would prevent institutions that have engaged in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations related to consumer harm from being able to evade important consumer protections. When companies repeatedly exhibit indifference to consumer protection and demonstrate that they are incapable of complying or are unwilling to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, they should not be allowed to benefit from those bad actions. As I have already mentioned, under this bill, as amended, companies like Wells Fargo would be free to share or sell customer information with any company, with minimal reminders to their customers. We all know that Wells Fargo has engaged in illegal student loan servicing practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraft fees, unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharging veterans for refinanced loans, enrolled customers in life insurance policies without their consent, delayed mortgage closing dates until after the expiration of the borrower's interest rate lock to levy additional fees, and charged over 570,000 customers with auto insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including Active-Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. Companies like Wells Fargo are why I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to make sure that lenders that have engaged in abusive practices face real consequences for their wrongdoing. It is time we truly hold companies that demonstrate a pattern of harming consumers accountable. These institutions must no longer be allowed to abuse hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I thank both of the Members of Congress who came down here this evening and shared in the information that we are going to forward to Rod Rosenstein because it is so important that we let him know that our special counsel has support. We appreciate what he is doing and we are going to stand with him. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, for the past several days, there has been an organized attempt to discredit and undermine the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I rise today to speak on behalf of many Members of Congress who believe Special Counsel Mueller is doing a great job. At this time, I am circulating a letter, and other Members of Congress are joining me. This is a letter of support for Special Counsel Mueller urging that he not be interfered with and that he is allowed to continue this very important investigation in the interest of the security of our country. I will be circulating this letter for another 24 hours. However, at this time, I would like to read the contents of the letter into the Record. This, again, is a letter in support of Special Counsel Mueller. The letter is addressed to the Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. The letter reads as follows: Dear Deputy Attorney General, We write to express our support for the work of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and to urge you to ensure that he be allowed to continue his investigation--unfettered by political influence or threats to his authority--to its natural and appropriate conclusion based on the law, the facts, and the evidence. The Special Counsel is Conducting a Methodical Investigation, Yielding Results. It is unimaginable that Republicans would seek to intervene, discredit, obstruct, or terminate the special counsel's investigation. Thus far, from every public indication, it appears that Mr. Mueller is conducting a thorough and methodical investigation. He and his investigators have not sought, and instead avoided, the public spotlight. His team has not leaked or hinted at criminal allegations for which they have yet to develop charges. Furthermore, the charges that have been filed to date have been sufficiently strong and well founded as to elicit guilty pleas from President Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and a former policy adviser to Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, George Papadopoulos. The Appointment of a Special Counsel Was Necessary and Proper. As you know, pursuant to U.S. Department of Justice Order Number 3915-2017, which you issued on May 17, 2017, Mr. Mueller was appointed to serve as special counsel and authorized to conduct an investigation into matters, ``including any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4(a),'' which includes ``authority to investigate and prosecute Federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.'' Your decision to appoint a special counsel to conduct such an investigation was necessary and proper, given the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President Trump''; the obvious potential that individuals, who had served on President Donald J. Trump's campaign, as well as individuals currently serving as political appointees in the Trump administration, could be targets of, or witnesses in, any such investigation; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from ``any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.'' The Selection of Robert S. Mueller III to Serve As Special Counsel Was Very Much Appropriate. Under the circumstances described above, your selection of Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel to conduct the investigation was an appropriate and commendable decision. Mr. Mueller has earned a reputation as a nonpartisan, professional investigator, making him an ideal choice to lead the investigation into the highly important, complex, and sensitive matters to which he has been charged. Mr. Mueller's record demonstrates that he would not allow bias, influence, or other extraneous considerations to impact his investigation, and any suggestion otherwise is just not credible. Mr. Mueller is a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, who was originally appointed by a Republican President. He was vetted and, twice, unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, when appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush, Mueller was confirmed as FBI Director by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate, and when Mueller was nominated for a second term, in 2011, during President Barack Obama's administration, he was again unanimously confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0. Mr. Mueller has earned bipartisan support. Republican Members of the Senate attested to Mr. Mueller's integrity and professionalism during Mr. Mueller's confirmation hearings, which took place on July 30 and 31, 2001. For example, with regard to Mr. Mueller's nomination to serve as FBI Director, then Senator, now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stated: ``It is great to see Mr. Mueller, nominated to take one of the most important positions in our country. It is a position that requires, in my view, serious experience, great integrity, and a proven record of accomplishment. And you have all of those things, Robert Mueller. When I was in the Department of Justice, Robert Mueller's reputation was known throughout the Department of Justice, and he was known not for any political reason, but because he was recognized as a professional's professional, a man whose skill at doing the job assigned to him was second to none. There is no doubt in my mind that there is no more professional prosecutor, no more professional person in America with experience in the Department of Justice, ready to handle the job of FBI Director than Robert Mueller.'' Likewise, Senator Mitch McConnell stated: ``I believe Mr. Mueller will provide strong and effective leadership. Mr. Mueller has both impressive management and law enforcement experience. He is well-schooled in avoiding the problems and pitfalls inherent in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Mr. Mueller is not `of' the FBI, and therefore I believe institutional loyalty will not blind him to making the hard'' decision he needs to make. Senator McConnell also expressed his belief that Mr. Mueller's commitment ``to vigorously enforcing the law without regard to politics or partisanship.'' Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has also commented on Mr. Mueller's lack of partisan bias. As reported in a July 24, 2017, Washington Examiner article, Speaker Ryan said: ``I don't think many people are saying Robert Mueller is a biased partisan. He's really, sort of, anything but.'' On October 11, 2017, Kenneth Starr, who was appointed in 1994 as the independent counsel who was tasked with investigations involving President Bill Clinton and then First Lady Hillary Clinton, commented on Robert Mueller and the manner in which his investigation is proceeding. Mr. Starr stated that Mr. Mueller is conducting his investigation ``aggressively and professionally.'' Mr. Starr also stated: ``We're not seeing `leaks' out of the investigation as far as we know, and what we know of Bob Mueller and his background is that he is someone of total, rock-ribbed integrity.'' Regulations Limiting the Removal of a Special Counsel Must Be Followed. Mr. Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation and should not be threatened with removal. However, a few Republicans have indicated their support for Mr. Mueller, for his ouster. Notwithstanding the overwhelming reasons for Mr. Mueller to be allowed to continue and complete his investigation, the rule of law demands that the Trump administration follow executive branch regulations, which restrict the circumstances under which a special counsel can be removed. Specifically, 28 CFR 600.7(d) regarding the removal or discipline of a special counsel provides: ``The special counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a special counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the special counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.'' Since Attorney General Sessions is recused, you, in your capacity as acting Attorney General--that is, Mr. Rosenstein--regarding Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, are the only individual empowered to remove Mr. Mueller under regulation. Furthermore, the regulation clearly states that Mr. Mueller may only be removed for good cause, which has not been demonstrated. The administration is required to follow its own regulations and not remove Mr. Mueller from his investigation. Politically Motivated Challenges of Special Counsel Mueller and His Investigation Must Not Be Allowed to Threaten the Investigation. Despite Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of integrity, as attested to by these Republican leaders, and despite the clear progress that Mr. Mueller is making in his investigation, the rightwing media, some Republican Members of Congress, and Donald Trump, himself, have attempted to advance a false narrative that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation is biased--this is what they say--and some have advocated for Mr. Mueller's removal. On June 15, 2017, referring in general terms to the Russia investigation, President Trump stated on social media: ``You are witnessing the single greatest witch hunt in American political history--led by some very bad and conflicted people.'' In Congress, four Republican Members, led by Representative Matt Gaetz and including former Representative Trent Franks, who has now resigned amidst an Ethics Committee investigation into his own conduct, have cosponsored a resolution calling for Mueller to step down. Those Members have attempted to advance baseless claims of the existence of a conflict due to Mr. Mueller's previous service as FBI Director. Those arguments do not have merit, and appear intended, at best, to redirect the public's focus toward matters that are wholly unrelated to the investigation to which Mr. Mueller has been tasked. At worst, those arguments are intended to stop or preemptively tarnish the perception of the special counsel's work. The issues referenced in that Republican resolution pertain to allegations against former President Bill Clinton and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to a 2009-2010 matter, which has nothing to do with Mr. Mueller's directive to investigate ``links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.'' As quoted in a December 12, 2017, Politico article, Representative Matt Gaetz stated that he told President Trump that he was ``concerned'' that Mr. Mueller's investigation ``was infected with bias.'' Representative Gaetz said the President responded: ``That's why you guys have got to do your job.'' Representative Gaetz further stated that he informed the President that you would be testifying--that is, Mr. Rosenstein--before the House Judiciary Committee on December 13, 2017, in response to which Representative Gaetz said President Trump ``encouraged us to exercise our oversight responsibilities.'' This conversation, as described by Representative Gaetz, suggests that President Trump is encouraging the ring leaders of the recent criticisms against Mr. Mueller in order to pressure you to affect the investigation through the congressional oversight process. That is unacceptable. Some have alleged that Mr. Mueller's removal of a member of this team, Peter Strzok, over text messages sent by Mr. Strzok that were critical of President Trump suggests bias or a lack of objectivity on the special counsel's team. However, upon learning of the text messages, Mr. Mueller immediately removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation. In reality, this incident and Mr. Mueller's swift response demonstrates Mr. Mueller's integrity as well as his desire and commitment to conduct an investigation that is beyond reproach. You must not allow the targets of the investigation, or issues being investigated, to escape thorough independent inquiry through the removal, or hindrance, of the special counsel. We thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for your careful attention to this matter, and we stand ready to support you in upholding the rule of law. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the letter that I am circulating to Mr. Rosenstein. This is the letter that is being signed on by other Members of Congress. This is the letter that I will circulate for the next 24 hours so that we will give Members the opportunity to sign on to this letter. This letter should be on your desk very soon. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Marcy Kaptur, who signed up to speak here this evening.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Jackson Lee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that, ``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with its JCPOA commitments. The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re- introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress did not do so. Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program. As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful. Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for. But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to violate an existing one with the same partners. The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic, given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to changing its terms while Iran remains compliant. If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean nuclear missile challenges. But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges become even more daunting. I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me in rejecting this terrible bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody to know we are not trying to shame anybody. If we were going to shame someone, we would shame them and that party about connection to Russia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), an ardent supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter addressed to the Members of Congress from a highly respected organization that is pro-Israel and pro-peace advocacy. I am a member, and I look to the recommendations, the advice, and the assistance of this organization on all issues related to the Middle East and related to Iran and related to Israel. It is known as J Street, and I am a proud member and a proud participant. J Street urges Members: Oppose the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, that is H.R. 4324, which is clearly intended to lead to a U.S. violation of the JCPOA. This bill would impose additional certification requirements on the administration in order to carry out current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales under the JCPOA. These new obligations require the administration to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain nonnuclear activity or issue a national security waiver saying they will allow the planes to be sold anyway. In other words, it imposes new unilateral terms for a continuation of the JCPOA that are unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct. It has been widely reported in connection with the President's recent refusal to make the necessary certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that the President resents having to undertake official actions to keep the United States in compliance with the JCPOA. Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to make use of the President's apparent resistance to taking such steps by adding a new certification requirement that they hope he will also fail to meet, thereby blocking the sale of commercial aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of the agreement. Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need look no further than the first finding, which makes clear that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA vehicle and not a serious attempt to legislate on a bipartisan basis on threats emanating from Iran. No one who wants to see the JCPOA continue to be implemented should support this bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dylan Williams, the vice president of government affairs who signed this bill, said: Congress just gave the administration powerful tools to conquer other countries, support of the Assad regime when it passed new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea a few months ago that the President signed into law. Implementation and assessment of the impact of that law should occur before consideration of any new sanctions legislation. Again, in addition to the supporters of this body who have worked very hard to try and convince the Members of this body to be on the side of peace, to try and get the Members to understand the seriousness of undermining the JCPOA, the Members of this body who work very hard for peace and who join with groups like J Street and advocate for peace are trying to make sure that the United States stands up to its agreements, understanding how this undermines our leadership in the world. If we sit down and we negotiate with other countries, as we have done on the JCPOA, and they expect us to live up to the agreements and then they hear that we have various Members of Congress with ideas of their own putting together legislation that is supported by the opposite side of the aisle, coming in not with one piece of legislation, not with two pieces of legislation, but we don't know how many will continue if they are successful in passing the legislation that they are putting before us, if this continues, then I am certain that our allies will not trust us. They will not want to negotiate with us on other deals that are important to peace in this world. I would simply ask the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to pay attention to highly respected, credible organizations like J Street and take their advice about how to give support to the JCPOA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, would impose a new and unilateral certification requirement on the administration in order to meet current U.S. obligations under the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, with respect to the sale and financing of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran. This certification requirement would call for the Treasury Secretary to consider factors that fall well outside the scope of the nuclear deal and beyond the specific conditions that the U.S. is allowed to place on the license of commercial aircraft to Iran under the nuclear accord. By moving the goal posts on our commitments under the deal, H.R. 4324 clearly aims to force the United States into a violation of the agreement. Under the Iran nuclear deal, the United States is broadly committed to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran. This involves licensing the sale of aircraft and related parts and services to Iran, including the financing for such sales. Under the JCPOA Annex II, the only condition on the U.S. commitment is that licensed items and services must be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation. Moreover, the only allowable conditions the U.S. can place on authorizations for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran apply to the licensed aircraft themselves and the use of such licensed aircraft, not on activities or services provided that have no relationship to the licensed aircraft or related goods or services. Yet, H.R. 4324 would impose new conditions on the licensed sale of aircraft to Iran, including, notably, the condition that the recipient airline has not used nonlicensed aircraft for purposes other than commercial passenger aviation. That is, under this bill, the administration would have to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain activity unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct but also unrelated to the use of the aircraft itself. If the Treasury Secretary is unable to make such a difficult certification, the Secretary must then report to Congress as to whether the Secretary intends to suspend, revoke, amend, or approve, notwithstanding such noncertification, any license facilitating the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. Supporters of the bill will likely note that the bill will not require the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend or revoke an authorization in the event that the Secretary is unable to make the necessary certification, but the obvious political conclusion is that the Secretary will be forced to revoke such license if the Secretary is unwilling to make the certification. As we have now seen, the President detests the fact that his administration has to take affirmative steps to keep the deal in place, and he refused to do so. In the case of the last recurring 90-day congressional certification requirement, proponents of this bill undoubtedly hope Trump will react the same way to these additional certifications and block the sale of commercial aircraft, which is a key element of the deal. In a break from reason and logic, this legislation plays directly into the hands of the President, who is desperate to find any pretext to say that Iran is in violation of the deal or to force Iran to walk away, and thereby, avoid having to take the blame for pulling the plug on the deal. But let me be clear. By seeking to render impermissible that which is expressly permitted by the JCPOA, the legislation is clearly intended to undermine the nuclear agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Maine to respond to that description of what this bill is all about.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us now, H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, represents what the Republican majority has become very good at doing, advancing bad public policy while claiming to advance the public interest. H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the estimated total assets under direct or indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are employed, regardless of whether such individuals are subject to U.S. sanctions. Although increasing transparency into corrupt regimes is a laudable goal, H.R. 1638 works counter not only to its own stated objectives, but also U.S. national security interests. First, the level of scrutiny that would be needed to produce a credible report would place a very real strain on the Treasury Department, diverting significant resources away from Treasury investigators who are tasked with targeting conduct that is actually sanctionable; implementing existing U.S. sanction programs; and uncovering illicit conduct across the globe, including, importantly, efforts to identify the web of business interests that continue to enable North Korea to evade U.S. and international sanctions. In addition to diverting scarce and critical resources, the bill's required report will have little use as a compliance tool, given that the most important parts would be classified, undercutting the legislation's own stated objective to help make financial institutions' required compliance with remaining sanctions more easily understood. In fact, the creation of such a list, which would not be tied to any prohibition or legal action, would more than likely create confusion among the Office of Foreign Assets Control's regulated public and also mislead companies to believe that the Treasury list replaces the due diligence efforts that they should otherwise be doing prior to engaging in business in Iran. Moreover, because the report would be largely classified, the bill would do little to draw the Iranian public's attention to the corruption and unjust enrichment of their leaders, which is another stated purpose of the bill. In fact, any classified portion would inevitably be rejected by both the Iran regime and its people as U.S. propaganda, and a predictable attack on the country's government by the United States. The true purpose of this legislation is to create reputational risk for companies that might seek to do legitimate business with Iran. For this reason, the bill would be a strategic mistake, as its report would undoubtedly be seized upon by Iran as an intentional effort to discourage international investment in Iran, which would be viewed by Iran and likely by the major world powers who joined us in the JCPOA as well as a violation of the expressed U.S. commitment under the nuclear deal not to interfere with the full realization of the relief provided to Iran under the accord. When a nearly identical version of this bill was considered last Congress, the Obama White House threatened to veto the bill, stating that it would, ``endanger our ability to ensure Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.'' Moreover, the Obama administration cautioned that the report called for in the bill would also compromise critical intelligence sources and methods. On that score, I would also note that the reporting requirement in the legislation calls for information about how sanctions evasion and illicit conduct is practiced, and potential countermeasures. It seems far from prudent to give tips to our adversaries about how we learn about their misconduct and how we plan to respond. This legislation would have very limited practical utility, despite the huge diversion of resources it would take to produce. It also fails to meet its own stated objectives, including serving any usefulness as a compliance tool. Finally, the measure would also likely have a negative impact on the continued viability of the nuclear deal, which is clearly a central objective. I am hard-pressed to think of a single piece of legislation that works so strongly against every single policy goal it claims to advance. Few issues are more important to global peace and security than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This bill would do nothing to advance that goal. In fact, if enacted, it could do grave damage to the important progress that has been made. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Reclaiming my time, I thank you for wanting to talk about something else, but I yielded to you to see if you could help me with information about what was stated that the gentleman who spoke before you said that this bill had nothing to do with the agreement.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this bill not because we are not concerned about the security of our country and security of our allies in the Middle East. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle don't care any more than we care, but we respect when our leadership and our country gets involved and negotiates with another country, such as they have done with Iran, and they come to some agreements. We would like our country to live up to the agreement. When we have included in that agreement a description of the monitoring that will be done, and when that monitoring is being carried out, and when it is represented to us by those that we have in charge of that monitoring that that country, Iran, is in compliance, we believe them. And when we trust our negotiators, when we trust our country, when we trust our leadership, and Iran is in compliance, there is no reason to try and undo the deal. There is no reason to come behind the agreement and what has been negotiated and begin to think of ways that they believe we ought to expand that agreement. We could, in the Congress of the United States, come up with a new idea every day. With all of the Members of this House, with all of the different thoughts and, possibly, ideas, and everybody thinking they are smarter than everybody else, we could come up with all kinds of plans to interfere with that agreement. But I would advise the Members of this House and the Members on the opposite side of the aisle that they do not need to do this. This is a bad idea. I would advise them to put faith in the negotiations that have gone on and to accept the representations about compliance that we are being given. We are being assured that not only is the monitoring taking place, but Iran is in compliance. So, again, I am so worried about our role in this country today and the fact that our leadership is being diminished day by day because of the way that our President and the White House is handling our relationships with other countries. As a matter of fact, we see a President that is endangering us and destroying relationships constantly. I mention that we have in this deal Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. I asked the question: What are our allies in this agreement saying about our attempts to interfere with the agreement? Do they agree with them? Are they consulted? Are they unhappy about what is being done? I suppose they could do the same in their countries every day. They could come up with new ways to interfere with the agreement. They could begin to ask questions about us and why we are doing what we are doing. They could even ask questions about why are we concerned about the assets of those who are not sanctionable when we are not concerned about the assets of our own President. Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Poliquin's bill. He wants to know about the assets of leaders in Iran. Has he seen his President's tax returns? Does he know about his assets? Does he know about where they have come from? Does he know about how they are utilized? I don't think so. So I think it is very, very important for us to do everything that we can to have our allies trust us, to live up to the deals that we make, not to ask more of others than we are willing to do ourselves, no. We are not sponsors of terrorism. We are a people who have always tried to avoid war. Unfortunately, we have engaged in it, and we know that it is not the best answer to trying to deal with the problems that we encounter around the world. I do believe that we honestly try to avoid war and that we work for peace. This is working for peace, and peace in the Middle East is one of the most important goals that we should have. I see the opportunities for that eroding every day. So I would ask Mr. Poliquin to think about what he is doing. I believe that his intentions are good, but I think it is a bad bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is not needed. I think it creates problems with our allies, and they begin to wonder whether or not they can trust us. We are an honorable people and we are leaders in the world, even though it is being questioned more and more. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who is my friend.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Is the gentleman prepared to respond to the question that I have raised? If you are going to talk about what this bill has to do with the agreement, when the gentleman said it has nothing to do with the agreement, then I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Reclaiming my time, we know that there are individuals who are sanctionable in the deal. What I thought you were attempting to do is to expand that and to identify more leaders and try and understand where the assets come from, what they use them for, whether or not they are involved in money laundering. But the gentleman said it had nothing to do with the deal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I would like the author of this bill, Mr. Poliquin, and perhaps the chairman of our committee, Mr. Hensarling, to answer the question that I am about to propose, and that is this: We have allies with us in this agreement. This is an agreement that was worked on for a long time. We have Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. What are our allies saying about our attempt to interfere with the agreement? What are they saying about whether or not we can be trusted to live up to the commitments that we have made? What are they saying about our attempts to add to, lengthen, and create new, really, what have become obstacles to peace? I would ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, as they talk about targeting certain leaders--I don't know what leaders they are talking about--and wanting to know about their assets and where their assets came from and how they are being used, I ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle: Are you willing to do that for certain leaders in our own country? I just heard from one of the speakers, I believe it was Mr. Royce from California, who identified the worth of one of the supposed leaders. It seems to me that it did not nearly match the worth of many of those who are in our Cabinet and who are in higher places in our government. And I wonder what we are trying to do. First, answer the question, if you will, about what our allies are saying. And secondly, answer the question about disclosure as it relates to those at the highest office in our country and those who are serving in the Cabinet. Also, when you talk about money laundering, answer the question about the relationship between the leader of this country and Deutsche Bank, that is known as a money laundering bank, that is involved with the President of the United States. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information that is being shared by my colleague, Mr. Poliquin. I am going to yield more time to him to explain to me: The missiles that he is describing in Iran, that are not a part of the deal, of the plan, are they similar to the missiles that are being fired with nuclear warheads from North Korea.