[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4957-H4964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM PROTECTION ACT OF 2016
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 819, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4992) to codify regulations relating to transfers of
funds involving Iran, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution
819, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4992
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 ``United States Financial
System Protection Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS, SENSE OF CONGRESS, AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On November 8, 2011, the Department of the Treasury
identified the Islamic Republic of Iran as a jurisdiction of
primary money laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A of
title 31, United States Code, including Iran's Central Bank,
private Iranian banks, branches, and subsidiaries of Iranian
banks operating outside of Iran as posing illicit finance
risks for the global financial system.
(2) On November 6, 2008, the Department of the Treasury
announced that it was revoking the ``U-turn'' license for
Iran, stating that ``as a member of the Financial Action Task
Force (FATF), the United States today fulfilled its
obligation to strengthen measures to protect the financial
sector from the risks posed to the international financial
system by Iran''.
(3) On February 19, 2016, the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF), the global standard setting body for anti-money
laundering and combating the financing of terrorism which has
determined that Iran is a ``non-cooperating country or
territory'' in the fight against money laundering and terror
financing since 2008, stated that, ``the FATF remains
particularly and exceptionally concerned about Iran's failure
to address the risk of terrorist financing and the serious
threat this poses to the integrity of the international
financial system''.
(4) United States and foreign businesses operating or
seeking to operate in Iran run significant risks, as
corruption in Iran is endemic, with Transparency
International ranking Iran 130 out of 168 countries.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the entire financial sector of Iran, including Iran's Central
Bank, private Iranian banks and branches, and subsidiaries of
Iranian banks operating outside of Iran, poses illicit
finance risks for the global financial system due to its
proliferation, support for terrorism, and other illicit
conduct.
(c) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to--
(1) deny Iran access to funds denominated in United States
dollars, including through any offshore United States dollar
clearing system for transactions involving the Government of
Iran or an Iranian person; and
(2) deny Iran access to United States dollars through any
offshore United States dollar clearing system conducted or
overseen by a foreign government or a foreign financial
institution for transactions involving the Government of Iran
or an Iranian person.
SEC. 3. CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF
FUNDS INVOLVING IRAN; CLARIFICATION OF
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS TO FOREIGN
DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS AND FOREIGN REGISTERED
BROKERS AND DEALERS.
(a) Codification of Regulations.--Section 560.516 of title
31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1,
2016, shall apply with respect to transfers of funds to or
from Iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of an
Iranian person or the Government of Iran, for the period
beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and ending on the date
on which the President makes the certification to the
appropriate congressional committees under section 401(a) of
the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8551(a)).
(b) Clarification of Application of Regulations to Foreign
Financial Institutions and Foreign Registered Brokers and
Dealers.--
(1) Foreign financial institutions.--Subsection (a) of
section 560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on January 1, 2016, shall apply with respect to
foreign financial institutions to the same extent and in the
same manner as such subsection applies with respect to United
States depository institutions if the funds that are to be
transferred as described in such subsection are funds that
are denominated in United States dollars.
(2) Foreign registered brokers and dealers.--Subsection (b)
of section 560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations,
as in effect on January 1, 2016, shall apply with respect to
foreign registered brokers or dealers in securities to the
same extent and in the same manner as such subsection applies
with respect to United States registered brokers or dealers
in securities if the funds that are to be transferred as
described in such subsection are funds that are denominated
in United States dollars.
[[Page H4958]]
(3) Suspension.--The President may suspend the application
of paragraph (1) with respect to a foreign financial
institution or the application of paragraph (2) with respect
to a foreign registered broker or dealer in securities for a
period not to exceed 60 days, and the President may renew the
suspension of the application of paragraph (1) or paragraph
(2), respectively, for additional periods of not more than 60
days, on and after the date on which the President certifies
to the appropriate congressional committees that during the
preceding 60-day period the Government of Iran is in
compliance with the criteria described in section 401(a)(1)
of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8551(a)(1)).
(c) Licensing Restrictions.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
President may not issue any license under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or
provide other guidance, including executive actions, rules,
regulations, frequently asked questions, written
communications, or any other commitments, that permits--
(A) a United States depository institution or United States
registered broker or dealer in securities--
(i) to conduct an offshore United States dollar clearing
system for transactions involving or for the benefit of the
Government of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process
transfers of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on
January 1, 2016; or
(ii) to provide United States dollars for any offshore
United States dollar clearing system conducted or overseen by
a foreign government or a foreign financial institution for
transactions involving or for the benefit of the Government
of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process transfers
of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016;
or
(B) a foreign financial institution or foreign registered
broker or dealer in securities--
(i) to conduct an offshore United States dollar clearing
system for transactions involving or for the benefit of the
Government of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process
transfers of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on
January 1, 2016, and as applied under subsection (b); or
(ii) to provide United States dollars for any offshore
United States dollar clearing system conducted or overseen by
a foreign government or a foreign financial institution for
transactions involving or for the benefit of the Government
of Iran or an Iranian person, including to process transfers
of funds to or from Iran under section 560.516 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016,
and as applied under subsection (b).
(2) Exception for humanitarian purposes.--The President
may, on a case-by-case basis, issue a license described in
paragraph (1) to authorize the activities described in clause
(i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) or the activities described
in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(B) if--
(A) such activities relate solely to--
(i) the provision of agricultural commodities, food,
medicine, or medical devices to Iran; or
(ii) the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people
of Iran; and
(B) the President submits to the appropriate congressional
committees a copy of the license.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
(2) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign
financial institution'' has the meaning given such term in
section 1010.605 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on January 1, 2016.
(3) Iran.--The term ``Iran'' has the meaning given the term
in section 561.329 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations,
as in effect on January 1, 2016.
(4) Iranian person.--The term ``Iranian person'' means a
person or entity (as such terms are defined in section
560.305 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on January 1, 2016) that--
(A) is organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction
within Iran (including foreign branches); or
(B) is a person in Iran.
(5) Transfer of funds.--The term ``transfer of funds''--
(A) has the meaning given the term ``funds transfer'' in
section 1010.100 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on January 1, 2016; and
(B) includes a transfer of funds or other property for the
benefit of an Iranian financial institution that is made
between accounts of the same financial institution even if
that Iranian financial institution is not the direct
recipient of the transfer.
(6) United states depository institution.--The term
``United States depository institution'' has the meaning
given such term in section 560.319 of title 31, Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016.
(7) United states registered broker or dealer in
securities.--The term ``United States registered broker or
dealers in securities'' has the meaning given such term in
section 560.321 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on January 1, 2016.
SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DESIGNATION
OF IRAN AS A JURISDICTION OF PRIMARY MONEY
LAUNDERING CONCERN.
(a) In General.--The President may not rescind a
preliminary draft rule or final rule (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act) that provides
for the designation of Iran as a jurisdiction of primary
money laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A of title
31, United States Code, unless the President submits to the
appropriate congressional committees a certification
described in subsection (b) with respect to Iran.
(b) Certification.--The President may rescind a preliminary
draft rule or final rule described in subsection (a) if the
President submits to the appropriate congressional committees
a certification that the Government of Iran is no longer
engaged in support for terrorism, pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, and any illicit and deceptive financial
activities.
(c) Form.--The certification described in subsection (b)
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a
classified annex.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
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.
[[Page H4959]]
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.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans have made it a top priority to
bypass regular order and rush a number of measures to the floor as part
of their reckless and politically driven Iran week agenda that would
put the United States in breach of our commitments under the Iran
nuclear deal.
Concluded a year ago, the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, will prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear bomb for the foreseeable future. The agreement
imposed tough restrictions on and heavy monitoring of Iran's nuclear
program in exchange for nuclear-related sanctions relief. To date, Iran
has upheld its end of the deal, and I believe we have a responsibility
to uphold our commitments as well.
The bill before us today, H.R. 4992, is just one of the measures
under consideration this week that is aimed squarely at prohibiting
Iran from experiencing the sanctions relief promised under the
agreement that is the JCPOA.
As part of the Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. committed to lift
secondary sanctions to allow Iran to conduct banking transactions
outside of the United States in return for Iran meeting its nuclear-
related commitments, which was verified by the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
H.R. 4992, this bill, would put the United States in direct violation
of the JCPOA by reapplying these secondary sanctions that had been
lifted as part of the agreement. Moreover, the bill would undermine the
good faith commitment made by all parties under the JCPOA to uphold the
letter, the spirit, and intent of the agreement, and to refrain from
action that would undermine its successful implementation. By denying
the relief we committed to provide under the deal, we throw the
continued viability of the JCPOA into question, thereby abandoning the
best chance we have at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
In addition to violating our commitments under the JCPOA, this bill
does nothing to provide additional protection for the United States
financial system. The bill's proponents ignore the fact that our
primary embargo on Iran remains in effect and that the administration
is already taking robust measures to protect the United States
financial system from access by Iran.
To the extent this bill is motivated by rumors that the
administration is preparing to grant Iran new access to the U.S.
financial system beyond the scope of JCPOA, I would point out that the
administration has said that these rumors are entirely unfounded. The
administration has also made clear that it has no intention of
reinstating the U-turn authorization, which permits foreign firms to
use the U.S. as a pass-through for facilitating transactions with Iran,
or give Iran access to the United States financial system.
The President has officially stated that he will veto this bill and
any other legislation that prevents the successful implementation of
the Iran nuclear deal.
We must ask ourselves, if we undermine this deal that we made, what
comes next, more sanctions?
It is important to remember that the harsh nuclear-related sanctions
that were previously in place did not prevent Iran from continuing to
pursue a nuclear capability. A United States-led attack on Iran--I
sincerely hope that we would work diligently to avoid this option.
Lastly, I am opposed to this bill being brought directly to the floor
without going through regular order. We did not hold a hearing. We did
not hold a markup in the Financial Services Committee on this
legislation, denying Members the opportunity to fully consider its
implications.
We cannot renege on our commitment to uphold the JCPOA, a significant
effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Violating the
agreement would not only undermine U.S. national security, but also our
ability to lead on any international negotiations aimed at peace in the
future. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4992.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4992. I appreciate my good friend, Chairman Royce, of the Foreign
Affairs Committee. We also serve on this Financial Services Committee.
It was my subcommittee that granted the partial waiver to allow this
legislation to come directly to the floor; and because I think that
this is so important, that is why it is here on the floor today.
Under the Obama administration's flawed nuclear deal, the JCPOA, or
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran has received significant
sanctions relief so far. Because of this dangerous deal, the Obama
administration left the door wide open for Iran's Supreme Leader to
demand access to the dollar.
This is the same country that the State Department dubbed ``the
world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.''
This is the same country that the Treasury Department has labeled ``a
jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern'' thanks to its
support for terrorism and the use of its banks to facilitate nuclear
and ballistic missile initiatives.
Last summer, Treasury Secretary Lew testified that ``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.'' I agree. They
should not. I am thrilled to hear Secretary Lew make that statement.
He also then made it perfectly clear with another quote. ``Iran, in
other words, will continue to be denied access to the world's largest
financial and commercial market.'' Yet we just hear that this is a
breach of the JCPOA as has just been asserted. If so, then Secretary
Lew's own words would indicate a breach before it was even enacted and
before it began.
So which is it? They either really don't want to codify this because
they plan on trying to offer this or allow Iran to do it, or, for some
other strange reason, they think that these words alone cover it. Well,
they don't because it is not legally binding.
In fact, the President, the POTUS, the President of the United
States, himself, has said that Iran has violated the spirit of the
agreement already.
Just last week, we had testimony in my subcommittee, where we were
doing a hearing, that Germany, in Germany, the German intelligence
services--Angela Merkel talked about this in the Bundestag--that they
have indications that Iran has continued to pursue nuclear capabilities
in Germany itself.
So it is a very simple, yet a very important, piece of legislation
that would codify the existing Treasury regulations that prohibit U.S.
depository institutions and registered security brokers or dealers from
processing funds to or from Iran as well as to prohibit any foreign
financial institutions from transferring any funds that are in U.S.
dollars.
[[Page H4960]]
{time} 1145
It has been also stated--I would say ludicrously--that somehow this
bill and others like it are unpatriotic. I think it is the exact
opposite, Mr. Speaker. This bill is necessary to make sure that the
financial standing of the U.S. institutions are protected. I think it
is important that we assert ourselves to make sure that this
administration doesn't go beyond the bounds that it already has, and it
is time to put partisan persuasions aside, work together, and stop
doing business with our enemies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this important bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, America chose to preclude an
Iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy rather than war.
What has happened in the 12 months since that momentous decision was
made?
The Iranians have given up 98 percent of their nuclear material. They
have dismantled thousands of centrifuges, and they filled the core of a
major plutonium reactor with concrete.
Even the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, said:
``The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel's
existence for the foreseeable future and greatly reduced the threat
over the longer term.''
The promoters of these three bills are in a state of denial. They
took every opportunity along the torturous path of negotiations to try
to block, obstruct, and interfere with those negotiations and leave us
with only the choice of war and military action to stop the Iranians
from developing a nuclear weapon. So today, having denied diplomacy for
so long, they are still compelled to deny that diplomacy has worked in
the last year.
What we should be doing today is building on our success, not seeking
to subvert it. Success so far doesn't mean that the Iranians may not
backtrack. We know this is an authoritarian government that commits
many wrongs today. It is certainly not our friend. That is why careful
scrutiny and intensive inspections must continue. I believe that
patient, deliberate diplomacy remains the only course--the best path--
to protect our families.
Now, one of the Republican Members this morning attacked the
agreement and said that it has got us ``walking on eggshells.'' I have
to tell you that even if that is true--and I deny that it is--walking
on eggshells is much, much better for American families than the death
and destruction of unleashing actual military shells. That is the
alternative.
I believe that continuous, intrusive monitoring is the key to keeping
our families safe and avoiding war. We have a lot of people agreeing
with that. Nobel laureates, generals, diplomats, and former legislators
are advising that, through this agreement, all pathways to an Iranian
nuclear weapon have been blocked--so they said in their letter this
week.
I remain hopeful. I am hopeful and optimistic that eventually we will
overcome the extremists in Iran, hopeful that peace will prevail, and
hopeful about this Congress, if nothing else, will not undo this
agreement. Because they have shown such an inability to do any other
work as they today shut down the Congress for the next 53 days, leaving
so many challenges unanswered.
Let's conclude today by rejecting this attempt to deny the most
effective way to protect the security of our families and that of our
allies by letting diplomacy continue to advance.
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. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I
appreciate his work on this important issue. He makes a good point,
which is that this is not so much about the JCPOA, as noted by the
opposition. This is about the fact that our joint agreement that the
Obama administration reached with our allies with Iran is in conflict
in many ways with existing Federal law and Federal practice where we
are still involved in analyzing Iran for its sanction violations.
More importantly, while there is a lot of talk about the 1-year
anniversary of the JCPOA, I want to remind my friends on both sides of
the aisle that 7 years ago, in June, 2009, the people of Iran rose up
against the malicious mullahs of their murderous regime, and their
cries for help fell on deaf ears in the United States. Some 4,000 were
arrested.
What has become of them? What has become of those people? What has
become of their cause?
So I want to remember in June 2009, the impact of this regime in
Iran.
I am proud to support this legislation. I am proud to serve on the
Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing.
Look to the State Department's most recent Country Reports on Iran.
The report states: ``Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism worldwide
remained undiminished through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the
Quds Force, its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran's
ally, Hezbollah.''
In addition to its support for terrorism, the Iranian regime is
corrupt and known to be involved in money laundering, bribery, and
illicit finance around the world--not just the Middle East, but in the
Western Hemisphere. The Treasury has designated the Government of Iran
as a primary money laundering concern since 2011.
International financial bodies, such as the Financial Action Task
Force, have warned Iran's financing of terrorism poses a serious threat
to the international financial system.
So since the Iranian deal, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is
actively providing funding and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, propping up
Shia militias in Iraq, and responsible for deaths of Americans and our
soldiers in Iraq. They continue to hold hostages. They continue to fail
Federal adjudicated claims of 35 years of victims, and they continue to
trade and test ballistic weapons, threatening our allies and our best
interests.
This legislation is not about sinking the nuclear deal. This
legislation is about holding Iran accountable for its terrorist finance
activities and its money laundering activities. There is no reason in
any way, shape, or form that they deserve dollar access.
This legislation is about maintaining the integrity of our country's
financial system and preventing the dollar from being used to support
terrorism around the world. I am pleased to support this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992
precisely because the passage of H.R. 4992, were it to become law--and
I say this as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence--would put me and this Congress and the rest of us in the
United States back in a position of walking on eggshells, if I
[[Page H4961]]
might borrow a phrase used by the Republican majority. It would put me
back in the position of every single week going to the spaces of the
Intelligence Committee and asking the question, What kind of progress
has Iran made this week in their efforts to deliver nuclear weapons,
and then hearing answers that I would not like and nobody in this
Chamber would like.
There is no question and there is no legal opinion of any credibility
that suggests that H.R. 4992 is not a very clear violation of our
obligations under the JCPOA.
The majority has talked a lot about denying access to the U.S.
infrastructure financial system, which the Treasury Secretary has said
we will do. What they are not telling you is that H.R. 4992 would
subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions on U.S. banks regarding
dollar-denominated transactions.
So we would say to a French bank: You cannot undertake a transaction
with a German hotel developer if it were denominated in dollars.
Now, apart from the jurisdictional questions and the damage that
would do to the United States dollar as the global reserve currency, it
is a very clear violation of the JCPOA. There is no legal
interpretation of any credibility that would suggest otherwise.
Now, let me be clear about some things that we all agree on--and I
have a profound amount of respect for Chairman Royce, and we agree on
some things. I have heard a steady stream from the other side of the
truth that Iran is money laundering, that they are sponsoring
terrorism, that they are destabilizing the region, and that they treat
their people terribly. You are 100 percent right on that issue. You
will find no disagreement on this side of the aisle with any of those
allegations. But the fact of the matter is that the Iran nuclear deal,
which is jeopardized by this bill, was a deal that said: In exchange
for stopping your development of nuclear weapons, we will provide you
with access to some of your own money.
That was the deal. The deal did not include: You will stop
destabilizing the region and that you will stop your terrorist
activity.
By the way, I am sorry about that. I would have liked to have seen a
deal that would have brought Iran entirely into the community of
nations, but that was not the deal. By the way, there was a time in
American history when we were a bit more adult in the way we thought
about foreign relations where Ronald Reagan would go to the Soviet
Union--what he called the evil empire--and do an Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces deal that was about nuclear weapons while the Soviet
Union was murderous to their own people, destabilizing the globe, and
threatening us with annihilation. But we said it was worth preserving
the deal and preserving the safety that we had against ballistic
weapons under Ronald Reagan.
Now, we can't disagree on some facts. I heard Chairman Royce say that
tens of billions of dollars are going to the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard. That is simply not true. Secretary Kerry estimated--and he was
referring to actual dollars into the country--that some $3 billion had
come into Iran. So, yes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, sadly, will
benefit in some small way from the sanctions relief. But the figure of
tens of billions of dollars is simply inaccurate. We disagree
fundamentally on the Iran nuclear deal.
The fact of the matter--and I have heard allegations from the other
side to the contrary--is that not the IAEA--not any global bodies--are
suggesting that Iran isn't anything other than in compliance with the
deal. As a consequence, instead of being 2 months away, as we were,
from the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, we are probably 12
months or more away from the development of a nuclear weapon.
Is that perfect?
Of course, it is not. It is speaking as somebody who every week
considers the threats to this country being 12 months away is a heck of
a lot safer than being 2 months away.
I have heard from the other side that this is a flawed deal and that
it jeopardizes U.S. national security and the security of Israel. Let
me quote somebody who knows something about the security of Israel,
Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, Chief of Staff of Israel Defense
Forces. Six months ago he said: ``The deal has actually removed the
most serious danger to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future
and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.''
If it is true for Israel, it is true for the United States. Stand up
for peace, stand up for our international obligations, and oppose H.R.
4992.
{time} 1200
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. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
To my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), look, I know you to be one
of the, actually, smartest people here on these sort of subjects. So I
am going to take a slightly different approach and see if what I am
actually reading in this legislation is a little different than some of
the nature of the conversation here.
The way I am reading this legislation, it functionally says that
U.S.-chartered institutions will not act as the clearers,
clearinghouses, for FX, for dollar-denominated trade.
So, as we walk through those mechanics--if we all remember when we
sat down, both in the isolated area, reading the nuclear agreement,
what was in that agreement that said we are obligated to hand over the
infrastructure of our U.S. financial system, our banking system, our
foreign exchange clearing system, and we have an obligation to provide
that infrastructure that we have built and hand that to the Islamic
Republic of Iran? There is nothing in the agreement that says we have
an obligation to provide our financial infrastructure to help them.
Now, we have already heard Chairman Royce and others walk through all
of the bad acts and how this money is often killing people around the
world and taking their lives and threatening our allies. That may be
the meat of it, but the actual legislation functionally denies the use
of clearing U.S. currency, U.S. dollars from U.S.-chartered
institutions.
My understanding is that, if they wanted to, they could probably go
to the Bank of Singapore and clear their dollars there into gold and
wash money for other bad actors and send it to murderers in Lebanon.
But at least those institutions that we hold dear, that we regulate,
that we talk about here, that our taxpayers guarantee deposits in, why
would we hand Iran our infrastructure to clear their dollars when so
many of their resources are going for bad acts?
I know we keep having this conversation of, ``The nuclear deal is
bad, many of us voted against it,'' others saying, ``Oh, it is a great
achievement, we want to support it.'' Fine. There is nothing in the
agreement that says, great, you now get to use the U.S. infrastructure
to finance yourselves, move money around, and actually ultimately wash
money to do evil in the world.
So if we are going to have this conversation, let's be intellectually
honest
[[Page H4962]]
of what the language in the legislation actually says.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), the ranking member of the
Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing on the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992, the
so-called United States Financial System Protection Act of 2016.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4992 would directly violate our commitments under
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no question about
that. By reimposing the secondary sanctions on Iran's banking sector,
we clearly violate the terms of that JCPOA.
These are not transactions between the U.S. and Iran, but, rather,
these are banking transactions that occur outside the U.S. financial
system. These sanctions were lifted on implementation day, according to
the agreement, but only after we put International Atomic Energy Agency
inspectors in place in Iran, on the ground, to verify Iran's compliance
with the deal.
That verification and reporting occurs on a monthly basis. The last
report we have from the IAEA, who are on the ground in Iran, is that
they are, indeed, in full compliance with the terms of the JCPOA which
addressed their nuclear program.
Critics of the JCPOA will tell you that this bill is needed to ensure
that Iran does not gain access to the U.S. financial system. Yet the
administration has made clear that we are not going to reinstate the U-
turn authorization or grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.
And, during the JCPOA talks, the U.S. stood firm that our sanctions
against Iran's weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations,
and support for terrorism were not on the table. They were not part of
that agreement. And our primary trade embargo on Iran, with certain
limited exceptions, is still in place.
Now, critics of the JCPOA will also tell you that the license that
has been granted to Boeing to sell civilian passenger aircraft to Iran
is really a subterfuge and that Iran is going to use these commercial
jetliners to transport weapons or personnel in a military capacity.
They ignore the fact that Iran already has military combat aircraft
that they purchased from Russia. So there is no need for Iran to buy
Airbus aircraft from the EU or Boeing aircraft from the United States
in order to fund their military, their air force. So that is clearly
not something that they are trying to do. Like I said, they could buy
directly from the Russian Government, as they have done in the past and
they continue to do, combat aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that exactly 1 year after the U.S. and the
P5+1 announced the landmark JCPOA that Congress is voting to undermine
it. The bills on the floor this week are an attempt to undermine that
by opponents of this deal and have another bite of the apple and try to
bring down the agreement.
I would like to remind my fellow Members that we have debated this
already and the House and Senate failed to pass a joint resolution of
disapproval. That deal is done. And, so far, even according to high-
level Israeli officials, Iran remains in compliance with that
agreement.
We should focus instead on ensuring that this is fully implemented
and that our inspectors have a full and fair opportunity to maintain
that Iran is indeed in compliance.
The global community, as a result of this agreement, will be in a
better position to know and to respond sooner and with the benefit of
having vast, detailed intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. We
are there, we are on the ground like never before.
Iran has removed over two-thirds of its centrifuges and placed them
under international supervision. That is a cut of nearly 14,000. It
stopped enriching uranium and removed nuclear material from Fordow, one
of its major facilities. It has cut its fissile material stockpile by
98 percent, from 12,000 kilograms to less than 300 kilograms of only
non-weapons-grade material. The heavy water reactor at Arak has been
rendered unusable for nuclear purposes. Finally, the JCPOA has
verifiably delayed any possible path Iran may have to a nuclear weapon.
Enacting this bill, H.R. 4992, or any of these anti-Iran-nuclear-deal
bills would give Iran's hardliners the very excuse that they want to
rip up the JCPOA, kick out the IAEA inspectors on the agreement, and
race toward getting a nuclear bomb.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rigell). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional
30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Mr. LYNCH. If we do sabotage this deal, will we be able to count on
the backup from the global community to bring Iran back into line? It
is a risk I believe is dangerous and, in this case, unnecessary.
I urge my fellow Members to defeat H.R. 4992.
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. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for bringing this
important legislation.
The American public stands with you, Chairman, and there are multiple
reasons why the American public will stand with all of this Congress
that will vote for this bill.
For one, the American public has an issue with financing Iranian
terror through U.S. financial infrastructure. The American public has
had an enormous issue with a lot of specifics related to the Iran
nuclear agreement. It is not really much of an agreement. It is an
unsigned political commitment.
There are material differences with regard to the agreement. The U.S.
said, We are going to be able to access military sites. The Iranians
said, Before, during, and after the negotiation, you will never be able
to access our military sites. We said, Sanctions relief will be phased
in over the course of time based on compliance. The Iranians say, No,
sanctions relief will be immediate, no suspension. These are pretty
important parts of the agreement.
Well, let's talk about some other parts that weren't part of the
agreement, they weren't able to agree to. So they put into a secretive
deal between the Iranians and an entity that we have no ability to
actually be on an inspections team because, as the AP reports, the
IAEA's agreement with the U.S.--these so-called deals where the
verification is outlined. The Iranians, in some cases, are inspecting
their own nuclear sites. In other cases, they are responsible for
collecting some of their own soil samples.
That is why the American public stands with everyone who votes for
this legislation, because of all the unilateral concessions that have
been made since this agreement has been made. This isn't the only one.
Buying heavy water for no reason. While this President is holding the
heavy water of the Iranians, those who vote for this bill, who have
opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, they are holding the heavy water of
American security for their $1.7 billion payment that was made after
this deal was reached: a $400 million debt, plus $1.3 billion of
interest.
Or our detained soldiers, who were embarrassed through photography
and videography. And we are saying thank you for releasing our sailors?
The American public was outraged. Using our sailors as propaganda to
make yourself look strong and the rest of us look weak.
Or maybe it is giving the Iranians access to U.S. financial
institutions.
We are being laughed at. The Iranians will take to the street and
they will chant ``Death to America,'' they will continue their illegal
test firing of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and they will
detain Americans unjustly.
They know that we didn't even ask for a signature. Think about it. Of
all the agreements we enter into in life--buying a car or buying a
home--we couldn't even ask for a signature.
The American public is upset.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from New York (Mr. Zeldin),
perhaps we didn't get a signature, but we got compliance from Iran on
their obligations to stop their production of nuclear weapons.
[[Page H4963]]
{time} 1215
I want to take the rest of my time to hopefully clear up a factual
matter.
I have profound respect for Chairman Royce, and Congressman
Schweikert is one of my closest friends in this Chamber. We seem to
have a disagreement as to whether this would jeopardize the JCPOA. This
bill would subject non-U.S. banks to the same restrictions that are put
on U.S. banks regarding dollar-denominated securities. I would point
to, in the JCPOA, annex II, which lists the sanctions to be lifted
under the JCPOA, 4.1.3, which lifts sanctions on the provision of U.S.
bank notes.
This would clearly violate our obligations under the JCPOA, and I
would hope that my friends in the majority would acknowledge that fact
as they push this bill. I continue to urge its rejection.
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. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4992, the
United States Financial System Protection Act; and I thank Chairman
Royce for offering the legislation today and for his tremendous
leadership on this issue.
Allowing Iran access to the U.S. dollar would mark an unprecedented
concession to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has
taken virtually no tangible actions to suggest that it is serious about
dismantling its nuclear program or ending its decades-long ties to
terrorism. Why should Iran be rewarded with coveted access to our
currency?
Last week, I offered an amendment to the Financial Services
Appropriations Act that would make sure that the U.S. Treasury
officials who might be attempting to act on this matter would not be
permitted to do so--to change statutory law. This would go not only to
this administration, but to future administrations as well. My
amendment passed by a voice vote, and today's legislation and the
previous bills go further in adding new sanctions to stop the
administration's purchase of heavy water from Iran and to prevent any
additional steps to appease Iran.
This goes to the heart of the agreement, which was voted down in this
House. It was never voted on in the other House because of cloture. Let
us make sure that Iran is held accountable. Iran has done nothing to
earn our trust. Let's not give away critical language in this regard. I
urge a strong ``yes'' vote on Chairman Royce's legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
You have heard very clearly from this side of the aisle as to why it
is so important for us to be true to our commitments that were made
under the agreement. You have heard very clearly what this bill is all
about.
Part of that agreement which is being denied by the opposite side of
the aisle has to do with non-U.S. financial institutions. We maintain
our sanctions as they relate to the United States financial
institutions. Our institutions are not in any way violating those
sanctions, and we do not allow our financial institutions to do
business with Iran; but we do support non-U.S. financial institutions'
ability to do business with Iran.
What is this bill all about?
We keep hearing about rumors. We keep hearing about suspicions. We
keep hearing about what we think they may do. We keep hearing about
what someone else said they are going to do. The fact of the matter is
this agreement is extremely clear. They--that is the Iranians--have not
violated this agreement at all. As a matter of fact, there is something
in the agreement called dispute resolution. If you believe that they
have violated the agreement in some way, why don't you insist on a
dispute resolution to deal with the issue? But you cannot do that. You
cannot point to anything that the Iranians have done that is in
disagreement with the agreement that has been made.
Why are you coming to the floor of the House of Representatives 1 day
before we are to take a break and putting this bill and other bills on
the floor? Is this politically motivated? What are you trying to do?
Who are you trying to send a message to?
Instead of using your power and your ability to deal with this
agreement in an honest and credible way, what you should be doing is
supporting the President of the United States of America and respecting
this country and our commitments.
We have five other countries in this deal. What happens if we renege
on our agreements? What are they to think of us? What do you think
about your country? Why would you have the President of the United
States on the international stage looking as if the rug has been pulled
out from under him by his own legislators? I don't get it. I do not
understand it.
As a matter of fact, one of the things we should all be very clear
about is our support for Israel. That side of the aisle does not
support our relationship and our friendship any more than we do. If
that is the message you are trying to send, it doesn't work. It doesn't
hold water. As a matter of fact, any Member of Congress who looks at
this agreement, who reads the agreement, who understands the agreement
knows that you don't have any issues with what is happening in our
financial system. You have not been able, in this debate, to talk about
the fact that U.S. financial systems are not involved in any way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to
the Chair.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will address these
remarks to you so they can hear them, and that is that they have not
been able to identify in this debate how the United States financial
institutions are involved in any shape, form, or fashion in doing
business with Iran. They have not been able, in the debate, to indicate
that, somehow, we have not agreed that non-U.S. financial institutions
can be involved in financial deals with Iran.
I am simply asking that they deal with the facts. I am simply asking
them not to undermine the agreement that we have made. I am simply
asking them to admit that Iran has in no way violated this agreement. I
am asking them to simply support this country and this President and to
make sure that we don't separate ourselves from the other five
countries that we have a deal with. I am asking them not to put us in
the position in which the other five countries say: ``We cannot trust
America. We cannot trust America because they are reneging on the
deal.''
We have done a tremendous service not only to Israel but to the
United States in working out this deal to ensure that Iran does not
continue to develop its nuclear capability. Why did we do that? It is
because we are on the path toward peace and not war. We do not want
Iran to attack Israel, and we do not want Israel to attack Iran. We do
not want the United States to be thrown into this war--a war that could
be created by either of them--because we believe that we can provide
credible leadership for peace. That is what this is all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
In closing, I would just like to say that we are all in agreement
that Iran should not be a nuclear state, which would pose a direct
threat to both the United States and international security.
The Iran nuclear deal is the best option we have for keeping nuclear
weapons out of the Iranian Government's hands. It would be reckless to
abandon our commitments under the deal which deny Iran a credible
opportunity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material for use in a bomb
for at least a generation. To date, Iran, again, has upheld its end of
the deal, and we have a responsibility to do the same.
The President's Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4992 and
the other harmful Iran-related bills on the floor this week state that
undermining the JCPOA would ``remove the unprecedented constraints on
and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the
international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating
blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to
our closest allies.''
H.R. 4992 is being framed as protecting the U.S. financial system;
yet
[[Page H4964]]
our financial system is already protected by our primary sanctions on
Iran. In other words, this bill does nothing to protect the U.S.
financial system or to promote our national security. In fact, it does
the opposite.
We have said all of this, which I have just reiterated, but let me
make my final and closing statement.
Why are you wasting your time? Even if, by some stroke of magic, you
could get this through the Senate and send it to the President of the
United States, he is going to veto it. They know it. Everyone knows it.
Why are we doing this?
I yield back the balance of my time.
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?
{time} 1230
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 819, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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 the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________