[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 144 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5818-H5822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5931, PROHIBITING FUTURE RANSOM
PAYMENTS TO IRAN ACT, AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE
XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM
THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 879
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5931) to provide for the prohibition on cash
payments to the Government of Iran, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-64. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of September 27, 2016, relating to a measure
making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2017.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Alabama is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 879 allows for the
consideration of H.R. 5931, the Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to
Iran Act. The rule makes in order all five amendments submitted to the
Rules Committee. The rule also provides authority for the House to
expeditiously consider a continuing resolution.
On June 24, 2015, President Obama stood in the Roosevelt Room of the
White House and said: ``I am reaffirming that the United States
Government will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to
terrorist groups holding American hostages.''
This position shouldn't have been surprising. It has long been the
position of the U.S. Government to not pay ransoms to terrorist
organizations, for doing so only encourages further kidnappings and
puts more American lives at risk.
Despite this reassurance from President Obama, on January 17, 2016,
an unmarked cargo plane landed at a European airport. On this plane
were wooden pallets stacked with unmarked foreign currency--$400
million worth, to be exact.
Who was waiting at the airport to accept this money? The Islamic
Republic of Iran.
On that exact same day, several Americans who had been held prisoner
in Iran were released. That, Mr. Speaker, is a ransom payment.
Since then, we have learned that the full U.S. payment to Iran
totaled $1.7 billion. The money was related to a decades-old dispute
about an Iranian arms sale. There are a lot of concerning issues at
play here.
First, by giving money to Iran, the United States is supporting the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran uses their money and
resources to support groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other radical
terrorist groups in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Iran is no friend
of the United States, and their efforts have resulted in the deaths of
U.S. citizens and servicemembers. So why in the world is the United
States sending them cash payments in the first place?
Second, the United States should never pay a ransom. I know they
claim
[[Page H5819]]
that the $1.7 billion payment was a ``settlement,'' but let's get real
here for a minute. The payment was made on the exact same day the
Americans were released.
Let's look in the dictionary for just a moment. ``Ransom'' is defined
as ``a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release
of a prisoner.'' That is exactly what happened here.
Iran knows it was a ransom payment. An Iranian general was quoted as
saying that, ``the money was returned for the freedom of the U.S. spy,
and it was not related to the nuclear negotiations.''
So Iran knows it was a ransom. The American people know it was a
ransom. Well, how about the State Department? When pushed on this topic
by the media, a State Department spokesman said that it wasn't ransom
but, rather, ``leverage.'' What is the difference? The American
prisoners in Iran were not released until the cash payments occurred.
You could try to hide the truth by calling it ``leverage'' or a
``coincidence,'' but the fact is this payment was a ransom.
Just ask the Obama Justice Department. Press reports indicate that
Assistant Attorney General John Carlin raised the concern that the cash
payment to Iran would send a signal to Iran and the world that the U.S.
had changed its ransom policy. This isn't some radical conspiracy
theory we are talking about here. This is the exact same concern raised
by the Justice Department under President Obama--the people he
appointed.
Since this ransom payment occurred, Iran has detained several more
foreign citizens, including Americans, French, British, and Canadians.
Sadly, I expect our Iranian friends are already making their ransom
demands.
The third major concern I have is that the payments were clearly done
in a way to hide them from the American public. The payments were made
in cash. According to an international body responsible for combating
money laundering, known as the Financial Action Task Force, the
``physical transportation of currency'' is ``one of the main methods
used to move criminal assets, launder money, and finance terrorism.''
If this whole ordeal was public and on the up-and-up, then why did
the U.S. make this payment in cash?
The Obama administration originally said that the payment had to be
in cash because financial sanctions prevent us from engaging in wire
transfers with Iranian banks. Well, it turns out that isn't true. In
fact, on at least two occasions, the U.S. has made wire transfers to
the Iranian Government.
According to Politico, in July 2015, the U.S. sent Iran approximately
$848,000 to settle a claim over architectural drawings. The wire
transfers didn't stop there though. The U.S. wired Iran almost $10
million in April of this year to pay for 32 metric tons of heavy water.
Here is another issue with the cash payments. Iran has a track record
of money laundering, and making cash payments will result in it being
even harder to track their illicit activity. Cash does not have an
electronic signature, so the money could eventually become untraceable.
This will make it almost impossible for law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to track where the money is going. In other
words, the cash could be transferred to a group like Hamas or Hezbollah
and the United States may never know. This is deeply troubling.
So, Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes one thing crystal clear. The
United States Government is not in the business of paying ransom.
Specific to Iran, the legislation will prohibit future cash payments to
Iran until the nation stops sponsoring terrorism and is no longer
involved in money laundering.
To boost transparency and accountability, the legislation also
requires 30-day congressional notification and review of any future
settlements related to the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal. This way Congress
will have an opportunity to review any future payments instead of them
being secretly executed in the dark of night.
Ultimately, the United States cannot continue to give in to Iran.
Whether it is their nuclear program or their kidnapping of U.S.
citizens, we simply cannot keep making deals with Iran in which the
Ayatollah benefits and the American people suffer.
We need to stop empowering Iran and, instead, start weakening them.
We must stop giving in to Iran and start standing up to Iran. By
putting our foot down, the American people and our allies in the Middle
East will be safer and stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 879, so
we can move forward with consideration of this important bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
I rise today in opposition to the rule.
Let's not parse words. This bill is a Republican attempt to
politicize the recent payment by the United States to the Government of
Iran.
The legislation equates the payment, which was made as part of a
settlement of a 35-year-old dispute before the United States-Iran
Claims Tribunal, as ransom. It prohibits any future payments. And I
might add, Iran has 200 claims before the tribunal at this time, and
all of the American claims have been settled before the same Algiers
Accords tribunal. It prohibits any future payments to the Iranian
Government and requires the President to submit to Congress a report
listing and evaluating outstanding claims before the tribunal.
Mr. Speaker, let's get something straight. The payment to Iran was
not ransom, and anyone who suggests it was is just trying to score some
political points in the limited time we have left in Washington. The
payment was part of a legal settlement to a longstanding 35-year
dispute. It was money owed to the Iranian Government by the American
Government, and the transfer was simply our government meeting its
obligations.
As I indicated earlier, it may surprise those watching at home to
learn that the tribunal has awarded roughly $2.5 billion to American
citizens in the past.
I understand that there are many in Congress concerned by the
loosening of sanctions on Iran. I am one of them. As one of the few
Democrats to publicly oppose the Iran deal, I know that Iran is,
without question, not our friend, a state sponsor of terrorism, and I
don't think you will find anyone in this body who denies this.
But I am concerned by the trend we are seeing with individuals
actively trying to undermine the deal rather than working to ensure it
is made stronger and enact it with intended effect. It is similar to
the actions--I forget the number, up in the sixties--that my Republican
friends have attempted to do something about the Affordable Care Act.
It has problems. The question is what are we going to do about it,
because the American people need to have health care.
{time} 1245
What we would rather do is repeal what exists. Don't replace it with
anything, but make political arguments that it needs to be replaced.
We are doing something very similar here. Rather than making this
Iran deal stronger, we are continuing to do what we can to undermine
it. The bill we are discussing today is a stark example of this and is
an attempt to undermine the deal rather than to strengthen it.
The bill, if enacted, would hamstring us in the future as more than
1,000 Iranian claims before the tribunal have yet to be resolved.
Prohibiting any type of future payment to the Iranian Government--and
sort of as an aside, it is unfortunate, in this world that we live in,
that we have to do business with bad people. I served on the
Intelligence Committee when $2 billion walked off in Iraq, and we still
haven't had accountability about that, but let's don't get too far off
the track. The fact of the matter is, the bill does all of these things
in order to prop up the false premise that the United States paid Iran
ransom. This is just plain wrong, and it is a waste of our time.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as I have often been throughout this
Congress, that partisan measures such as this one are distracting our
attention from measures that we absolutely must pass, including today.
There are just 7 legislative days left until we break for another 44-
day recess, and that is after the Republicans shut down Congress
[[Page H5820]]
for the longest summer recess in modern history. It gives the term
``do-nothing Congress'' a whole new meaning.
Once we recess next week, unless we do something different, we will
leave Washington until after the election. Yet, as of today, despite
considerable bipartisan concern, we haven't gotten a clean Zika
research funding bill, and we haven't gotten a bill on gun violence--
not a word on the subject except to threaten Democrats with punishment
for protesting this body's unconscionable inaction on the subject. We
haven't talked about flood relief for Louisiana. We haven't gotten a
bill on the water crisis in Flint, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) will address that in a few minutes. We are still dealing with
an opioid epidemic. Let me underscore that again. We are dealing with
an opioid epidemic in this country that is killing our children all
over this Nation, and we have not done anything about it.
The appropriations process has come to a complete standstill. That is
why we are out of here tonight. We are going to try to figure out what
we are going to do to discharge our responsibilities that are scheduled
for October 1; so we will be here next week. All of those out there in
Congress who don't know it, we will be here. We will be fiddling
around. We will be doing suspensions. We will be doing one-House
measures until the thing comes together, and it will. We will be
threatened with ``we will keep you here until Saturday, or we will keep
you here until Christmas.'' It goes on and on, kicking the can down the
road.
House Republicans continue to ignore their responsibilities to the
American people and waste time on partisan, go-nowhere bills--just like
the one we have here today--while Americans are forced to face critical
public health emergencies alone. In fact, in each public health crisis
before America, House Republicans have chosen to obstruct the
meaningful action and resources that are needed to save lives.
On the subject of Zika, this month, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention will run out of resources to fight the virus. More than
21,000 Americans have confirmed cases of Zika; yet Republican inaction
has forced the CDC to divert research funding away from other diseases.
They have had to take money out of the Ebola account, and Ebola has not
gone away. They are taking money out of the flu account and out of the
tuberculosis account, and those are not going away at any point in
time. They are taking cancer research money in order to keep its Zika
research program going, which is an immediate crisis. It is not just a
Florida thing or a Central America or a South America thing. There are
22,000 Americans who have this virus, and the Aedes aegypti mosquito is
not the only one that is carrying this virus. This has been researched
since 2009. It didn't just start yesterday, and it is not going to end
tomorrow, but something needs to be done today about this particular
crisis.
I quote CDC Director Tom Frieden. The Republican co-chair of the
Florida delegation and I had a hearing of our Florida delegation, and
Mr. Frieden came to testify before us. He said: ``We are out of money,
and we need Congress to act.''
I am not sure how much more plainly it can be said. We need a clean
bill that provides adequate funding. Let's stop playing games with the
lives of women and infants and of the people in general who have
contracted this virus. It has now shown that it can affect the mental
stability of adults.
Mr. Speaker, we have some serious issues to tackle; so I am dismayed
to be on the floor today focusing on yet another messaging bill. There
will be headlines tomorrow. Members will go back home to their
districts and will talk about ``we stopped Obama and any future
President from paying ransom money.'' It was not ransom in the first
place--it was Iran's money. The prisoners who were released would have
been released. Had we done it a month earlier, I wonder if they would
have called it a ransom. Had we done it a month later, I wonder if they
would have called it a ransom. Yet this messaging bill comes here.
I hope that my colleagues across the aisle, in the final week before
we leave Washington, will let us address just some of the things that I
mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Williams).
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, the Obama administration
admitted to transferring $1.3 billion in cash to Iran after delivering
a $400 million cash payment on the same day that Iran released American
prisoners. The Obama administration tried to walk back its actions by
calling the first cash payment leverage, but the American people,
frankly, know better. The cash payment to Iran was a ransom payment--I
repeat, a ransom payment to Iran--plain and simple.
Let's get one thing straight here: Iran is our enemy. It is not our
friend. Iran is the enemy of our most important allies in the region
and not their friend. Iran's leadership has publicly promised to wipe
out America and to wipe out Israel--right off the map. Those are not
the words of a friend. Iran imprisons American citizens and taunts our
Navy every single day. That is not a friend. Iran is one of only three
nations our Department of State classifies as a ``state sponsor of
terrorism.''
Whether it is the Obama administration's refusal to utter the phrase
``radical Islam'' or the word ``ransom,'' it has tried time and again
to deceive the American people with its policies that have ultimately
made America less safe. As the increasingly popular saying goes: our
friends no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer fear us.
It is time for Congress to step in and block future cash payments to
Iran. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues to
support the Prohibiting Future Payments to Iran Act.
In God we trust.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If this had been ransom, there is a person whom Iran has held
prisoner and about whom Iran has denied a lack of information to the
family--Robert Levinson, who has been in Iran for 9 years. I just can't
imagine that a ransom agreement or the meeting of a demand would not
have included information about Robert Levinson. That would be, in my
considered opinion, the height of ridiculousness; therefore, the
obviousness of leaving Mr. Levinson out of what would be a proposed
ransom strikes me as being strange.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up comprehensive legislation that
provides the resources that are needed to help the families of Flint,
Michigan, recover from the lead drinking water crisis.
Mr. Speaker, the children and families of Flint are facing lifelong
damage as a result of lead exposure. It is long past time that this
Congress acted. We have an opportunity right now to bring up
legislation that would ensure the people of Flint will receive clean
drinking water and to provide health and educational support for the
children who are affected by the crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, a champion, among the champions of people
who are here in Congress, is Dan Kildee. I had the privilege of serving
with his uncle for a substantial portion of my career. I had the
privilege--and I have spoken with Dan about this--to visit with his
uncle before this particular crisis of Flint's and to discuss the
plight of the people in Flint and Pontiac and that general area.
In this particular instance, I hope we don't hear from people that
this isn't germane. This is the Democrats' motion to recommit, and
Republicans who care about the lead exposure that these children and
families have been exposed to in Flint can simply vote for the motion
to recommit, and we will be able to address this subject.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Flint, Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for
yielding and for all of his advocacy on behalf of the people of my
community and, also, of the many forgotten people across the country.
[[Page H5821]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question in order
to bring up a vote to finally help the people of my hometown of Flint,
Michigan.
In 2 days, it will have been 1 year since Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha
released the results of her research that showed that blood levels of
the children in Flint showed significantly elevated levels of lead--
that the water that they had been drinking had poisoned them.
A year later, here we stand. This Congress has not yet acted to
provide any relief to a community that is facing the greatest crisis--
the greatest disaster--of its history. It has been a year since it was
known that that water was too dangerous to drink. Members in this body
have heard me speak about this before. It has been 2 years since,
actually, the water contained lead. It took that long for the
information, finally, to come to light; yet Congress has continuously
failed to act.
We have a way to get this done. I just ask my Republican colleagues
in the House to step out of the way and allow the bipartisan
legislation that has passed the Senate to have a vote so that it may be
included in the legislation that this body is considering. The House
can do so by following the Senate's lead, which passed legislation to
provide relief to Flint by a vote of 95-3. Let me just make this clear:
the United States Senate voted 95-3 to provide support for the people
of Flint--and yet nothing here in this House.
{time} 1300
We have an opportunity with the continuing resolution to include that
language in the continuing resolution and help the people of my
hometown, again, people who yet today cannot drink their water without
fear that it will poison them.
This is a fully paid-for provision. There was always debate about
whether we should be able to spend in case of emergency without having
an offset. In this case, we have an offset. So the argument has to be
that the people of Flint simply don't deserve to have their Federal
Government act in their moment of greatest need. I know from
conversations that I have had with Members on both sides of the aisle
that that cannot be the case.
I have had all sorts of expressions of sympathy. Many Members of
Congress have traveled to Flint, Democrats and Republicans, and have
expressed to me on an almost daily basis that they wish there was
something they could do to help those poor folks. Well, you know what?
Sympathy expresses sentiment, but it doesn't provide clean drinking
water for the people of my hometown. We have a chance to act.
Now, when this came before this body, this Congress, in the form of
hearings in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, many of my Republican colleagues--
virtually every member of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee--spoke up and said what a shame it was that the Federal
Government played a role in the crisis that Flint is facing, that the
Federal Government bore some responsibility.
Now, we can argue about how much responsibility lands at the State. I
think the majority of the responsibility is the State's, but I would
agree that this is failure at every level of government. My Republican
colleagues went so far as to call for a Cabinet member of the President
to resign because the Federal responsibility was so great that a member
of the President's Cabinet should step down because it was the Federal
Government who bore responsibility, in part.
Suddenly, when it is time to actually do something to help the people
of Flint, what do we have? All of a sudden, the narrative changes. All
of a sudden, what was a Federal problem with clear Federal
accountability and responsibility, universally demonstrated by my
friends on the other side of the aisle, when it comes time to take up a
paid-for piece of legislation that will not increase the deficit but
will help these poor folks who cannot drink their water, what do we
get? Shuffling of their feet. Stunned silence. Nothing. Nothing. Shame.
Shame.
What would you do if it was your hometown? What would you do if it
was your community?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, you know what you would do. You would step
to the floor of this House and you would make sure every single day you
fought to get help for your community.
One of the first votes I cast when I came here was to help the
victims of a storm that was nowhere near my home, and I was proud to do
it because they were Americans who happened to be in need.
What is it about Flint? What is it about the people of Flint? Answer
me. What is it that separates them, that has them in a position where
their Federal Government can't come to their aid? When they can't drink
the water, when the water that comes from their tap is poison and we
have a chance to do something about it without increasing the Federal
deficit with an offset that is already identified, I hear nothing. I
hear nothing from the leadership of this House that gives any
indication that the people of Flint matter at all. Shame. Shame.
We ought to act, and we ought to do it now--not maybe 3 months from
now, not, ``Oh, Flint, maybe we will get you in the next bill or maybe
the next piece of legislation.'' Shame. We should bring it up now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are here today to talk about a bill that would address yet another
foreign policy and national security failure by the Obama
administration. The other issues that have been brought up are
important issues, but that is not what we are talking about today in
this rule.
The gentleman from Michigan knows probably far better than I do that
there are a number of people around here working on the Flint issue. We
could have a bill on the floor of this House as early as next week.
That is certainly my hope and the hope of a lot of other people. I am
not privy to all of what is going on there, but I understand that may
be coming. That is not what we are here about today.
It is not unusual for me to stand up here when I am managing one of
these rules and hear our friends on the other side want to bring up
everything other than the topic of what is in the rule because they
don't want to talk about the foreign policy and national security
failures of the Obama administration. Well, the American people want us
to do something about that. They are worried when they see somebody put
bombs in trash cans in New York, when somebody stabs people to death in
Minnesota. They want to see us doing something. We are trying to do
something about that with numerous pieces of legislation that we bring
forward in this House; and whenever we bring them up, we hear from the
other side about everything else.
Well, today we are here to talk about stopping this President and
future Presidents from sending pallets of cash to Iran. That is what we
are talking about. So I want us to get back to that debate because that
is an important debate for the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Earlier, I misspoke when I said that we could vote for the motion to
recommit. I should have said--and I correct the Record now--the
previous question was what I was speaking of. The simple fact of the
matter is we can vote in support of the previous question, and then we
would be able to address the Flint crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this bill is nothing more than
an attempt by the majority to make political hay of the recent payment
to the Government of Iran, a payment that was a legal settlement. It
seems to get ignored by my friends that the United States and Iran are
participants in a claims tribunal that was established 35 years ago
under the Algiers Accords because Iran had held our hostages, and we
needed a methodology to be able to pay and have those hostages
remunerated appropriately. That said, $2.5 billion has been paid to
American claims rightly. This framework is being followed, and what
this legislation that is going nowhere would do, if it went somewhere,
would be to fly in the face of that framework that was established.
[[Page H5822]]
By prohibiting any future payments to Iran, this bill could put us in
the position of violating the Algiers Accords and owing even more
money. It comes at the expense of addressing issues that really matter,
like Flint, like Zika, like the opioid epidemic, like gun violence,
like the Louisiana floods and the crumbling infrastructure of this
Nation. The list goes on and on.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The gentleman said earlier in his remarks that there are times when
the United States has to have interactions with bad people. As a member
of the Armed Services Committee, I understand that. We do. But we
should be wise in doing so. He and I completely agreed about the ill
wisdom of the deal that President Obama struck with Iran; nonetheless,
he struck the deal.
He said that there are 200 Iranian claims pending. I have no idea if
any of those claims are meritorious. But if even one of them is
meritorious, I don't think he would agree--and I know I don't agree,
and the vast majority of people in America don't agree--that you pay
such a claim by sending pallets of cash. Why would they do that? Why
would any President of the United States send pallets of cash to the
leading state sponsor of terrorism? It is to hide what they were doing,
and they have been found out. We should never do that with anyone, but
particularly not with an enemy.
The other thing that this bill provides, besides a prohibition on
that--and that is so common sense that I don't know how we could
disagree about it--is it requires congressional notification. Don't we
want the Congress, as a coequal branch of government, to know before we
pay money to the leading state sponsor of terrorism? Don't we want to
let the American people know what is going on?
This is a very commonsense bill. The people of the United States
expect us to do nothing less than this. So while I appreciate some of
the other things we heard about it, some of the other issues they
mentioned, let's focus on this. Let's at least get this done so that
this President and no President can ever, ever again pay ransom to
Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
879 and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 879 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4479) to provide emergency assistance related to the Flint
water crisis, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4479.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
____________________