On the recordNovember 16, 2016
I thank the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Waters, for the leadership that she gave this issue in the Committee on Financial Services, and I rise today to offer my opposition to this bill for a number of reasons. I will say that it is interesting--I heard my colleague from North Carolina mention the Soviet Union and the interests and the efforts that President Reagan made to, in fact, make America safer in his time and in his context. Interestingly, in the backdrop of today, one could now argue that Russia has, in its portfolio, advocacy for terrorists as well as a large profile of cyberterrorism and hacking into the United States as well as a blatant interference in the most recent Presidential election. As I look to my colleagues speaking about what the President-elect will do, I would hope that he would not undermine the national security of this Nation. First of all, we know that this bill will be vetoed if it gets to the desk of President Obama. This bill would damage a hard-fought diplomatic solution that makes the world safer from nuclear war. The sanctions are working, including extensive monitoring of the nuclear capability of Iran. We also, in a bipartisan manner, supported the potential extinction of Iran sanctions yesterday, and that was the right thing to do, the opportunity or the possibility of doing that. But this bill, in particular, flies in the face of a realistic approach to how we do international engagement.…
