U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–540PDF 2016

PROHIBITING FUTURE RANSOM PAYMENTS TO

IRAN ACT

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5931

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

Serial No. 114–228

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP ON 

H.R. 5931, Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act ............................ 2

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5931 offered by 

the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ............................................................................................ 29

An amendment to H.R. 5931 offered by the Honorable Lee M. Zeldin, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New York .......................... 47

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 54

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 55

Markup summary .................................................................................................... 59

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: 

New York Times article dated November 28, 1991, ‘‘U.S. and Iran Sign 

a Compensation Pact’’ ...................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 61

(1)

PROHIBITING FUTURE RANSOM PAYMENTS 

TO IRAN ACT 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark up H.R. 5931, the 

Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements and related materials for the record. 

And I now call up H.R. 5931. Without objection, it is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2


21540a-1.eps
3


21540a-2.eps
4


21540a-3.eps
5


21540a-4.eps
6


21540a-5.eps
7


21540a-6.eps
8


21540a-7.eps
9


21540a-8.eps
10


21540a-9.eps
11


21540a-10.eps
12


21540a-11.eps
13

Chairman ROYCE. And after recognizing myself and the ranking 

member, I will be pleased to recognize any members seeking recognition to speak on the bill before moving to any amendments. 

So I very much appreciate the committee members assembling 

this morning so that we can consider this bill. I introduced this legislation to prevent ransom payments to Iran. And if this legislation 

was law, the administration’s dangerous actions of last January 

could not have happened. 

As members of this committee well know, January 16 marked 

‘‘Implementation Day’’ of the administration’s nuclear deal with 

Iran. But the committee was very much surprised when President 

Obama announced that the United States and Iran had agreed to 

a separate deal that had several American hostages released by 

Iran in exchange for the U.S. granting clemency to and releasing 

seven Iranians serving sentences or awaiting trial for serious 

crimes—such as aiding Iran’s illegal weapons program. 

And that part of it made sense, in terms of the exchange of Iranian prisoners for our American hostages. But the President also 

announced then that the United States would pay Iran $1.7 billion 

to settle a dispute over an aborted arms sale that stalled when the 

radicals that rule Iran seized power in 1979. Now, myself and the 

ranking member were part of many, many briefings leading up to 

that weekend. At no time did the administration mention that it 

was close to resolving this case or even mention this case at all. 

This settlement payment came out of the blue. 

The White House rejected concerns that this payment amounted 

to a ransom for the release of the American hostages—despite Iranian military commanders boasting otherwise. The way in which a 

lot of us learned more details about this was watching the Iranian 

television station, watching the translations of their statements 

about what was afoot, what was going on. 

So, last month, when news broke that the United States secretly 

paid Iran the first part of this settlement—$400 million, in unmarked bills, in cash—just as the hostages were released, it became clear that the President had rejected the advice of his own 

Justice Department and ignored a longstanding U.S. policy not to 

release prisoners or pay ransom in exchange for the return of 

Americans held hostage abroad. Even the State Department now 


21540a-12.eps
14

admits that this payment was—what? They say, well, it was ‘‘leverage’’ for the release of American hostages. 

And after weeks of questions from Congress and the press corps, the Obama administration finally admitted that the $1.3 billion of 

‘‘compromise interest’’ was also paid in cash—put onto pallets and 

loaded onto cargo planes. One-point-three billion dollars in cash. 

Even broken up into two shipments, that must have been a big 

plane. 

Of course, the goal of the longstanding U.S. policy against ransom is to remove a key incentive for hostage-takers to target Americans and deny terrorists and their sponsors the resources they 

need to conduct attacks. Not surprisingly, Iran has since taken several more Americans hostage and continues to fund terrorist 

groups that threaten U.S. interests and destabilize the Middle 

East. 

So what drove this side deal, and why on Earth was it conducted 

in cash? Explicit provisions in existing regulations allow financial 

institutions to provide payments to Iran through conventional 

banking channels when those payments are made pursuant to a 

settlement agreement under the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal—as 

they supposedly were here. 

So the administration could have licensed a transaction through 

the international financial system. It would have taken maybe a 

week more. It might not have been timed for the release of these 

hostages. But it certainly could have been done that way. It should 

have been done that way, if they were going to do it. Instead, the 

administration chose to deliver $1.7 billion in untraceable assets to 

the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. 

We cannot allow this to happen again. There is a reason why 

conducting large transactions in cash with this type of regime is 

really bad policy, and that reason is because the international body 

charged with developing policies to combat money laundering and 

terrorism financing tell us that physical transportation of currency 

is, in their words, ‘‘one of the main methods used to move criminal 

assets, to launder money, and to finance terrorism.’’ Indeed, I believe that is why Iran wanted the cash, to support terrorism. 

It is not a coincidence to me that this desire for cash comes just 

as the committee’s legislation to crack down on banks that finance 

Hezbollah is having an impact. Iran is having trouble transferring 

funds to Hezbollah as a result of the legislation this committee 

passed and was signed into law. 

So the legislation I have introduced has two core elements. One, 

it prohibits future cash payments—for any reason—to Iran until 

Iran stops sponsoring terrorism and is no longer a primary moneylaundering concern. And, two, it demands transparency—a 30-day 

notification—and congressional review of any future settlements related to the U.S.-Iran Hague tribunal so that the committee is not 

surprised again when it comes to these large payments. 

And this, I think, is a reasonable piece of legislation that strikes 

the right balance between ending cash payments to a state sponsor 

of terrorism on the one hand while ensuring we can live up to our 

international commitments on the other. 

And I will now go to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel of 

New York. 

15

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start by saying that there is no harsher critic of Iran in 

this Congress than myself. I think everyone on this committee 

knows that. I view Iran as a threat to global security. I opposed 

the nuclear deal. And I have said again and again that we need 

to hold Iran’s feet to the fire on a range of bad behavior, from support for terrorism, to its ballistic missile program, to its atrocious 

record on human rights. 

I also want to go on record saying that I am uncomfortable with 

the parts of the payment sent to Iran earlier this year. There are 

parts of this process that Congress should take a hard look at. 

But let’s make a few things clear. First of all, whether we like 

it or not, the payment that was sent to Iran was Iran’s money. Decades ago, before the revolution in Iran, that money was payment 

for a weapons sale, but we certainly weren’t going to send weapons 

to the ayatollahs. 

Secondly, again, whether we like it or not, there will be more 

payments to Iran in the future. Under the Algiers Accord, the 

United States agreed to abide by the rulings of the Iran-United 

States Claims Tribunal. The payment sent earlier this year was 

part of a settlement reached in that body, and there are 1,126 

claims still pending before the tribunal. We have been making payments this way since Ronald Reagan was President, and make no 

mistake, there will be more. That is an obligation we took on 35 

years ago. 

So, in my view, given that reality, the most important question 

for this committee is, how do we ensure that Congress learns about 

when this is going to happen before it happens? Because, obviously, 

that is not what happened, and it is very galling that we didn’t 

know about it. How do we ensure that that can’t happen in the future? How do we ensure that we have an opportunity to weigh in 

and ask questions in the future? 

So the bill actually doesn’t address that concern. From what I 

can tell, the bill has one major aim: Stop payments from going to 

Iran in cash, physical bank notes. But when we read the bill, the 

language in the bill prohibits payments in promissory notes, including currency. While promissory notes aren’t money, they are exactly what they sound like: A commitment to make a future payment. And the fact is the United States did not issue a promissory 

note to Iran. Additionally, ‘‘currency’’ doesn’t refer only to physical 

bank notes. So I don’t think this bill would do what we would like 

it to do. 

Now, my staff and I had a chance to look at the language only 

after the bill was drafted. Now, that is because it was not drafted 

with any input from Democratic members. 

We have worked very hard, all of us, in the 4 years to make sure 

that there is consensus in this committee. We do our best when 

there is consensus. I think we agree that there is a problem, and 

if we put our heads together, hopefully we could reach a bipartisan 

approach. When we are serious about passing legislation in this 

committee, we always collaborate across the aisle. This bill has 50 

cosponsors, not a single Democrat. And so I don’t think that this 

bill is really an attempt to have a consensus; it is more an attempt 

to make a statement. 

16

And this bill is—this is obviously a serious issue. I think we 

agree on much of this. We agree on the unhappiness of what happened. But I think, if we are really going to make some inroads, 

we need to put our heads together and come up with a unified way 

of changing it. I think we can do that. 

So I am going to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that addresses the actual concerns that have arisen from 

this payment, that strengthens congressional oversight when it 

comes to future payments, and I think the committee would pass—

and could pass without question. 

So I am going to do my part to offer a workable alternative, because I do agree with you, Mr. Chairman. Again, what happened 

was a problem, and Congress needs to be consulted. We are an 

equal branch of government, and I think that hiding things from 

Congress is not acceptable. But I think that the way we go about 

it, we should go about it, is to put our heads together, collaborate. 

Let’s come up with something that has 100 cosponsors or 200 cosponsors, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. I 

think that’s what the American people would want us to do. 

So I am going to offer a workable alternative. And, as always, 

Mr. Chairman, we will work together and hopefully be able to get 

to the bottom of some of these things that really disturb all of us. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. But would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, I would. 

Chairman ROYCE. Is it my understanding that it is possible that 

on the other side of the aisle there could be some support or concurrence with the idea that we would cut off the ability to transfer 

cash to Iran? Or does this go to——

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I was told that the language—look, I am willing to sit down and come up with compromises to do what we want 

to do. But I am told that the language of the bill doesn’t actually 

do, I think, what you would like it to do and cut off the cash. Because, as I mentioned before, it talks about—let me see if I can get 

the language here—it talks about promissory notes. And so they 

are not money, and we did not issue a promissory note to Iran. 

Chairman ROYCE. But it says promissory notes, including currency. So that would include cash. Promissory notes and cash. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I am willing to sit down and put our heads together and see if we can come up with a bill that we can all support. I am not opposed to placing restrictions on——

Chairman ROYCE. Perhaps we could work on that definition of 

cash right now, if it is acceptable to the ranking member. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, what would you have——

Chairman ROYCE. We can continue to debate, but I think the 

goal that I have in this is pretty straightforward. It is to prevent 

again this kind of transaction which we saw for the $400 million 

and the $1.3 billion in the successive transportation, or flights, that 

took these pallets of cash from occurring again. 

And if we can work on language here now during the markup 

that is specific in how we define that cash—in this case, we know 

they were pallets of unmarked euros and of Swiss francs. So if we 

can arrive at a definition of how we define—let me—Mr. Sherman, 

I think, was seeking recognition. 

17

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just interject that there are bearer bonds 

issued by European corporations that are just as untraceable and 

are not covered by the language of the bill since it deals with sovereign debt and not corporate debt. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. So my thought, at this point, Mr. Sherman 

and Mr. Engel, would be: I am open to us working on that definition in concert here during the markup or maybe getting a broad 

enough definition for an amendment and then have our staff continue to work to refine it. But I think we can reach a common objective, if it is to prevent the transfer of cash to Iran, that would 

be helpful. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well——

Chairman ROYCE. Let’s continue discussion, if we could. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, the notification provisions in this bill—correct me 

if I am wrong—would prevent any payments since the President 

would not be able to make certification. So I think that you have 

that there. But our goal would be to do the same thing. 

So if you would like to recess for a few minutes and maybe we 

can work out the language, I would be amenable to that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, there are two options here. One is to recess for a few minutes to work on this. The other would be for us 

to work on it while we allow members to continue to debate the 

issue. 

Mr. ENGEL. That is fine. 

Chairman ROYCE. That might give them the time to do this while 

we are in consultation. 

Mr. ENGEL. That is fine with me. 

Chairman ROYCE. So I will recognize Mr. Smith of New Jersey, 

followed by a Democratic member. In the meantime, we will consult. 

Mr. Smith of New Jersey is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for authoring the Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act, which is a reaction to, I think, what 

was an egregiously flawed decision by the administration to provide hard currency, as you and others have pointed out, cash payments, including euros and dollars, not traceable, in a way that can 

be today already buying arms for a number of horrific state actors 

and others like Hezbollah, which we have all known have been financed so extensively by the Iranians. 

You know, it just seems like the flawed nuclear arms agreement 

just continues to disappoint on every aspect of its implementation—you know, the fact that the ballistic missiles were not a part 

of it; and now Iran is on a tear to develop a ballistic missile capability to deliver nuclear arms; all of the side deals and secret deals 

that we don’t even know about that we then find out about through 

some investigative reporting by some of our news media or by congressional oversight; and now this, money being flown in for the 

hostages. 

I had raised several times during the course of those negotiations 

that the hostages should have been freed without any precondition 

and it should have been done before any kind of an agreement was 

18

concluded between the United States, the P5+1, and we kept being 

told, oh, that is a side issue, it is being done on the sidelines. 

And now we see this terrible ransom payment, which I believe, 

Mr. Chairman, may incentivize other state actors of terrorism, as 

well as terrorist groups and others and nefarious organizations all 

over the world, that believe that the United States will pay ransom, and that incentivizes the taking of hostages for that very purpose. 

So this is a tourniquet type of bill to say, you should have told 

us, Mr. President, you should have been transparent about all of 

this process, which you have not been, and we want this noticing, 

the transparency, and we want absolutely an end to these cash 

payments to these terrible regimes that kill, maim, execute, and 

rape, like Tehran. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I recognize Mr. Brad Sherman of California to 

speak on the underlying bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would deal 

with this bill as part of an overall State Department authorization 

bill and that we would deal with it a few months from now. This 

is a highly political issue right now. Rather, we need an overall policy about congressional involvement and congressional notice if 

payments of this type are going to be made. 

Looking at the bill itself, I don’t think it should just be Iran. I 

think it should be all state sponsors of terrorism and North Korea. 

And I know the ranking member has a proposal that would broaden this concept. Yes, yesterday it was Iran; tomorrow it may be 

North Korea. 

Second, I think that Iran may not have gotten any tremendous 

advantage by getting this money in cash. Yes, at the bottom of the 

food chain, criminal enterprises deal in cash. But at the top of the 

food chain, they use all their skill to turn to cash into bank deposits. And I think that Iran might well want this cash in bank deposits, particularly in banks in China and other places not entirely 

friendly to the United States. 

I think that it never hurts to reiterate our policy against paying 

ransom. As to the deal that occurred, the simultaneous transfer of 

cash and prisoners on the one hand for getting our hostages on the 

other, I think we may be more concerned about the criminals that 

we released and those under criminal investigation that we released, because this does tremendous benefit to Iran. 

Iran needs an international network of people skilled in evading 

the arms control. How do you get the centrifuge, how do you get 

the titanium tubes that you need for the nuclear weapon of next 

decade? You get them with a network of people who can worm 

their way into business, can give a civilian front, and will ship you 

these items. 

The release of these criminals helps Iran achieve that in two 

ways. First, these individuals are now available to Iran, and they 

are skilled. Perhaps the most skilled criminals are those who have 

been caught once. They won’t get caught that way again. But, second, it tells Iran’s network around the world, if you get caught, we 

will get you out. 

19

So there is controversy with this. On the other hand, there are those who say, well, we shouldn’t have settled the $1.4 billion financial dispute at the same time as we got our hostages back. 

Imagine how Congress would have reacted if we had paid the $1.4 

billion and not gotten our hostages back. The other thing worse 

than transferring the money and getting your hostages is transferring the money and not getting your hostages. 

So these two related and simultaneous deals occurred. They are 

politically hot. We will do a better job of legislating early next year 

when we focus not just on Iran but on all state sponsors of terrorism and North Korea and when we focus not on that politically 

charged issue of pallets of cash going to Iran but, rather, sit back 

and say, what should be the procedures for payments of this type 

to be made? 

And, finally, I would point out, as I did to the chairman, that 

there are many instruments, if Iran wants nontraceable instruments. There is not just currency and bonds issued by sovereigns; 

there are also corporate bonds and in Europe there are plenty of 

bearer corporate bonds that would serve the same purpose. And, 

you know, I think a bond issued by Siemens is just about as valuable as one issued by the German or French Government. 

So I think this is a bill that needs a lot of technical work, and 

that would benefit from some time. And it is a bill that needs a 

calm political atmosphere, and that can be generated only by some 

time. I look forward to hopefully bipartisan legislation early next 

year. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Mr. Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 

leadership in bringing this before the committee. I think it is very 

important that we take this up, and thank you for this. 

When the $1.7 billion in payments to Iran came to light, the 

Obama administration refused to call those payments what they 

were, which is clearly ransom. They denied it and denied it and denied it, and now we know it was true. 

First, the administration wanted us to believe that the payment 

was essentially money that the U.S. owed Iran from the days of the 

Shah. 

When that story didn’t work, they tried to tell the American people that the money was unsettled claims in the Iran-U.S. Claims 

Tribunal. The administration argued that if we didn’t pay Iran the 

money we would lose even more. So, in effect, this was supposed 

to be a bargain. What a deal, right? 

When that story didn’t work, the truth finally came out. We 

learned that what we all suspected was, in fact, true. The Obama 

administration paid $1.7 billion to Iran in exchange for hostages. 

Once again, the administration’s policy toward Iran damaged our 

reputation around the world for resolve, for standing for something. 

This has really damaged our reputation, I think, as the administration has done time and again. 

While the Obama administration has a tough time arriving at 

the truth, here are a few things that we do know. Iran continues 

to see terrorism as a legitimate tool of statecraft. Iran continues to 

see anti-Semitism, a denial of the state of Israel’s right to exist, as 

20

normal diplomatic discourse. Iran continues to harass our ships in 

the Persian Gulf. And, just as in 1979, the actions of the Obama 

administration have emboldened Iran to see hostage-taking as just 

another means of gaining leverage at the bargaining table. 

However, the ransom payment has been met with bipartisan enthusiastic support in one place: In Iran. Hardliners and so-called 

reformers in Tehran have celebrated the Obama administration’s 

ransom payment. So-called reformers, such as President Rouhani, 

have praised the agreement as evidence that engagement works. 

The head of the Basij, a key component of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Naqdi, argued 

the payment of $1.7 billion was evidence of American intent to infiltrate Iran. Iranian media has covered the story with headlines 

such as ‘‘The Exchange of Four American Spies’’—spies. 

H.R. 5931, the Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act, 

is guided by a simple principle: The U.S. should never pay ransom 

for the release of our citizens held hostage abroad. When you make 

payments like this, all you do is invite more Americans to be held 

hostage in other countries besides Iran around the world. 

So this is a terrible road to go down. That is why our history on 

this has been pretty clear: We don’t pay for return of hostages. And 

this goes 100 percent against that. It is wrong, it is dangerous, and 

a lot of people are going to pay a price down the road for this. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This bill, H.R. 5931, Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to 

Iran Act, I think it is clear that it is basically a partisan bill, at 

this point. It is an issue, though, that shouldn’t be partisan at all, 

as I think Mr. Engel and Mr. Sherman—and I want to really associate myself with many of the remarks of Mr. Sherman on this 

matter. The subject of Iran and congressional oversight is one that 

should unite us, not divide us. 

Now, it is clear that we are in a political season. And what has 

happened in the past, at least with this committee, we have often 

tried to manage to rise above partisan politics in the best interests 

of our Nation. But that is not this bill. This bill is clearly a partisan bill that is not made to unite but to divide. 

The Wall Street Journal article in August that reported a settlement payment to Iran has been used by my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle as fodder for their convenient political spin. The 

majority quickly turned to talking points about the administration’s settlement payment being a cash ransom payment—this, despite the fact that the Obama administration had, in fact, briefed 

Congress of the $1.7 billion settlement of a longstanding claim with 

the Government of Iran. 

Let’s be clear: Because the payment was in cash doesn’t mean it 

was a secret, nor does it mean it was a ransom payment. The modality of payment is not the determining factor. Whether it was 

cash, check, or charge, it was not payment for a ransom, and it is 

not different from what has happened in the past. 

Let us also be clear that using leverage when conducting diplomatic negotiations is a common and smart strategy and another 

reason why, if you are doing this correctly, we would have to hear 

21

and talk back and forth to the State Department. And I believe, in 

fact, had the Obama administration not used every bit of existing 

leverage it had to ensure the release of Americans, I could imagine 

that the majority would be raking the administration over the coals 

for failing to successfully negotiate. In other words, as Mr. Sherman indicated, had we given the money and not gotten any hostages back, you would be railing about that. 

Similarly, had the administration not negotiated The Hague settlement and ended up ultimately paying a higher price for the 1979 

failed arm sales, the majority would also point to that as a failure. 

For the record, since the establishment of the U.S.-Iran Claims 

Tribunal, all U.S. citizens’ claims against Iran that were registered 

under the Algiers Accords have been resolved. Americans, as a result, have gotten about $2.5 billion in payments. At the tribunal, 

there are still over 1,000 Iranian claims yet to be resolved. These 

are just the facts. 

So there was no ransom payment, and this bill is an unfortunate 

attempt to play, in my opinion, politics with an issue that our diplomats worked very hard to resolve. And, as such, I hope the American people look at the totality of the circumstances, examine all 

the facts, and see that regardless of the majority’s effort to distort 

the reality, leveraging the settlement payment to obtain the best 

results in concurrent negotiations was indeed shrewd and not at all 

reckless. 

Let me end by saying I agree with Mr. Sherman again. I think 

that if we wait until post-election, where we can sit in calm fashion 

and talk to our State Department and diplomats, et cetera, then we 

will be in a climate where we can resolve this issue in a manner 

that is bipartisan, that is also inclusive of not only Iran but all of 

the nations that are sponsors of terrorism. I think Mr. Sherman is 

absolutely right. Because we want to make sure that we have 

something where we are looking at oversight with all of those types 

of nations that proliferate terrorism. 

So I think that, Mr. Chairman, we should hold this bill and negotiate this right after the election is over, the beginning of the next 

Congress. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other Republican members seeking recognition on this bill? 

I will recognize myself here for a couple of observations. 

And I think I would just begin by going to the observations of 

the Justice Department, because, in this case, the administration 

ignored its own lawyers. The head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division warned that Iran would see this as ransom 

and would respond to this by taking more Americans hostage. And 

since this was done in cash—and that is the argument here, it 

being done in cash—we have had three more hostages that were 

abducted while they were in Iran. 

They held the cash—again, this cash was held until the hostages 

left Iran. The State Department now says, well, that is leverage. 

To me, it was textbook ransom. And the Iranians viewed it as ransom because I have seen the tapes of their comments when this 

transaction occurred. They bragged about it. And, as I said, now 

more Americans have been taken hostage. 

22

But if we focus on the bill in front of us today, as a practical matter, this bill does two things: One, it provides more transparency 

regarding the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal; and, two, it prohibits 

cash payments to the Government of Iran, the world’s leading state 

sponsor of terrorism. 

Remember, as the Financial Action Task Force has made clear, 

and I am going to quote from the task force, ‘‘The physical transportation of currency’’—as in cash—‘‘is one of the main methods 

used to move criminal assets, launder money, and finance terrorism.’’ The reason that last point, financing terrorism, is important to us here is because we are all cognizant of the cash that Iran 

transfers into the hands, or has transferred into the hands, of 

Hamas and continues to transfer into the hands of Hezbollah. 

So that is the fundamental question before us. And I think our 

sanctions regime was designed with tribunal payments in mind. I 

would just make this point. The Iran transactions sanctions regime 

contains a number of exemptions from the rules so that certain 

transactions can go forward. And, in this case, transactions for tribunal settlements are explicitly authorized and would shield any 

entity involved in such a transaction from liability under U.S. law. 

But the administration chose a different course here. The administration chose not to license a transaction within the international 

financial system. They chose instead to deliver $1.7 billion in 

untraceable assets, in cash. 

If everything was on the up-and-up and there was no connection 

to hostages, why not go through the process laid out in law? 

Issuing a license, you know? If the administration wanted to pay 

through a bank, it could have. How do we know? Because earlier 

this year the Obama administration paid Iran $10 million for 

heavy water, and that transaction flowed through the formal financial system, a bank. We just learned this on Monday. 

So, yes, it would have taken a little longer, but the dispute this 

payment was supposed to settle was over 35 years old, so what is 

another month? The only way I see timing coming into the play is 

if this was a ransom for the release of Americans. And, hopefully, 

we won’t be doing that again. 

So I wanted to make those points, and I now go to Ms. Frankel 

of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

So I want to just start by saying what I think everybody here, 

on the panel up here, would agree, is that we do not trust Iran. 

Probably none of us like to send any money to them because they 

are the number-one state sponsor of terror in the world. I won’t go 

into the list of horrible activities they are involved in. And I know 

we all recognize, though, that there is a need to fulfill legal obligations on our part if we have to transfer funds. 

Mr. Chair, you know, I want to state for the record you know I 

believe that you are an above-excellent, fair chairman. With that 

said, I want to say that I think this bill itself, this piece of legislation, is more of a political statement. And although I think both the 

ranking member and the chair, you have raised important issues, 

I would feel more comfortable to hear an explanation from the 

State Department for why they acted the way they did. 

23

And one thing I have learned by sitting at all these meetings is 

this foreign policy stuff is very complicated. And I think it would 

be a more reasoned way for us to proceed, if we want to discuss 

this issue, to bring some people in, whether it is from the State Department or think tanks, but some people who could give us perspective. And so I would just request both to the chair and the 

ranking member that we be given an opportunity to have that kind 

of hearing. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady, and we will have further discussions with the gentlelady. 

I think Mr. Wilson of South Carolina is next to be recognized. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your hard work and dedication on this issue that 

has a threatening impact on American families. By providing the 

Iranian regime with $1.7 billion worth of nearly untraceable foreign cash without the knowledge of Congress, the Obama administration has put American families at risk. 

On June 4, 2016, former Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, accurately describing Iran as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Even 

more troubling is Iran’s ranking as the world’s foremost money 

launderer, ranking first on the Basel Anti-Money-Laundering 

Index. 

This week, I sent a letter to Under Secretary of Terrorism and 

Financial Intelligence Adam Szubin asking for his assessment of 

the far-reaching negative consequences that the direct cash transfer may have. I look forward to hearing his response, whether or 

not he can guarantee that this ransom will not be used to finance 

terror. 

Despite the payoff, the chant remains, ‘‘Death to America, death 

to Israel.’’

Again, I want to thank Chairman Royce for his work on ensuring 

that future payments cannot happen again. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, here we are, a week or two before we leave, and I 

don’t see the rush, why we have to do this. I know the optics of 

this are horrible, and I think the administration should have 

been—when it was first released, should have been more forthcoming. But I just don’t think this is the time to do something like 

this. I think we ought to work together on this. We have to work 

together on this and many issues. 

And I would like to turn over the rest of my time to Mr. Brad 

Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 

We keep hearing the word ‘‘ransom.’’ We do have to put in the 

record: This was Iran’s money. The Shah sent $400 million in the 

1970s. We held on to it. The Iranian Government was entitled to 

that $400 million, plus interest. And settling that would be a good 

thing to do. 

24

Second, the fact that it was paid in cash did not materially make 

it more dangerous for the United States. What if the money had 

been wired into a Russian bank? It would have been available for 

Iran to use to buy sophisticated anti-aircraft systems that would 

make some future Iranian nuclear program invulnerable to attack. 

Or it could have been wired to China to buy large numbers of 

shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, which are the most dangerous 

thing for a terrorist organization to have. Or it could have been 

wired to a Russian or Chinese bank and then converted into euros 

or other currency. 

The use of cash turned out to be terrible politics. There is a visual image that sticks in people’s minds. The money that we paid, 

as the chairman pointed out, for the heavy water was done through 

the banking system and is less politically interesting because there 

is no picture. 

So there was a simultaneous transfer. Had we transferred the 

money beforehand, then I think this committee would be even more 

outraged. We needed to get our hostages back, and only a simultaneous transfer could achieve that. 

So I will yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. I don’t have any more remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman yields back. 

Do any other Republican members seek recognition? 

If not, Mr. Engel—oh, Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to see our committee try to act, on controversial 

issues especially, in the bipartisan manner that, by and large, has 

characterized, I think, your chairmanship and the ranking member’s tenure as well. 

It is easy to politically exploit the optics of the situation, as Mr. 

Sherman just indicated, but that belies the complexity of a really 

difficult relationship in which the goal is to make sure we cement 

a non-nuclear Iran going forward. 

If we are serious about this legislation, let’s have a hearing. Let’s 

hear from the State Department and others in the administration 

to explain the thinking behind the decisions that were made. 

And let’s also recall, I think, the thoughtful observation of Mr. 

Sherman that this was Iran’s money. It is not like it was some 

grant by the United States Government. 

And I do think there are, frankly, you know, two options for our 

committee. We can, in a political season, less than 60 days out 

from an election, try to exploit an issue in the hopes of some partisan political advantage; or we can do what we usually do, or have 

done in the last few years, in this committee and try the more 

thoughtful, reflective approach to make a serious contribution to 

American foreign policy. 

I don’t believe that the bill in front of us does that. I believe that 

Mr. Engel has made a very creative attempt at trying to find common ground. I will support Mr. Engel’s substitute, and, sadly, I will 

be required to oppose the chairman’s bill. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

You know, we do have a standing request before the Secretary 

of State to come before us, and that is being scheduled. 

25

There is some urgency to this issue, in this sense: It was not just 

the $400 million that was cash, it was an additional $1.3 billion 

that was transferred. So this has been an ongoing pattern. And because it is an ongoing pattern, I would like to see us reach some 

kind of consensus that this will not be done in cash in the future. 

Because we are basically doing their money laundering for them, 

in a sense, because cash is what Hezbollah needs. 

And I have already gone through the motions of passing my legislation and having it signed into law, in terms of stopping the financial system from allowing Iran to transfer cash to Hezbollah. 

But as long as Iran gets its hands on additional—they were transferring funds to Hezbollah through a banking system. We have 

shut that down. The only way they can do it now is if they transfer 

cash. And the ones giving them cash is us. 

So, from that standpoint, and because this is a continued practice 

here, not once, but has occurred three times now, I think I need 

to move forward with legislation. 

I understand Mr. Engel has an amendment. And if there are no 

further requests for recognition on the bill, I will go to him for his 

amendment. 

The clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, you had said that there is a 

fundamental question before us, and I think the fundamental question is this: If the Iran nuclear program wasn’t working, that is 

what we would be talking about. Because it is, we conveniently 

changed the subject. 

The Iran nuclear deal is working. Natanz—Iran has put 19,000 

centrifuges in storage under international control. That is a win. 

Iran has shipped out 98 percent of low-enriched uranium. All 

Iran nuclear facilities are open to international inspections. That is 

a win. 

Fordow—all nuclear material has been removed in this once-secret facility. That is a win. 

Reduced stockpile of enriched uranium from 12,000 kilograms to 

300 kilograms, with a purity rate of no more than 3.67 percent, not 

enough to make a nuclear weapon, that is a win. 

The heavy water reactor at Iraq has been filled with concrete. 

That is a win. 

Last year, Iran was 2 months from a nuclear weapon. Today, the 

International Atomic Energy Agency said that they are more than 

a year away from a nuclear weapon. That is a win. 

Until recently, Moshe Ya’alon was the Israeli Defense Minister. 

He said, today, because of the nuclear deal, Iran no longer poses 

an existential threat to Israel. 

When you are losing, you change the subject. And I think that 

is what is going on here, and let’s just be honest about it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yep. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would just make a couple of points. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Sure. 

26

Chairman ROYCE. The first point is I intentionally avoided raising this issue of the Iran deal as part of this hearing because I 

know that that is a bone of contention between members and some 

supported it, some opposed it. 

If you raise the point of how well that deal is working, I would 

just point out to you that German intelligence already has reported 

that Iran was attempting to obtain prohibited nuclear capability, in 

violation of the agreement, by approaching their agents, by approaching German industry to get around the agreement. 

The second point I would make is that, even as we sit here, Iran 

is working on centrifuges that spin faster and faster and faster. 

Yes, they have figured out a way to set themselves up on a schedule where 10 years from now they will have an industrial-scale capability in terms of how fast those centrifuges will spin and how 

quick they can produce the nuclear material they need. 

And when this agreement expires, on top of it, if you have any 

question in your mind about their long-term intention, think for a 

minute of the ballistic missiles that they continue to produce. And 

as opposed to the talking points we saw at the time, when we 

thought there was going to be an 8-year prohibition on delivering 

ballistic missiles or on working on ballistic missiles or the 5-year 

prohibition that was supposed to be on the conventional arms 

transfer, they are in the process right now of developing ballistic 

missiles. And you can see on the side of those missiles, in Farsi, 

the words ‘‘Israel must be destroyed.’’ And you go over to the other 

side of the missile and see in the photograph; they put it in Hebrew 

just in case you didn’t get the message. 

So I don’t think there is any question of where Iran is headed 

here and the position they are going to be in, or of the fact that 

they did approach German agents with the intent of circumventing 

the agreement. 

So I meant to resist the temptation to get into a debate about 

this, because this hearing is not about that subject. But since you 

raised the issue, I would just caution that the intention of the Iranians in all of this is transparently obvious to anybody that is reading their news or listening to their leader talk about his long-term 

desire to annihilate Israel, who is just the little Satan in his equation. The big Satan is the United States. 

But back to the question at hand. The question at hand is whether or not we are going to try to prohibit the transfer of cash to this 

regime. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield for just a final thought? 

Chairman ROYCE. I will definitely yield. 

Mr. HIGGINS. In that part of the world, there is the morning 

after, and there is the morning after the morning after. And I think 

that, despite 1 year ago, all the controversy regarding whether or 

not there would be compliance with this plan has eroded significantly. 

It is not perfect. It is not black and white; there is a lot of gray. 

There is nuance in foreign policy. But the fact of the matter is, 

until recently, the Israeli Foreign Minister says that Iran no longer 

poses an existential, a standout threat to Israel because of the efficacy of Iran’s compliance and the international monitoring system 

that was put in place. That is a major, major victory. 

27

And I am simply saying, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, 

that if that plan wasn’t working today, that is what we would be 

talking about today. Because it is, that is why we are not. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection—I thank the gentleman. 

Without objection, Mr. Weber is recognized to speak on the underlying bill. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am really amazed at the discussion. We are told that this is a 

political season. So do we shut down all bills during a political season? 

We are told that this is partisan, it has all the appearance of 

being nothing more than partisan. And in keeping with the political-season idea, I remember that during the last two—because 

there is a Presidential campaign going on, ostensibly, I suspect—

in the last two Presidential campaigns, how George Bush was 

brought up for the war on Iraq, and everybody had to weigh in on 

whether they would have agreed with the war on Iraq. 

That notwithstanding, I would remind those on the left, we live 

and exist and work in a political world. 

Now, Secretary of State John Kerry was here months and 

months and months ago, and we had this discussion with him, he 

and I did, a back-and-forth exchange. And I said, why wouldn’t we 

demand the hostages back before the Iranian nuclear giveaway was 

put into place? His response was he didn’t want them to be pawns. 

Turns out they were pawns, and some of the most expensive 

pawns in history, in my opinion, and not just in terms of billions 

of dollars of cash, but for two reasons: Number one, obviously, they 

can export terrorism now in a way that they couldn’t before they 

got the money. Secondly, not just the billions of dollars, they will 

now take and have already taken more Americans. 

One of the comments earlier was, well, it would have been worse 

if we would have given them the cash and not gotten the hostages 

back, as if somehow that made the deal more palatable. Well, 

Americans are tired of being misled by the White House, by the 

State Department, and anybody else, for that matter. What about 

the lying and the misleading by the White House? 

Political season? Are you kidding me? Americans want to know 

and deserve the truth all the time, not just when it is a political 

season. They want during this political season and every other 

time, as far as I can tell, somebody to stand up for America, protect 

them from terrorism, and protect them from out-of-control bureaucrats and a misleading, dare I say lying White House and maybe 

even the State Department. Americans deserve that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. You know, a lot of this is water under the 

bridge, all right? Regardless of our opinions, a lot of it is water 

under the bridge. To me, the only question, prospectively, going forward, is whether or not we are going to discontinue the process of 

paying cash. That is the intent of the bill. 

And I think Mr. Engel has an amendment. The clerk will report 

the Engel amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

5931, offered by Mr. Engel. 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

28

Section 1. Short Title. This act may cited as the ‘‘Restrictions on 

Payments to State Sponsors of Terrorism Act.’’

Section 2. Restrictions on Payments to State Sponsors of Terrorism. (a) In General.—No agency or instrumentality of the 

United States Government may make a payment or enter into an 

agreement to make a payment, to an agency or instrumentality of 

a government of a state sponsor of terrorism, or an agent acting on 

behalf of such a government, in settlement of a claim or judgment 

against the United States, unless, not less than 5 days prior to 

making such payment or entering into such agreement, the President submits to the appropriate committees in Congress in writing——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. 

[The information referred to follows:]

29


21540b-1.eps
30


21540b-2.eps
31


21540b-3.eps
32


21540b-4.eps
33


21540b-5.eps
34

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair recognizes the author to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is fairly 

straightforward and in my view goes to the core problem that has 

arisen from this Iran payment situation, which is Congress’ oversight role. As I said in my opening, the reality is that there, that 

there will be more payments under our Algiers Accords obligations, 

and frankly, I don’t want a repeat of what happened. This committee should not be finding out after the fact how and when these 

payments are taking place, so my amendment says simply that 

payments like this cannot happen unless Congress is notified in advance. The bill contains a 5-day notification. I certainly would be 

open to negotiate a larger amount of time. 

It would apply to payments not just to Iran, but to any state 

sponsor of terrorism, plus North Korea. It would also apply to all 

forms of payment—cash, check, wire transfer, you name it—because I don’t think it really matters. A payment is a payment. 

Whether it is cash or not, it doesn’t really matter. And it says, 

claims, settlements, and payments should be publicly reported in 

the Federal Register. So this amendment also strips out references 

to promissory notes because, again, the United States hasn’t issued 

promissory notes to Iran. That is not the way these payments have 

worked. My language preserves certain key provisions, a requirement for periodic reporting to Congress on activity under the Algiers Accords, an exemption for our intelligence activities, and 

some technical language. 

I have also gotten rid of the word ransom in this bill. Now 

whether you believe the payment was a ransom or not, we know 

this is a political argument. I think we should focus on substance 

and not derail ourselves over something on which we are simply 

not going to agree, so I think this is the right approach. It 

strengthens our oversight, and it provides greater transparency, 

and I think it would send a strong bipartisan message that Congress and the Foreign Affairs Committee need to be a part of the 

payments process going forward. 

We have worked very long on this committee. Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, with consensus, I hope we can sit down early 

next year, put our heads together, and come up with language that 


21540b-6.eps
35

will get to what both you and I agree are abuses that should not 

have happened and should not happen in the future. The fact that 

this bill has only Republican co-sponsors, 50 of it, sends a message 

to us that it is not a bipartisan bill, and that it is really just a messaging bill to a very large extent. 

So I know you feel very strongly about this, as do I, and I would 

hope that what we have been doing for the past several years, we 

can continue to do when we come back next year, and that is, work 

bipartisanship and get at what you and I have no disagreement on, 

the fact that the way the Iran payments were made left a lot to 

be desired, and Congress should not be kept out of the loop. We 

have to play a very, very important role. So I ask that all members 

support my amendment, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman, and let me speak to 

the ranking member’s substitute, which I will regretfully oppose. 

And I hope that maybe during the process, or Rules Committee, we 

can try to reach further accord here. But there is a common theme 

between the underlying bill and the ranking member’s substitute, 

and that theme is the need for greater transparency, the need for 

greater congressional involvement in these decisions, and that is a 

must. 

Leading up to the day that this settlement was announced, the 

administration had repeatedly briefed Congress on Iran and the 

nuclear deal. Yet, despite having innumerable opportunities to do 

so, the Obama administration never raised this potential financial 

settlement with this committee. So this payment came out of the 

blue. If diplomats were working overtime on a settlement, why not 

tell the committee of jurisdiction of the possibility? And if the goal 

of this settlement was merely to put to rest a decade’s-old dispute 

over an aborted arms sale, as we were told after the fact, they why 

the secrecy? 

The administration has intentionally left us—that is, this committee—they have intentionally left us in the dark, and it hasn’t 

only been on this issue. Let me add that. Cuba is another example 

that comes to mind, and Mr. Engel raised the legitimate point of 

North Korea, another example where, in a prior Republican administration, we found ourselves being left in the dark. The only way 

we have gotten information is through continued congressional 

questioning and good press reporting. 

Both the underlying bill and the ranking member’s substitute require the administration to be more transparent with Congress and 

the American people about how it engages with the Tribunal. If future settlements are truly a good deal for American taxpayers, 

these requirements should be welcomed. They should not be a burden. The goal of the underlying legislation is to ensure that a Tribunal that has been in place since 1981, and has operated more or 

less successfully, cannot be manipulated by this or the next administration. And here the two of us agree, but I am afraid that the 

substitute does not give me enough comfort in that area. 

But there is another larger problem, and that is this. That is because this proposal that we are talking about, this amendment before us, unlike the underlying bill, contains no restrictions on the 

way in which Iran could be paid. I was raising questions about this 

$1.7 billion payment when it was first made, and, quite frankly, 

36

not too many of us were focused on it until it was revealed that 

it was paid in cash. That is because everyone knows that cash is 

the conduit of all sorts of illegal behavior, such as the payment of 

cash from Iran to Hamas and the payment of cash from Iran into 

the hands of Hezbollah, a recurring problem. And that is why the 

world’s top financial body for money laundering warns that moving 

cash is one of the main methods used to move criminal assets, 

launder money, and finance terrorism, which is exactly why the bill 

I introduced bans the transfer of cash to the Iranian regime, until 

it stops sponsoring terrorism and ends its money laundering. Regretfully, the substitute does not contain such restrictions, so I will 

oppose it. 

Other members seeking recognition? Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want 

to commend you for all that you have done to ensure that the committee has played an active oversight role, both during the Iran nuclear negotiations and since the agreement was entered into, and 

for the myriad of Iran’s other bad behavior and dangerous behavior. I also want to thank the chairman for his continued and vocal 

support for the return of my constituent, Bob Levinson. 

As Ranking Member Engel noted, this committee has been a 

model for bipartisanship, particularly in the way we have approached legislation dealing with Iran, and I want to thank Ranking Member Engel for offering his amendment, and I offer my support for it. By requiring the President to notify Congress no less 

than 5 days before making payment for any judgment or settlement to any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism or 

North Korea, Mr. Engel’s amendment will broaden congressional 

oversight of the international claims process and ensure that the 

House of Representatives is fully informed on all potential payments. 

I share the concerns of my colleagues, that the mechanism of 

payment for this particular settlement was made without informing Congress at the time of the payment, and I agree with the 

chairman that Iran should not be using United States money, or 

any funds gained from sanctions relief, to fund its terror activities. 

Since coming to Congress, I have been extremely vocal about the 

need to crack down on Iran’s dangerous behavior. I have sat at this 

dais and questioned members of this administration on exactly how 

we will track funds Iran is receiving from sanctions relief under 

the JCPOA to make sure they are not being used to support terrorism. I have introduced legislation to help Congress impose swift 

sanctions on Iran for its illegal ballistic missile tests, and I have 

sat here for 61⁄2 years and implored Iran to return my constituent, 

Bob Levinson, the longest-held American, who went missing in 

Iran 91⁄2 years ago and remains missing to this day. 

Let’s be clear. It is the policy of this administration that the 

United States does not pay ransom for its citizens, and to my 

knowledge, no such ransom payment occurred. Yet that is the very 

premise on which this underlying bill is crafted, as the title indicates, and that is why I have to oppose the bill and support the 

Engel substitute. The notion that the United States delivered pallets of cash as ransom for the release of our citizens is simply false. 

Moreover, the underlying bill risks putting the United States in 

37

violation of our legal obligations under the Algiers Accord, which 

requires the U.S. and Iran to bring claims to the Iran-U.S. Claims 

Tribunal. This process has yielded $2.5 billion for American claimants, and by including a prohibition on the U.S. providing promissory notes to the Government of Iran, but without providing for a 

legal definition of promissory note, this could be interpreted as barring any payment from the U.S. to Iran without a license. Prohibiting the settlement of any claim until the President can certify 

that the funds paid are not supporting terrorism would likely prevent the United States from reaching a settlement figure that 

would likely be significantly less than a judgment, as was the case 

with this $1.7 billion settlement, thereby, under those terms, costing the U.S. taxpayers more money. 

Ranking Member Engel’s substitute amendment would carry 

over the provision from the underlying bill that requires reporting 

to Congress on claims, settlements, and payments to Iran, enhancing Congress’ visibility on any transfers of funds to Iran going forward, and giving us the opportunity to have a say. 

We have done meaningful work in this committee under the leadership of Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, and it is 

because of this committee that Iran faced unprecedented economic 

sanctions. It is because of this committee that members of Iran’s 

Revolutionary Guard Corps, who direct the funding of terror and 

who commit egregious human rights violations, remain sanctioned. 

And it is because of this committee that banks continue to be wary 

of dealing with Iran, and Iran is still unable to fully access the 

international financial market or United States dollars. 

When we work together on this committee, on these issues of 

critical importance, the country is stronger and the country is 

safer. And when the United States leads by example and upholds 

its international obligations, this country is stronger and safer. 

That is what this Engel amendment will do. That is why I support 

it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Now I will just recognize myself for a point 

there. I want to make it clear that this bill does not withdraw us 

from the Hague Tribunal or undermine the Hague Tribunal, and 

I will explain why. First, this bill requires the administration to be 

more transparent with Congress and with the American people 

about how it engages with the Tribunal. If future settlements are 

truly a good deal for American taxpayers, this requirement should 

be an asset, not a burden. And while this bill does prevent the 

United States from paying a Tribunal award or settlement in cash, 

that should not be a problem. As the Associated Press recently reported, there is little precedent for using cash to pay for such a settlement. And if the United States has to make payment to Iran in 

the future for whatever reason, such a payment should be processed through the formal financial system. That is how the Hague 

Tribunal settlements have been handled for the last 35 years, and 

that is how it should work in the future, and that is what this bill 

also ensures. 

Other members seeking recognition? Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the ranking 

member’s amendment, because it seems to me that what we should 

38

be really focused on, and it should not matter whether it is a 

Democratic President or a Republican President, is congressional 

oversight, to make sure that we are, and as his bill so states, at 

5 days’ notice, we are an equal branch of government, and we 

should have oversight. Clearly the title of this bill is saying that 

there was a ransom paid, and it is alleging the fact that whether 

it was cash, whether it was check, whether it was charged, that the 

money was utilized for a ransom. And that is not the case because 

the question then would be if there were no hostages and this 

money was just simply paid, then would we be sitting here today? 

Well, if we did not have oversight, then that, too, would be incorrect, and what Mr. Engel’s amendment says is we should have 

oversight at all times. 

But why this becomes a political debate is that we are now debating whether or not these payments were tantamount to ransom 

when, in fact, as Mr. Sherman indicated earlier, this is Iran’s 

money, and it is money that we were going to have to pay, and we 

just happened to, in my belief, had a good deal in negotiating the 

cost because it saved taxpayers’ dollars. 

And so we are now mired into a political dispute as opposed to 

substance as to what this committee has been doing under your 

leadership, Mr. Chairman, as well as the ranking member, to make 

sure that we have the correct congressional oversight so that the 

wool is not pulled over our eyes. But it becomes a political argument—that is what we are in now—based upon the very title of 

this bill. 

So I strongly support Mr. Engel’s amendment, which I think accomplishes what all of us on this committee in a bipartisan way 

should want, that we are going to make sure that we have oversight, no matter who the President, no matter what the party. This 

committee is going to work on the best interests of the United 

States and to make sure that things are done properly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my friend yield? 

Mr. MEEKS. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The point you are making about ransom, do I understand the point you are making is that when you have used 

such a highly-charged emotive word, you have clearly prejudged 

the situation, and that is what we are being asked to vote on when 

that is in the title of a bill? 

Mr. MEEKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it also true that this payment was made about 

8 months ago? 

Mr. MEEKS. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And all of a sudden, we are marking up a bill 

because it is urgent, and we are doing it, if I understand correctly, 

before we have a hearing and hear from the State Department. We 

are actually waiting for the State Department to get back to us, 

and somehow there is some urgency, even though 8 months have 

transpired? 

Mr. MEEKS. That is absolutely correct. We have had no testimony, no witnesses, no hearings or anything of that nature, so it 

looks that this is a political bill. 

39

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can my friend, in any way, identify what the nature of the urgency is, that apparently didn’t occur in the previous 

8 months? 

Mr. MEEKS. I haven’t a clue. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could my friend speculate that it might have 

something to do with the fact that we are less than 60 days away 

from the presidential election? 

Mr. MEEKS. I think that there is an election on November the 

8th. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend for illuminating my understanding. 

Chairman ROYCE. I recognize myself here. Does the gentleman 

yield back? 

Mr. MEEKS. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. On a couple of points. The first point would be 

that after we became aware of this conduct 8 months ago, we subsequently have become aware of something we weren’t informed of 

at the time. And it is only through our repeated questions and 

some good press work that we know that not only was the original 

$400 million paid of ransom—and I call it ransom, because that is 

what Iran demanded. They demanded a ransom. I know that because I watched the translations of the Iranian television stations. 

And so this doesn’t occur in a vacuum. I know that, and I know 

the administration knew that paying ransom was against longstanding U.S. policy. They knew that that might provoke an outcry, 

so they settled this decades’-old dispute, 35-year-old dispute, over 

an arms sale that was called off after the Islamic Revolution in 

1979, and that allowed the Iranians to go home and say that they 

got a ransom and it allowed the Obama administration to come 

home and denied they paid a ransom. 

Here is the problem, one of them: The Justice Department, 

Obama’s own Justice Department, called the President’s bluff. The 

point of the no-concessions policy is to remove the incentive to take 

Americans hostage. And the Justice Department warned, that if 

Iran thinks they got a ransom, then they will take more hostages. 

That is the point. That is what I want to discourage with this legislation. I do not want another administration to pay Iran cash one 

more time because it is ransom. And that is exactly what happened, and the subsequent act of taking three more American hostages confirms exactly the policy that Justice warned about. So 

from my standpoint, I want a deterrence out there for this administration and future administrations. And, yes, I have tried to get the 

Secretary of State up here before this committee to talk about this, 

and we are still working to schedule his appearance, and I am 

hopeful that we will succeed in that. 

Mr. Zeldin of New York. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if one 

of the gentlemen who said this isn’t a ransom and that we owed 

them money would be interested in answering this question. Says 

who? For decades, for decades, this was a disputed claim. I know 

why, and I also know about our counterclaims, so when did we first 

admit that this money was owed and that they didn’t owe us anything? 

40

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t think we have ever said that they don’t 

owe us anything, and there has been work that we have done on 

whether the hostages taken at the Embassy have the right to sue 

the Iranian Government, but there is no dispute that $400 million 

of the Shah’s money was sitting under American control since the 

1970s. And, in fact, most of the calculations I have seen would indicate that we have paid less interest than could have been earned 

in other investments. So I know to go from $400 million to $1.1 billion sounds like the rate of return on that is rather low. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Reclaiming my time. A few things there. So first off, 

we received money from the Iranians for a purchase that they cancelled. So we were spending a lot of money to build pretty serious 

weapons systems that they cancelled. Furthermore——

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield——

Mr. ZELDIN. Let me just finish my point. It is my time. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe we cancelled it. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Then in February 1979, it was restructured, the 

debt that they were owed. Then they take our Embassy, and 15 

days after they take our Embassy, the Iranians say that they do 

not owe any foreign obligations to anyone. Then for decades, for 

decades, we dispute this claim while having our own counterclaim. 

So they ask for $400 million. We are asking for $817 million in the 

counterclaim because they were supposed to protect the weapons 

systems that we had given them. 

In addition to that, there was $400 million of claims of United 

States citizens in U.S. courts against Iran, judgments against the 

Iranians, that were subrogated as part of that $400 million. So we 

have a disputed claim for decades with regards to what Iran was 

asking from the United States. But at the same exact time, we are 

asking for $817 million because they failed to protect the weapons 

systems. They took our Embassy. They said that they didn’t owe 

any foreign obligations. They owe $400 million to the United States 

for claims of United States citizens, so we can put everything on 

balance. It comes back to the question, why is the net that we owe 

them $400 million? 

Mr. SHERMAN. U.S. citizens, I believe, have collected $2.5 billion 

in settlements from Iran. I support efforts for more to be paid. And 

you can say that there was a tactical advantage in the various lawsuits and claims for us to continue to hold Iran’s money. But this, 

if you look at this money in isolation, it is my understanding that 

we cancelled the contract, and if we hadn’t, we should, because the 

weapons that we had agreed to give the Shah should never have 

been in the hands of the Supreme Leader who took over afterwards. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Actually, the timeline is that the Iranians fell behind in their payments, and in February 1979, the entire deal was 

restructured. But, again, so the whole thing that caused this issue 

was the Iranians falling behind in their payments. But, again, you 

have $400 million sitting in accounts to pay claims. You have $400 

million sitting in an account. The Iranians have claims against the 

United States. The United States has claims against Iran. Both 

sides are disputing it. I am asking, so what happened with our 

$817 million claim against the Iranians? 

41

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe that is still pending and whether it is 

Iran or any other sovereign, the State Department uniformly opposes the suits against sovereign. If we look at this issue by 

itself——

Mr. ZELDIN. But we can’t. We can’t look at it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If you are going to say you can never settle anything until you——

Mr. ZELDIN. The $400 million that was sitting in that account 

was not there for one claim. That $400 million was not sitting in 

that account to settle one claim. It was to pay claims in front of 

the Tribunal. So, yes, the Iranians had claims against the United 

States, but also the United States had claims against the Iranians. 

Part of that had to do with subrogated claims of hundreds of millions of dollars $400 million actually, that the Iranians owed the 

United States. I yield back the balance of my time——

Chairman ROYCE. Any other Democratic members? Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. I have just a couple questions to each 

of you, to the chairman and ranking member. So first, let me ask 

both the questions, and then you can answer. Mr. Chairman, just 

on the underlying bill, there is a requirement that there is a certification that funds provided to Iran under the settlement will not be 

used to provide support for foreign terrorist organizations, the regime of the Bashar al-Assad and other destabilizing activities. And 

while I agree with that, my question to you, are you kidding? Do 

you really think a President of the United States can, in good faith, 

ever certify that with Iran? No, I don’t think so, because it is my 

opinion that any money that we give to Iran, legally or not legally, 

that they are going to do bad things with it. So I mean, I don’t even 

want to ask my President to certify something that is totally, I 

think, impossible. So that is a question. Do you really think that 

a President——

Chairman ROYCE. Let me respond just very briefly. What I am 

trying to do here is to indicate that if it is done in cash, you cannot 

certify. If it is done in a system with all of the regulations that the 

international financial system has on Iran to make sure that they 

cannot do terror finance, and the bills that we have passed, you 

can then certify, you can certify that it complies with those agreements, but cash you cannot. So that is the distinction I am trying 

to make. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And just to Mr. Engel, I want to ask you about 

your amendment, which is, you have a 5-day notice requirement. 

Is that correct? Are there circumstances, you think, where that 

would not—there would be some type of emergency or something? 

I am just wondering about the 5 days. What is the significance of 

5 days? Is it possible that there would have to be an exception to 

that? 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, the 5 days, and as I said in my remarks, I 

would be willing to entertain a more lengthy period of time. It was 

just an attempt to say that the main thing we want to get, or I 

would like to get at, is the fact that there was no notice to Congress, and that Congress was not informed about it until we heard 

about it with everybody else, and that really shouldn’t stand. So 

whether we want the President to give us 5 days or 10 days or 15 

42

days, that could be negotiated. But the fact is that they should give 

us advance notice. 

Ms. FRANKEL. If I may, just to follow up, I understand the longer 

period. But could there be a circumstance where it would have to 

be shorter? That is what I am asking you. I mean, is it possible 

that there would have to be some kind of exception for some kind 

of waiver? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes, I would. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that in an emergency situation, 

Congress could meet and authorize a payment as quickly as we 

could vote. So while there may be a 5-day requirement, if Congress 

meets and passes something, it could be on the President’s desk in 

a few hours. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I mean, I wouldn’t rely on this Congress to move 

fast on anything. I mean, really, I think grass grows quicker than 

this Congress moves. Really. 

Mr. ENGEL. I think there is no significance in terms of the time 

other than we wanted to make the point that the executive branch 

should be notifying the legislative branch. And I think if we are 

worrying about emergencies or whatever, we could always build it 

into it. What I hope would happen, because, look, no matter what 

happens here, none of this is passing this year. I mean, it is not 

going to become law this year, so I would hope that we have had 

a discussion. There are concerns on both sides, that we put our 

heads together, that we do have the hearings, because I know hearings are important to all of us, to you, to me, to the chairman, and 

that we come back and put our heads together and come up with 

a bipartisan bill, which is the way this committee works the best. 

You know, the fact that this bill contained only Republican cosponsors, you know, indicates to me that there really wasn’t an attempt to try to build bipartisan consensus for this bill. I think we 

can. I think we should. I think that 80 to 90 percent of our concerns are identical, and I think that we could hopefully hash something out in the best tradition of this committee the way we have 

been doing it for the past 4 years. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. I will just say that I am happy to support your amendment with a promise that as it moves along, there 

is some smoothing out, if there is some ability to have some exceptions in an emergency. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I would hope that, again, that this would lead 

to bipartisan negotiations, and I am sure we would take all these 

contingencies into account. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Yoho is seeking time, of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just kind of want 

to bring this back to why we are here today, and I agree with 

Ranking Member Engel that we should have something in the 

works for North Korea or any other country that we may go 

through this again. But the reason we are here today is because 

this administration chose to act unilaterally against his own adviser and State Department’s counsel, and they delivered $400 million in cash. 

In addition, the Iranian Government had the audacity to request 

it to be in unmarked bills, and they are the leading state sponsor 

43

of terrorism and money laundering. And for that reason, that is 

why we need to pass this bill today. It is not political. It is because 

we are being forced into this so it doesn’t happen again, and I look 

forward to voting yes on your bill. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

would ask unanimous consent that an article printed in the New 

York Times on the U.S. and Iran dated November 28, 1991, be entered into the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And let me just say why. You know, if you listen 

to some of the comments, you would think a unique development 

has occurred that only President Obama and his administration 

have engaged in in terms of cash payments to the Government of 

Iran. This article in 1991 describes a payment made by then-Republican President George H. W. Bush for a total of $278 million 

to the Government of Iran and quotes the administration at that 

time of denying that it was ransom for the release of two hostages, 

Anglican Terry Waite, and American Thomas Sutherland, from 

Lebanon held by Iranian-based kidnappers. It might also be pointed out that——

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just 1 second, Mr. Chairman. This money was a 

payment for undelivered Iranian-owned, American-made military 

equipment dating back before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. I don’t 

remember Democrats accusing George H. W. Bush of ransom or of 

somehow doing something inimical to U.S. interests. The same 

courtesy, it seems to me, ought to be shown to our Government. I 

will yield to the chairman, but then I am going to yield the balance 

of my time to Mr. Sherman, if he wishes it, to be able to respond, 

because he was not allowed to, to Mr. Zeldin. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, we will let Mr. Sherman respond. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. As a courtesy, I certainly would yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. Subsequently I will respond. Mr. Sherman, I 

want to make sure you get your time to respond. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think I made my point. One could have taken 

the position that we don’t make any deal with Iran on any issue 

until all matters are resolved, and until Iran becomes a liberal democracy. I think very few people have taken that position. Prime 

Minister Netanyahu said we should have a deal with Iran on the 

nuclear issue. He just wanted what he described as a better deal. 

Who knows whether that better deal could have been developed or 

not, but no one that I, very few people that I know have have said 

you can’t have a deal with Iran on the settlement of a $400 million 

claim until Iran settles with us on the hostages that were taken 

at the Embassy, or until Iran settles with us on their support for 

terrorism. 

This is a complicated relationship. We may have to reach deals one at a time. And the $400 million, I don’t think we had a claim 

to say that we get to keep the money because Iran fell behind on 

its contract payment, perhaps under the Shah. The fact is whether 

Iran did or did not cancel the contract, we would have and should 

have cancelled it because the weapons that we were going to sell 

the Shah should never have been delivered to this Islamic republic. 

44

So we cancelled, or should have cancelled, or the contract was 

cancelled. We owed the $400 million. $400 million in the 1970s 

would accrue far more than $400 million—would be well over $1 

billion today. We reached a settlement on that. It was simultaneous with a settlement that got three of our hostages released. 

And the only thing worse than reaching a settlement on that deal 

simultaneous with the release of our hostages would have been if 

we had reached a settlement on this $400 million plus interest, and 

not gotten our hostages released from Iran. And with that, I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield to the chairman. I meant no discourtesy, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would just point out that for many, many 

years, including during the Bush administration, Iran has operated 

under a certain modus operandi, and that modus operandi—I can 

tell you how they see it. They see it as ransom, and that intention 

has been to take Americans and get ransom. And under this legislation, it will no longer be possible for them to get that ransom in 

cash, and there is a very compelling reason we don’t want them to 

continue the practice, and that is because of their funding of 

Hamas and Hezbollah. I would just make that point. And if there 

are no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on Mr. 

Engel’s amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, 

no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman ROYCE. On that, we will have a recorded vote. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Wilson votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Poe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Salmon? 

Mr. SALMON. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Salmon votes no. 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Issa votes no. 

45

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Cook? 

Mr. COOK. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Cook votes no. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Weber votes no. 

Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Absolutely not. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Perry votes no. 

Mr. DeSantis? 

Mr. DESANTIS. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. DeSantis votes no. 

Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Meadows votes no. 

Mr. Yoho? 

Mr. YOHO. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Yoho votes no. 

Mr. Clawson? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. DesJarlais? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Ribble? 

Mr. RIBBLE. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Ribble votes no. 

Mr. Trott? 

Mr. TROTT. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Trott votes no. 

Mr. Zeldin? 

Mr. ZELDIN. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Zeldin votes no. 

Mr. Donovan? 

Mr. DONOVAN. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Donovan votes no. 

Mr. Engel? 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Engel votes yes. 

Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. Absolutely yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. 

Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Sires votes yes. 

46

Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Connolly votes yes. 

Mr. Deutch. 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Higgins? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Higgins votes yes. 

Ms. Bass? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Keating? 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Keating votes yes. 

Mr. Cicilline? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Grayson votes yes. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Bera votes yes. 

Mr. Lowenthal? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Lowenthal votes yes. 

Ms. Meng? 

Ms. MENG. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Meng votes yes. 

Ms. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Frankel votes yes. 

Ms. Gabbard? 

Ms. GABBARD. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Gabbard votes yes. 

Mr. Castro? 

Mr. CASTRO. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Castro votes yes. 

Ms. Kelly? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Kelly votes yes. 

Mr. Boyle? 

Mr. BOYLE. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Boyle votes yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentlelady from Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

Ms. MARTER. You are not recorded, ma’am. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I vote enthusiastically no. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. How am I recorded? 

Ms. MARTER. You are not recorded, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I vote no. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

47

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 16 ayes and 

21 noes. 

Chairman ROYCE. The amendment fails. I understand Mr. Zeldin 

of New York has an amendment at the desk. Does the member 

have an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. ZELDIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 5931 offered by Mr. Zeldin of 

New York. Page 9, line 22, before the period, insert the following: 

‘‘, including a detailed description of all claims and counter-claims 

covered by the settlement.’’

[The information referred to follows:]


21540d.eps
48

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, considered as read. Let me 

recognize Mr. Zeldin for the purpose of explaining his amendment. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment expands 

on this bill’s reporting requirements regarding settlements. Specifically, it will require a copy of the settlement agreements to be 

given to Congress, the status of some outstanding claims, and a 

guarantee that the settlement is in the best interests of the United 

States. 

There are still too many unanswered questions about this ransom payment—a $1.7 billion cash payment to Iran given simultaneously and connected to the release of four American hostages. 

This is $1.7 billion that went directly toward Iran’s military. This 

is the same Iran military that not only embarrassed our 10 Navy 

sailors with photography and videography, but then gave awards 

to their generals in appreciation. This is the same military that 

right now is humiliating our Naval ships in international waters, 

and threatening to shoot down our planes. This is the same military responsible for killing American servicemembers. The President of the United States is saying and doing nothing to prevent 

that. Instead, he just agreed to pay for it. 

My amendment ensures that Congress and the American people 

have clarity about any American claims which may be conceded 

through settlements our Government enters into at the Iran-U.S. 

Claims Tribunal. Now some people blindly loyal to this President 

will say we owed the $400 million. Says who? We didn’t owe the 

money. What about the $817 million that the U.S. claimed against 

Iran that Iran was contesting, or, over the course of the past few 

decades, Americans directly harmed by Iranian terrorism had sued 

Iran in U.S. courts and won. In 2000, Congress passed a law authorizing that the funds needed to pay those judgments in an equal 

amount to the assets at that time frozen in Iran’s foreign military 

sales account held by the U.S., which was around $400 million. 

When the American victims accepted those payments, their claims 

were subrogated to the United States, meaning that their claims 

against Iran became the United States’ claims against Iran. That 

law clearly states that ‘‘no funds shall be paid to Iran or released 

to Iran from the Foreign Military Sales Fund until such subrogated 

claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United 

States.’’ That is law. 

But the administration recently paid Iran the full $400 million 

amount from the FMS fund, plus more than three times that 

amount in interest, a total of $1.7 billion in cash, apparently without requiring Iran to pay anything with regards to those American 

victims’ claims for Iranian terrorism. 

The need for transparency about the effect of Tribunal settlements on all claims is obvious, including counterclaims and subrogated claims being pursued on behalf of the American people. I 

personally tried to access the Tribunal’s Web site, which claims to 

contain ‘‘many fully searchable public documents.’’ I had to request 

an account on the Tribunal’s Web site, and 1 month has passed 

without a response. That route clearly is not an acceptable option. 

This bill and amendment are necessary for transparency, accountability, and national security. 

49

Again, it is United States law that ‘‘no funds shall be paid to 

Iran or released to Iran from the Foreign Military Sales Fund until 

such subrogated claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of 

the United States.’’

I thank Chairman Royce for addressing this important issue, and 

I thank his staff for their hard work on this bill. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will just comment briefly. It is my understanding that the statute the gentleman was referring to only provides a statement of policy and not a statutory limit on the power 

of the President. He may disagree with what the President is 

doing. Whenever you settle a claim in a complicated relationship, 

you wonder, well, should I settle this claim without also getting 

justice on some other claim, and the President made a decision. 

That decision can be questioned, but I don’t think it can be declared to be illegal simply because he didn’t follow the policy language in a congressional enactment. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentlemen respond? 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want you to put 

words in my mouth. That is not what I stated. But what I did 

quote was a law, and I stated what that law stated. But I really 

don’t want you to put words in my mouth. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Just to clarify for the record, the statute that you 

quoted, and quoted accurately, was a statement of policy and not 

a statute that limits presidential action. Do I have that right? Or 

would the gentleman want to comment? 

Chairman ROYCE. The parliamentarian could opine on this, but 

I am not sure you want to hear his answer. He is of the opinion 

that, yes, for the record, it would be both. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That it is a statutory——

Chairman ROYCE. His opinion. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I look forward to getting various opinions on this, 

but I will yield back my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. In the interest of clarifying the underlying 

amendment, let me just, as I am looking at this amendment, what 

it does is it adds details to the reporting requirement so that we 

have clarity not only about the direct claims being settled, but also 

about any counterclaims or subrogated claims that may be extinguished by such an agreement. That is what the amendment does. 

My hope is that we pass this by voice and get on to the final bill. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman’s 

amendment, but I would, again, say that while there may be objections to what the President did, he is not the first President to do 

it. It has been done by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. 

So I think that we object to the attacks on this President and this 

administration. Certainly we agree that there needs to be more 

oversight, and, again, I hope that we can sit down and come up 

with a bipartisan bill to do that notification, but I think what the 

gentleman is offering is reasonable, and I support it. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank Mr. Engel, and hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on this amendment. All 

those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

50

And hearing no further amendments, the question occurs on approving the bill as amended. All those in favor, say aye. All those 

opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman ROYCE. A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman votes yes. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Smith votes yes. 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Wilson votes yes. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. McCaul votes yes. 

Mr. Poe? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Salmon? 

Mr. SALMON. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Salmon votes yes. 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Issa votes yes. 

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Marino votes yes. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Duncan votes yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Brooks? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Cook? 

Mr. COOK. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Cook votes yes. 

Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Weber votes yes. 

Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Perry votes yes. 

Mr. DeSantis? 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. DeSantis votes yes. 

51

Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Meadows votes yes. 

Mr. Yoho? 

Mr. YOHO. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Yoho votes yes. 

Mr. Clawson? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. DesJarlais? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Ribble? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Ribble votes yes. 

Mr. Trott? 

Mr. TROTT. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Trott votes yes. 

Mr. Zeldin? 

Mr. ZELDIN. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Zeldin votes yes. 

Mr. Donovan? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Donovan votes yes. 

Mr. Engel? 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Engel votes no. 

Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Sherman votes no. 

Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Meeks votes no. 

Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Sires votes no. 

Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Connolly votes no. 

Mr. Deutch. 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Higgins? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Higgins votes no. 

Ms. Bass? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Keating? 

Mr. KEATING. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Keating votes no. 

Mr. Cicilline? 

[No response.] 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Grayson votes no. 

Mr. Bera? 

Mr. BERA. No. 

52

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Bera votes no. 

Mr. Lowenthal? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Lowenthal votes no. 

Ms. Meng? 

Ms. MENG. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Meng votes no. 

Ms. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Frankel votes no. 

Ms. Gabbard? 

Ms. GABBARD. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Gabbard votes no. 

Mr. Castro? 

Mr. CASTRO. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Castro votes no. 

Ms. Kelly? 

Ms. KELLY. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Ms. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Boyle? 

Mr. BOYLE. No. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Boyle votes no. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

Ms. MARTER. You are not recorded, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. I vote yes. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Brooks votes yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 21 ayes and 

16 noes. 

Chairman ROYCE. H.R. 5931 is agreed to as amended. I now 

move the bill as amended be reported favorably to the House. All 

those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the 

Chair, the ayes have it, and H.R. 5931 as amended is ordered favorably reported, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 

And without objection, staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. We are adjourned. It concludes our business. 

Thank you to the committee members for their contributions and 

assistance with today’s markup. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

54

f


21540n.eps
55


21540m-1.eps
56


21540f.eps
57


21540g.eps
58

f


21540m-2.eps
59

f


21540s.eps
60

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE GERALD E. CONNOLLY, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

f


21540h.eps
61

Æ


21540i.eps