U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55–958 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

MOVING THE MONEY PART 2: 

GETTING ANSWERS FROM THE BIDEN 

ADMINISTRATION ON THE IRANIAN 

REGIME’S SUPPORT OF TERRORISM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 118–65 

( 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

PATRICK MCHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Vice Chairman 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

JOHN ROSE, Tennessee 

BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin 

WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin 

ANDREW GARBARINO, New York 

YOUNG KIM, California 

BYRON DONALDS, Florida 

MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska 

MIKE LAWLER, New York 

ZACH NUNN, Iowa 

MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas 

ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana 

ANDY OGLES, Tennessee 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts 

STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

RITCHIE TORRES, New York 

SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas 

NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia 

WILEY NICKEL, North Carolina 

BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado 

MATT HOFFMANN, Staff Director 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Chairman 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

JOHN ROSE, Tennessee, Vice Chairman 

DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania 

ANDY OGLES, Tennessee 

AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member 

STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas 

NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

December 13, 2023 ........................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

December 13, 2023 ........................................................................................... 27 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Paley, Abram, Deputy Special Envoy for Iran, U.S. Department of State ......... 6 

Rosenberg, Elizabeth, Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial 

Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury ......................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Paley, Abram .................................................................................................... 28 

Rosenberg, Elizabeth ........................................................................................ 32 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Green, Hon. Al: 

CNN, ‘‘Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years-with Israel’s backing. Here’s 

what we know about the controversial deal.’’, dated December 12, 2023 37 

Rosenberg, Elizabeth: 

Written responses to questions for the record from Representative 

Huizenga ........................................................................................................ 43 

Written responses to questions for the record from Representative Rose ... 52 

Written responses to questions for the record from Representative 

Waters ............................................................................................................ 47 

(1) 

MOVING THE MONEY PART 2: 

GETTING ANSWERS FROM THE BIDEN 

ADMINISTRATION ON THE IRANIAN 

REGIME’S SUPPORT OF TERRORISM 

Wednesday, December 13, 2023 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Huizenga [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Huizenga, Sessions, Rose, 

Meuser; Green and Garcia. 

Ex officio present: Representative Waters. 

Also present: Representative Nunn. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. 

I do want to take a moment, a point of personal privilege, and 

then offer that up to my colleague, Mr. Green, as well. But I want 

to acknowledge somebody who has been an integral part of our 

team here at the Oversight Subcommittee, Rachel Kaldahl. 

Rachel has been our Chief Oversight Counsel for the past 16 

months. She previously had been with the House Ways and Means 

Committee. She is going to some other place a little north of us. 

I hear it is on a campus, some other building over there where they 

might do some important stuff too called the Senate, and she is 

going to be going over to the Senate Banking Committee. 

And we deeply appreciate your service, Rachel. You have been a 

pleasure to work with. You have been an amazing professional in 

how you have worked through some tough issues and we just want 

to say thank you on behalf of myself, personally, Sean, my team, 

and the entire committee. 

We just want to say, thank you for your service. We know you 

are not going far, and I am sure our paths will be crossing again. 

So, blessings, and all the best for your future. 

And with that, I am happy to acknowledge my colleague, Mr. 

Green, as well. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of those 

moments of bipartisanship. I am honored to acknowledge her out-
2 

standing work, and I also wish her well. Thank you, Rachel, for 

your service. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. And as a former staffer, I know you are 

only as good as the people you surround yourself with, and she has 

been excellent. So, thank you again. 

With that, this hearing is entitled, ‘‘Moving the Money Part 2: 

Getting Answers from the Biden Administration on the Iranian Regime’s Support of Terrorism.’’ 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. 

Assistant Secretary Rosenberg, and Deputy Special Envoy Paley, 

thank you for appearing before our subcommittee this morning. 

Your testimony is significant to this subcommittee as we continue 

to investigate how the Iranian regime accesses money around the 

world due to relaxed sanction enforcement and waivers. 

Additionally, we hope that you can shed light on why a new 

waiver was necessary for the Iraqi electricity sales, and how the 

Biden Administration monitors compliance of sanctions around the 

world. And as I said during our last hearing, I do not believe this 

topic should be partisan. However, I do believe in accountability. 

It is vital that our oversight work is informed with collaboration 

and testimony directly from the agencies in an open and transparent setting, not behind closed doors. Again, thank you for your 

willingness to be here today. 

As we documented in our previous hearing, Iran continues to be 

a leading state sponsor of terrorism, facilitating a wide range of attacks and other illicit activities around the globe, and we are seeing these reports daily regarding our own troops in the region. 

October’s attack on our ally, Israel, is a stark reminder that in 

order to prevent further atrocities, we must increase, not relax, 

pressure on the Iranian regime. Iran sanctions have been a significant component of U.S. policy since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution 

and history tells us that they work. For example, the previous Administration’s maximum pressure campaign cut oil exports from 

Iran, significantly reducing Tehran’s ability to fund attacks against 

Americans and our allies. 

In contrast, the current Administration has adopted a different 

strategy. This past September, as part of a deal with the Iranian 

regime to free American hostages, President Biden waived U.S. 

sanctions to allow for the transfer of $6 billion of Iranian funds 

from accounts in South Korea to Qatar. While the funds were only 

to be used for humanitarian purposes such as food and medicine, 

there are reports that the Iranian regime has found and exploited 

ways around those restrictions. 

Regardless of what restrictions are placed on these transferred 

funds, Iranian officials themselves have signaled that this money 

is fungible, which is confirmed by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, 

who stated, ‘‘This money belongs to the Iranian people, the Iranian 

Government. So, the Islamic Republic of Iran will decide what to 

do with this money.’’ 

Believing that the money will go to benefit Iranian citizens may 

be a bit naive. The White House and my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle may attempt to dismiss the significance of these 

waivers, assuring us that Iran will not gain access to these trans-
3 

ferred funds. The reality is they likely will at some point, if they 

haven’t already. My colleagues will use this opportunity to point 

fingers at the past Administration instead of acknowledging that 

under this President, Iran has gained ground and grown in their 

influence. 

I will note that the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration had been operating under this, but we saw a decrease 

in those sales, and that is what this whole program was about: to 

wean places like Korea off of Iranian oil. 

The American people expect their Representatives in Washington 

to stand up to those who wish us harm. As we speak, Iranian proxies continue to attack American troops and our allies with little if 

any accountability or responsibility from this Administration, in my 

opinion. 

So as Chair of this subcommittee, I intend to use Congress’ oversight authority to hold our government and the Biden Administration accountable. The status quo is not acceptable. American lives 

have been lost—66 troops and contractors have been killed in recent days. 

So, I look forward to having an open and honest dialogue this 

morning. And with that, I am going to yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for his requested 

4 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate your 

desire for accountability. And I greatly respect your desire to investigate fungibility. 

I do believe that President Biden is an honorable man. I believe 

that President Biden has followed the law. I believe that what he 

has done for humanitarian purposes is something that other Presidents have done in a similar way. I believe that the $6 billion has not gone—and I think we will 

get evidence of that—to Iran. The money would never go to Iran. 

It would be utilized to make purchases for humanitarian purposes 

that could benefit people in Iran. 

I think that this quest for accountability is something that we 

should pursue. I do not think we should stop with just a second 

hearing, however. I think we need a third hearing, because we 

need to take a look at the money that has gone to Hamas. 

In a CNN news story in 2018, Qatar—the same country that 

would aid and assist with the humanitarian support to the people 

in Iran—began making monthly payments to the Gaza Strip. Some 

$15 million was sent into Gaza in cash-filled suitcases. And this 

cash money going into the Gaza Strip, into the hands of Hamas, 

was delivered by the Qataris through Israeli territory after months 

of negotiation with Israel. 

Now, what is interesting about this is that $15 million—and by 

the way, when I say, ‘‘dollars,’’ I literally mean U.S. dollars, not 

Canadian dollars—is that the U.S. was aware of the Qatari payments, and this was on President Trump’s watch, to Hamas. This 

is per a former senior State Department official. 

And also, this allowed Prime Minister Netanyahu to avoid the 

pressure of peace talks because he could indirectly keep Hamas in 
4 

power, and in so doing, he would have the perfect enemy, the perfect scapegoat, somebody that does not want Israel to exist, and as 

a result of not wanting Israel to exist, he could always say, I do 

not have a partner with whom to negotiate. 

But while he is saying this, he is allowing millions in cash—we 

do not have to talk about fungibility—to go directly to Hamas. I 

think that we ought to investigate Mr. Trump’s actions or the Administration’s actions. 

I do not think we can limit these things to the lawful actions of 

President Biden. There is more than probable cause to investigate. 

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would treat the Trump Administration with a similar desire to have accountability and find 

out what happened to those suitcases of cash. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman yields back. I will note that 

I believe Ms. Rosenberg, and I am not sure about Mr. Paley, are 

career employees, correct? No, I had it reversed. I think Mr. Paley 

is, so, you may have the ability to ask them that. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters, for one minute for an opening 

statement. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Under the Biden Administration, the United States has maintained the most-extensive set of comprehensive sanctions on Iran. 

In fact, the Biden Administration has ramped up pressure significantly since the Trump Administration by designing sanctions for 

hundreds of additional entities for activity related to Iran, including illicit sale of Iranian oil. 

Further, President Biden successfully negotiated a temporary 

ceasefire and the return of hostages taken by Hamas. This is the 

kind of steady leadership that America needs in an increasinglyunsteady world. 

While I am interested in working across the aisle with the Administration to ratchet up pressure against Iran in any way possible, the accusations that the Biden Administration has somehow 

weakened sanctions against Iran are simply false and are not conducive to productive conversation on these issues. 

I hope we can clear up much of that misinformation. I thank you, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Today, we welcome the testimony of Elizabeth Rosenberg, the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at 

the Treasury Department; and Abram Paley, the Deputy Special 

Envoy for Iran at the State Department. 

We want to thank you both for taking the time to be here in person today. You will each be recognized for 5 minutes for an oral 

presentation of your testimony. And without objection, your written 

statements will be made a part of the record. 

Assistant Secretary Rosenberg, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes for your oral remarks. 
5 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ROSENBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, TERRORIST FINANCING AND FINANCIAL CRIMES, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Green, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on what the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury is doing to combat terrorist financing. 

October 7th was a day of horror. The brutality of the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel, killing indiscriminately, 

sparing neither children nor the elderly, was an affront to our 

shared humanity and a somber reminder of the threat posed by 

terrorist organizations like Hamas. 

It is my responsibility as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes to identify and disrupt terrorist financing in the United States and abroad. Since the attacks, Treasury has redoubled its efforts to identify and freeze the finances of 

Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist groups. Hamas has traditionally been able to raise funds for its terrorist activities from an 

array of sources including taxation, donations, a portfolio of investments across Africa and the Middle East, and direct support from 

Iran. 

The U.S. Treasury Department has historically used the full 

scope of its authorities to impede Hamas’ funding. Sanctions designations of the group’s leaders and investments span over 2 decades. Recognizing the dangerous role that Iran plays in destabilizing the region more broadly, Treasury has sanctioned nearly 

1,000 individuals and entities connected to the Iranian regime and 

its proxies to date. 

Since the October attacks, Treasury has released 3 separate 

sanctions tranches focused on Hamas, designating over 50 additional individuals and entities linked to Hamas and Iran across 

multiple jurisdictions. And just this morning, Treasury has announced another tranche of sanctions on Hamas entities in connection with international partners. 

However, Hamas leaders live and move freely in Turkey, Qatar, 

and elsewhere, publicly solicit funds, and enjoy financial services. 

Therefore, in addition to sanctions, designations disrupting Hamas’ 

international financial networks require international action. 

In the wake of the Hamas attacks, Treasury reached out to counterparts across the Middle East and Europe to convey the Administration’s support for Israel and the intent to use all the tools at our 

disposal to expose and disrupt Hamas, including the terrorist financing targeting center, which we promptly convened among a 

number of Gulf partners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in October. 

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Nelson recently traveled 

to Turkey to discuss the urgent need for Turkish efforts to freeze 

Hamas funds. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo also spoke with his European counterparts in late October to press our partners to investigate entities with possible ties to Hamas. 

Treasury has also had substantive technical outreach to our partners around the world, which has led to complementary sanctions 

actions by Australia, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, and others, to designate Hamas-related targets through their 

own domestic authorities. Treasury has also engaged the private 
6 

sector both in the United States and abroad to refine the red flags 

and indicators of terrorist financing and underscore the imperative 

to report and freeze terrorist funds. 

Alongside these counter-illicit finance activities, Treasury has a 

significant role to play in addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza to ensure that our financial measures do not negatively 

impact legitimate aid going to the people of Gaza. Treasury has 

had close engagement with representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and U.S. Government implementers of humanitarian assistance on these matters. 

In sum, Treasury’s response to Hamas and its funders over decades has been broad and aggressive. As this committee fully appreciates, Hamas’ attacks and their relationship with Iran pose a 

threat to the safety and stability not only of Israel, but of the region more broadly, and to American interests. 

All of us here share a common interest: preventing acts of terror. 

Secretary Yellen and Deputy Secretary Adeyemo have previously 

spoken about how to confront these challenges by maintaining U.S. 

leadership abroad, meeting all of our financial commitments, and 

adapting our laws to meet the challenges posed by new and emerging financial technologies. 

I look forward to working with the members of this committee 

on these issues, and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Rosenberg can be 

found on page 32 of the appendix.] 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Thank you. 

Mr. Paley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ABRAM PALEY, DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY FOR 

IRAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. PALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Green, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today. We welcome this opportunity to discuss Iran, one of the most-persistent 

threats we face as a country. 

The Biden Administration views Iran as an adversary and the 

leading state sponsor of terrorism. We are clear-eyed about Iran 

and will continue to take the actions necessary to counter the 

threats it poses, and our approach is framed within this context. 

Across the Federal Government, we are confronting Iran and pushing back against its destabilizing activities. We are coordinating 

closely with allies and partners to enhance our already-strong military deterrent. 

We are implementing biting sanctions and economic pressure 

and we are utilizing strategic messaging to make clear Iran’s behavior will not be tolerated, will be punished, and that Tehran will 

continue to be treated as a pariah on the international stage absent 

a shift in its policies. 

This resolve in countering Iran has been on full display since the 

horrific Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7th, the subsequent attacks by Iranian-backed proxies on U.S. personnel and 

facilities in the region, and the Iran-enabled Houthi attacks on 

Israel and on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. We view Iran 
7 

as complicit in Hamas’ barbaric terrorist attack, and the attacks 

against us by its proxies, and we will continue to hold it accountable. 

The President and the Secretary of State have been unequivocal 

about our support for Israel and Israel’s right to defend itself 

against terrorism, and the Biden Administration has also been consistent in our efforts to counter Iran’s long-standing support for 

Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militia groups in Iraq and 

Syria. 

Our bolstered presence in the region has sent a clear message 

that this is not the time to take advantage of the situation, and 

President Biden has shown he is prepared to defend U.S. personnel 

and interests time and time again. 

While our priority right now remains supporting Israel, countering Iran’s support for terrorism in the region, and addressing 

the humanitarian situation in Gaza, we also continue to counter 

the full range of the Iranian regime’s activities that are antithetical 

to our interests and our values. We are confronting the Iranian regime’s lethal plotting against current and former U.S. officials, as 

well as the transnational repression of dissidents, journalists, and 

human rights defenders, including on U.S. soil. 

We are using all of the tools at our disposal to expose and disrupt Iran’s expanding military partnership with Russia, alongside 

our allies and partners. We are standing with the people of Iran 

in the face of continued oppression and violence. And on the nuclear front, President Biden is absolutely committed to never allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and has been clear that we 

remain postured and prepared to use all appropriate measures to 

do so. 

Iran’s unjust detention of our citizens for political leverage also 

represents a threat, and that is why we continue to stress to all 

Americans to not go to Iran. 

President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have been clear 

that there is no higher priority than the safety and security of 

Americans, and the Administration stands by our deal that brought 

five innocent Americans and two of their family members home. 

This deal was about reuniting these Americans with their loved 

ones. 

As part of this arrangement, we facilitated the transfer of $6 billion in restricted Iranian funds held in South Korea to restricted 

accounts in Qatar for humanitarian use only. Not a penny of this 

money has been spent, and these funds will not go anywhere anytime soon. This does not change anything about our approach to 

Iran. Iran remains an adversary and we will continue to confront 

it as such. 

With respect to Qatar, its relationship with Hamas has been well 

known to multiple Israeli governments, including the current government, going back many years. It has been and remains extremely helpful in securing hostage releases. At the same time, we 

have discussed with Qatari leaders that there is no going back to 

the status quo of October 6th and they have expressed their agreement with that. 

With respect to the waiver Secretary Blinken signed on November 14th, the 21st such waiver across multiple Administrations for 
8 

Iraq to pay for electricity imports and in support of Iraq’s energy 

independence, under these waivers, no money has been or will be 

permitted to enter Iran, and any notion to the contrary is false. 

These Iranian funds can only be used for the purchase of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, and other nonsanctionable transactions. We do not believe that restricting the 

availability of humanitarian goods to the Iranian people would decrease Iran’s support for terrorism. 

Iran has proven that it prioritizes destabilizing activities and terrorism regardless of the country’s macroeconomic conditions, and 

since we do not expect any change in Iran’s behavior from these 

steps, our approach to Iran is similarly not going to change. 

I close by reaffirming the Administration’s commitment to addressing Iran’s continued destabilizing behavior unilaterally and 

with our partners. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Deputy Special Envoy Paley can be 

found on page 28 of the appendix.] 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Thank you for that. 

And before I get into my questions, I want to emphasize as well 

that the fact that U.S. citizens still go to Iran is stunning to me. 

Recently, I had the Swiss Ambassador to Iran in my office. She and 

the Swiss act as our on-the-ground liaison since we do not have 

diplomatic relations with Iran. They know of tens of thousands of 

our citizens who are there, and they suspect that there may be 

more. So, if anything, if we want to talk about bipartisan agreement, please do not go to Iran so that we, the government, and we, 

as citizens, are not ever put in that situation. 

I wanted to emphasize that. That is a public service announcement from the Oversight Subcommittee, if that is okay with the 

ranking member. 

I am going to start my questions with Assistant Secretary Rosenberg. 

What is the Biden Administration’s policy reason for allowing the 

transfer of money from Iraqi banks, in Iraqi dinar, to France, Germany, Italy, and Oman—the last two waivers covered those—and 

to be then converted from dinar to euros? 

Basically, what I want to know is: first, why; and second, who 

requested this move? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. As a point of clarification, 

the money was earned in euros, so it never changed. There was 

never an FX transaction. It was earned in euros and—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. What do you mean by earned in euros? 

This was electricity that was sent from Iran to Iraq and the Iraqis 

paid for it in euros? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. That is correct. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. So, it was never in Iraqi dinar? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. That is correct. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. It is my understanding, though, that 

the law says that it is meant and intended to be in the local denomination. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I will defer to my colleague from the State Department to discuss the waivers that were put in place originally 
9 

by the last Administration that allow for Iraq to purchase energy 

from Iran. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. So, they have not been converted to euros, 

because they were in euros, is your testimony? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Yes, and—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. Why is that necessary? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. The Iraqis have the opportunity to pay for that 

in either dinar or euros and they paid for it in euros. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. As we have discussed, Oman is one 

of the countries. So, the money—whether it is in Italy, France, Germany, or Oman—is in euros, is your understanding? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. It is in euros. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. Why is Oman one of the countries 

granted a waiver to receive Iranian funds from Iraq? Why Oman? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. We have worked with the financial institutions 

in Oman to create the structure for restrictions on these finances. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Do you have greater confidence in the 

Omani banking system than you do in the Qatari banking system 

or the Italian banking system or the French banking system? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Speaking specifically to the funds in question— 

I think that we are here today to discuss the funds in Qatar and 

the funds in Oman. We have worked very carefully with—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. But the waiver says, Italy and France, 

France twice, and the last two waivers in Germany. I am curious 

why Germany is no longer in that waiver, and maybe Mr. Paley is 

going to have to answer that. But I want to continue with you. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I happily defer to Mr. Paley. These are State 

Department waivers, so I would happily defer to my colleague to 

speak to the text of the waiver. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. But with respect to the confidence that we have 

in the financial institutions in Qatar and in Oman that hold this 

money, we have worked on creating a structure for the restriction 

of these funds and a whole series of levels of compliance in order 

to examine the money and any potential requests for transferring 

that money. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. And we had testimony previously that 

there is no written agreement on that. There is no letter—or there 

is a letter, but not a written agreement. But have there been any 

humanitarian transactions facilitated from the Iranian funds held 

in Oman? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. There have been two transactions. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Two transactions. Okay. I know Mr. Paley 

had said there had been none out of Qatar, but there have been 

out of Oman. 

Have there been any issues or problems identified in the transactions facilitated from the Iranian funds held in Oman? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I am familiar with the request from the Chair 

regarding some matters related to the financial institutions. We 

have prepared a response to that, which will be forthcoming—I believe today. 

It would be inappropriate for me to speak in an open setting here 

about the financial institutions in detail, although we would be 
10 

happy to, in a closed setting, speak more about that particular matter. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. This is a yes-or-no question; you are not 

giving us any information. Have there been problems or issues with 

those transfers? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. The transactions themselves? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. We have confidence in the series of restrictions 

that we have in place and the due diligence around—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Ms. Rosenberg, you are sliding into bureaucrat speak now. You are going soft around the edges on this. 

It is a simple question. Your answer, what I interpret it as is, I 

cannot answer it in this open setting. But have there been problems? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I appreciate the question and we would be 

happy to, in a closed setting, speak to you more about the particular transactions. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. So, we will take that as a, yes. My time 

has expired. 

I am now going to recognize, at the request of the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the Full Committee, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Paley, and Ms. Rosenberg, the United States had a longstanding bipartisan policy to explicitly exclude certain humanitarian activities from sanctions restrictions. Specifically, humanitarian exceptions allow for trade in agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices. Such exceptions are reflected in legislation and Executive Orders that form the United States sanctions 

programs, including those related to Iran. 

These humanitarian exceptions reflect basic respect for all 

human life and they are also important to our broader national security interests. Right now, there is a very serious humanitarian 

crisis occurring in Gaza, and although the Biden Administration 

was able to successfully negotiate a temporary ceasefire to allow for 

more humanitarian assistance, much more is needed. 

Mr. Paley, Ms. Rosenberg, can you discuss the importance of humanitarian exceptions in the context of what is happening in Gaza, 

and U.S. strategic interests in the broader region? What would an 

elimination of humanitarian exceptions to sanctions mean for the 

innocent civilians in Gaza? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you very much for the question. 

It is correct that the exceptions that exist to pay for agricultural 

commodities, medicine, and medical devices are a matter of longstanding policy. 

They are enshrined in congressional statute over years, over 

many programs, over successive Congresses. They are enshrined in 

executive authority as well, over a variety of Administrations, and 

as you say, it reflects respect for human life, and it respects the 

core values of Congress, and of the Administration about providing 

for meeting basic human needs. 

These exceptions that exist, the ability to pay for humanitarian 

goods, apply across an array of sanctions programs and so to the 
11 

extent that there is—where there is a need, for example, you were 

noting that in Gaza, our exceptions exist there as well, which is to 

say that sanctions should not, and we will work to ensure that 

there cannot be restrictions on the provision of humanitarian assistance there and elsewhere. 

One note I would add, given that we are here to discuss Iran and 

its support for terror, including through proxy groups in the region, 

and our concern about the potential for diversion of humanitarian 

aid, is it creates the necessity for us to work diligently to ensure 

that humanitarian aid, in a number of circumstances, is restricted 

and we have great clarity on the fact that it shall be used for humanitarian aid and not diverted. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Paley? 

Mr. PALEY. Thank you very much. 

I would reiterate what Assistant Secretary Rosenberg said in 

terms of this Administration’s commitment of support on humanitarian issues, which echoes support across multiple Administrations for addressing humanitarian issues and also having these humanitarian carve-outs in our legislation that allow, with the proper 

due diligence, for humanitarian transactions to go to people across 

the world including in areas where we have very strong disagreements about their policy approaches. 

Since October 7th, President Biden and Secretary Blinken have 

emphasized their support for Israel and Israel’s right to defend 

themselves including against Iranian-backed terrorism. 

At the same time, President Biden and Secretary Blinken have 

also emphasized their focus on humanitarian support to Gaza. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. My colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle have alleged that President Biden has weakened Iran sanctions. But my understanding is that President Biden has only increased sanctions since the Trump Administration. In fact, the two 

transactions waivers that are the focus of this hearing are actually 

carried over from the Trump Administration. 

Can you please confirm that these are the same sanctions waivers from the Trump Administration, that have been continued by 

the Biden Administration? Is that true? 

Mr. PALEY. Thank you very much. 

Yes, in terms of the waiver with regards to Iraq and Iraq’s purchases of electricity from Iran, this is the 21st time that this waiver has been issued, the 20th renewal across Administrations. 

This Administration has been very clear about our support for 

Iraq and that is what this waiver is about. I am happy to get into 

more detail. And as Ms. Rosenberg said, our support for—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. PALEY. Excuse me? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I will let you finish the sentence, but the 

gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. PALEY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. With that, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Sessions, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 
12 

What is happening today is that this subcommittee, under the 

leadership of our young chairman, is trying to ask questions, because, as you know, as required by law, there is a report that was 

issued to Congress. There was only one sentence in the report regarding the payment transfer of authority in the most recent November Iraqi electric waiver. 

I have a copy of your statement here, and the statement says the 

Secretary also certifies that France, Italy, and Oman faced exceptional circumstances—exceptional circumstances—preventing them 

from significantly reducing their petroleum product purchases from 

Iran. 

Well, look, I get it with France, but Italy has reserves of 1.3 percent of what it already uses. I do not know what the exceptional 

circumstances are there. Oman has proven reserves of 79.4 times 

its annual consumption, and yet, this Secretary has chosen to fool 

the United States Congress into believing significant and exceptional rather than providing the data and information. 

The problem is that we have been around for a while, and remember that the Obama Administration, 5 different times, argued 

the case they could only give Iran cash—billions of dollars—and 

the only way they could do it is in cash. We know that you cannot 

follow the cash. We do not know where that went. The Obama Administration argued, oh, we are for the Israelis, but kept giving billions of dollars in cash. 

Hamas only makes—has about $500 million a year and yet these 

Administrations from, granted, the Democratic side, give billions of 

dollars in cash to the Iranians where it is just slush money. Just 

go give it out. There is no way to follow the money. 

Mr. Paley, there was no explanation in this report as to why it 

necessitated the payment transfers. I will give you 2 minutes, and 

I would like for you to answer the question of, what should have 

been in this report? 

Mr. PALEY. Thank you very much, Congressman, and thank you 

for the opportunity to—— 

Mr. SESSIONS. I am sure you are delighted with it. 

Mr. PALEY. We welcome the opportunity, because at the heart of 

it, what this waiver is about is our support for Iraq. Across Administrations, we have issued and renewed these waivers to—— 

Mr. SESSIONS. Then, why did you blame Oman? And exceptional 

circumstances and significant—why did you use those terms for a 

country that has 79 times what their annual needs require? 

Mr. PALEY. Thanks very much for the question. Over time, multiple Administrations have approved and renewed these waivers to 

allow Iraq to continue to purchase electricity from Iran. Over time, 

money has accrued in these accounts that are in Iraq and that are 

subject to all the restrictions that have remained in place because 

we have not lifted any sanctions against Iran. 

Over time, as this money has accrued, Iran has sought to use 

this as a point of leverage over Iraq and pressured Iraq to release 

this money, to give it back in certain ways, and Iraq has stood 

firm. 

So, we, with this waiver and with the previous waiver, have 

sought to stand firm with Iraq as it continues to improve its energy 

independence, but work with Iraq to get these Iranian funds out 
13 

of the restricted accounts in Iraq where Iran is able to leverage 

Iraq to release this money or transfer it in a way that would potentially not be subject to all of the restrictions that are in place to 

move it out of Iraq—— 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Paley, I think your use of terms and hiding, 

in my opinion, behind this need for humanitarian aid to support 

Iraq and all of these things—we are dealing with America’s greatest terror, and that is the Iranians, and you are giving them cash. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

witnesses’ presence today. I echo many of the comments made by 

some of my colleagues in condemning the rise of anti-Semitism, 

Islamophobia, and hate in all forms here in the United States and 

abroad. 

Everyone in this room and across the world saw the gruesome 

images and heard the heartbreaking stories of those impacted by 

the October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas. Attacks like these reinforce that the United States must maintain its steady global leadership abroad and that has only strengthened during the Biden Administration. 

Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are financed by 

Iran—there is no question about that—making U.S. sanctions on 

Iran critically important. 

We heard testimony today that places focus on two sanctions 

waivers granted by the United States earlier this year. I want to 

inquire specifically about the $6 billion in Iranian funds transferred from South Korean banks to Qatar. 

Ms. Rosenberg, Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo told Congress 

that the U.S. and Qatar have agreed to effectively block the funds 

that—and that on case-by-case applications, the money that would 

be spent under the current arrangement will be denied for the foreseeable future. 

Could you provide specific examples of oversight mechanisms in 

place, whether the humanitarian channels are in place to prevent 

any funds from being used for terrorist financing? I think Mr. 

Paley said that not one penny has been spent. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you for the question. 

It is the case that there have been no transfers out of this from 

the $6 billion sum held in Qatari financial institutions. So, I will 

offer an explanation of the measures in place to prevent the diversion to non-humanitarian purposes. 

There are, I think, three levels of controls on this restricted fund. 

In the first instance, the financial institutions themselves apply 

their own Know Your Customer (KYC) and due diligence requirements for the funds. In certain instances, they have adopted a policy to prevet potential recipients of funds. These would be firms engaged in agricultural activity, medicine, and medical device supply 

companies, for example. 

The financial institutions have also adopted a policy of only letting existing account holders be in the position to receive the funds, 
14 

which is to say those that have already been onboarded and vetted 

for customer awareness. So, that is one level, the intensive and enhanced due diligence at the financial institutions. 

On top of that comes the restrictions from the European Union 

(EU). These are the kinds of controls—Know Your Customer (KYC) 

and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) controls—incumbent upon institutions that operate within the European Union. 

This is because, as noted previously in questions with the Chair, 

the funds are in euros, which means that there is a necessity to, 

when clearing euro transactions, be in line with European policies 

on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. 

A second layer of controls has to do with European standards. 

And a third level of controls has to do with the United States and 

the restrictions that we and the Treasury Department place on 

these restricted funds. 

I will note that there is no U.S. nexus to these funds nor has 

there been at any point. Nevertheless, we have imposed our own 

restrictions on these accounts in these Qatari institutions, which 

involves our own anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism restrictions. It requires the financial institutions to 

notify the U.S. Treasury Department whenever they seek to engage 

in any transfer, and back to the original point, no transfers have 

occurred so far. 

Ms. GARCIA. No transfers have occurred? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. That is correct. 

Ms. GARCIA. Mr. Paley, do you concur or have anything to add 

to Ms. Rosenberg’s response? 

Mr. PALEY. I concur with her response. Thank you. 

Ms. GARCIA. Okay. And you said earlier that not one penny has 

been spent? 

Mr. PALEY. That is correct. 

Ms. GARCIA. Not one penny? 

Mr. PALEY. Correct. 

Ms. GARCIA. I think it is worth repeating, because that seems to 

be a point that some do not seem to hear, and I want to make sure 

that the public heard that: Not one penny has been spent. 

Mr. PALEY. Exactly. Not one penny has been spent from—— 

Ms. GARCIA. Okay. Thank you, and I see my time is running out, 

so I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

With that, the Vice Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman 

from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here with us today. 

Mr. Paley, how has the placing of U.S. Special Envoy to Iran, 

Robert Malley, on unpaid leave affected your office’s ability to effectively function? 

Mr. PALEY. Thanks very much for the question. 

As the Deputy Special Envoy for Iran at the State Department, 

I am in charge of the day to day implementation of our Iran policy 

at the Department and nothing has changed in terms of our implementation of that policy. 
15 

We work across the Department and across the agencies to continue to advance President Biden and Secretary Blinken’s focus on 

countering Iran, which remains a top adversary and state sponsor 

of terrorism. 

Mr. ROSE. Can you provide any clarity as to why Mr. Malley’s 

security clearance was suspended? 

Mr. PALEY. Unfortunately, I am not in a position today to speak 

to personnel or security clearance issues. 

Mr. ROSE. Is that something that perhaps you could answer in 

a classified setting? 

Mr. PALEY. I know that the Department is engaged with this 

committee and other committees on certain issues related to this 

case. But today, again, I am not in a position to speak to security 

questions. 

Mr. ROSE. If it is possible to get more clarity on that in a classified setting, we would certainly appreciate it. I know that I would. 

Mr. PALEY. We will certainly take the question back. Thank you. 

Mr. ROSE. Okay. 

In September, the Department of the Treasury established what 

it called a humanitarian channel in Qatar—I think we are all familiar with that action—to administer $6 billion in Iranian assets 

from South Korea. It is described as a way to, ‘‘further facilitate 

the flow of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.’’ 

Assistant Secretary Rosenberg, why did Treasury decide to create 

a, ‘‘humanitarian channel,’’ and is this a common mechanism for 

Treasury? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you for the question. 

As to the why, I would be very happy to defer to my State Department colleague, given that the creation of this particular mechanism was pursuant to a deal on the exchange of detainees between Iran and the United States. I will defer on that. 

With regard to, is this a common practice, is there a precedent 

for this, in the last Administration, there was an establishment of 

a Swiss humanitarian channel to pursue the same goal, which is 

to say, to take Iranian funds, highly restricted, that could be used 

only for humanitarian purposes, subject to intense vetting akin to 

what I just described in the prior questioning. 

So, there is a precedent for this. This is another example that 

builds on lessons learned and is in a different jurisdiction. 

Mr. ROSE. Mr. Paley, I will let you clarify as well, but is there 

a stark difference between a humanitarian channel and other escrow accounts that are available to Iran for humanitarian trade 

purposes? Either one of you? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I can answer that. It is the case that there are 

special conditions around a humanitarian channel understood as 

such, which is to say the establishment of such a channel is designed and established exclusively for humanitarian payments, and 

as I was noting before, it can be the case that certain potential recipients of the funds are pre-vetted. 

They can only be customers of an institution. It is designed for 

that purpose. Generally speaking, the U.S. law, policy, and sanctions allow for payments, Iran as well as for other countries subject 

to intensive sanctions and other programs to be able to pay for humanitarian transactions. 
16 

But this is a particularized channel established with conditionality around it even though it could be permitted to pay for humanitarian goods in a different account but subject to—that would not 

be an account established exclusively for humanitarian purposes. 

Mr. ROSE. And give us some greater sense of what data Treasury 

is relying on to ensure that the humanitarian channels are the 

most effective way to get the appropriate assistance to Iranian citizens. How are you measuring that? What is the data source that 

you use to measure that effectively? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. That is an interesting question. I would offer 

that our highest purpose here, and the purpose that guides our policy overall is to ensure that Iran does not have access to money it 

can use for terror and destabilization. 

Mr. ROSE. My time has expired, but I would appreciate it if you 

might expand on that for the record. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman yields back. The ranking 

member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. I will reserve and ask that you go to the next Member who is available for questioning. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Mr. Green, we are going to have you—this 

will be our last questioner, unless we are willing to do a second 

round, which I am happy to do. I know there are more questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to the committee 

rules and I will quote, ‘‘The Chair shall so far as practicable defer 

to the ranking member with respect to the order of recognition for 

Minority Members.’’ I have no additional Minority Members, and I 

reserve, and I ask that you go to a Member who is prepared to 

speak on your side. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I am happy to engage in this conversation 

about our rules. You have control of your side of the aisle. If you 

do not have any more Members, you are the last one, so, therefore, 

it is your turn. 

I have more Members on my side, and that is the discretion of 

the Chair. So, I am not doing anything funky with the rules. It is 

your turn. I know you would like to have the last word, but that 

is not how this works. 

We have more Members over on this side. The Majority is going 

to get the last word. So, the gentleman can bypass his ability to 

ask a question. I am happy to go to a second round of questioning, 

because I know I certainly have more questions. So, does the gentleman agree to a second round? 

Mr. GREEN. The gentleman would ask that the Chair adhere to 

the rules, and in so doing respect my right to pass, and I appreciate your highly technical terminology of, ‘‘funky,’’ but this is, in 

my opinion, something that is appropriate under the rules. I reserve. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman will understand that I am 

adhering to the rules, which is what you get to determine. You had 

the ranking member of the Full Committee go first. You always 

nicely defer to your Members and always go last on your side of 

the aisle. 
17 

If we are ending this hearing, it is the Majority’s not only right, 

but because we have enough people over here as we alternate, the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania is going to go last. 

So, it is the ranking member’s choice as to whether he wants to 

claim his 5-minute time. 

We have deferred to the ranking member on his side. We have 

given him the ability to choose to have their Full Committee ranking member—hold up. Please tell me that you recognize how foolish 

and childish this is. 

Mr. GREEN. I recognize—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. No. Sir—— 

Mr. GREEN. Excuse me. Allow me to respond to that. 

It was not necessary for you to use the terms, ‘‘foolish,’’ and, 

‘‘childish.’’ 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. So, the Chair shall so far as practicable—— 

Mr. GREEN. Hold on just a moment. I have been very respectful 

of you. Now, you will respect me. Respect me, if you do not respect 

the rules. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman knows I have full respect 

for—— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, then, ‘‘foolish,’’ and, ‘‘childish,’’ is not the way 

to address a Member of Congress. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Excuse me, sir. I was actually referring to 

the staff behind us that was interrupting our proceedings. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I will defend the staff. I do not think you referred to the staff as foolish and—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Actually, I did, as I turned around looking 

at—— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, you can do it, but I would say to you that that 

is an inappropriate way for a Member of Congress to refer to staff. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. So, would the gentleman like to proceed or would you like to continue arguing about the process? 

Mr. GREEN. I reserve—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Just to be clear, the ruling of the Chair 

will be that the gentleman is forfeiting his 5 minutes. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will be recognized, and then, that will 

be the end of the hearing. That is your choice. 

Mr. GREEN. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. That is your choice. 

Mr. GREEN. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I have not done anything yet. I am giving 

you your options. Or we can continue on with a second round. I am 

happy to then go back, if you would like to get Ranking Member 

Waters or Ms. Garcia or any of your other Members here, I am 

happy to do that. 

But either I am going to recognize you for your 5 minutes, or I 

am going to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 5 

minutes, and when the gentleman from Pennsylvania is done, the 

hearing is done. What is your choice? 

Mr. GREEN. So, you are saying—may I ask you a question? 

Would you be so kind as to receive a question as Chair? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Absolutely. 
18 

Mr. GREEN. So, your contention is that the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be the very last person? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Unless we have more Members on our side 

or your side show up. 

Mr. GREEN. Would you hold for a moment? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I would be happy to. 

[pause] 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. For the fine folks on C–SPAN who 

are riveted by what has been going on with the discussion of our 

committee rules, tradition is that we alternate Majority to Minority. The Majority always starts, and the Majority always closes. 

There is a request to change that. I have an understanding with 

the ranking member now that we will be, at his request, running 

through the rest of our committee members—the Republican committee members. 

He will then claim the last 5 minutes of questioning, at which 

point I will grant him an extended time for closing remarks, at 

which point I will have that same amount of time for my closing 

remarks to end the hearing. 

So, after lots of back and forth, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meuser, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Paley, and Ms. Rosenberg, do you think the $6 billion will 

be only used for humanitarian purposes? You pretty much stated 

that, even though Iranian President Raisi said they will use it for 

whatever they want, whenever they need it? Is the Iranian president not to be trusted in his words? 

Mr. PALEY. I would certainly not believe everything that the Iranian president says. 

Mr. MEUSER. Okay. So, the Iranian president should not be believed in this case or do you just pick and choose when you believe 

him and when you do not believe him? 

Mr. PALEY. We do not trust the Iranians. We view them as an 

adversary and a state sponsor of terrorism. 

Mr. MEUSER. Okay. Why do you think then that the aid would 

not be used for other purposes? Do you understand what the term, 

‘‘fungible,’’ means? You probably do. You are pretty educated, 

right? Do you know what, ‘‘fungible,’’ means? 

Okay. So if Iran has $50 million, and they get $50 million, and 

they were going to use that $50 million for food, and then they get 

an additional $50 million, they can use the additional $50 million 

for food and use the old $50 million to buy weapons for terrorists. 

You get that, right, sir? 

So, why do you not think that is going to happen, if you do not 

trust them? 

Mr. PALEY. Thanks very much for the question. 

I have full confidence in the due diligence measures that Assistant Secretary Rosenberg has outlined for this money. It can only 

be used for humanitarian—— 

Mr. MEUSER. There is an expression where I’m from that there 

is a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to show you and see if 

you are interested in. That is just absurd, and I think you know 

it, and in your memoirs, you will probably write it that way. 
19 

What about the $10 billion from Iraq? That is not fungible either? That will be highly monitored and we will watch where every 

penny goes? 

Mr. PALEY. In terms of the due diligence, both of these sets of 

funds can only be used for humanitarian transactions—— 

Mr. MEUSER. Yes. Sure, in words. 

Mr. PALEY. ——and we have a great deal of—— 

Mr. MEUSER. In theory. In weak theory, against a regime that 

we do not trust, that we know is bombing American forces as we 

speak. 

You love saying, not one penny, not one penny, not one penny. 

Okay. Is that permanent? Is it permanent that not one penny of 

that $6 billion will go to Iran? 

Mr. PALEY. As we have said, we do not expect this money to go 

anywhere anytime—— 

Mr. MEUSER. Okay. But can you guarantee me that it is permanent? 

Mr. PALEY. What we have said, and this is based on U.S. law—— 

Mr. MEUSER. It is not. So really, you should have said, ‘‘yet.’’ Not 

one penny has gone to the Iranian terrorist regime yet. That is 

more of a correct statement. 

You are stating that the sanctions on Iran now are stronger than 

during the previous Administration, even though Iran’s reserves 

went from $4 billion to God knows where, $80 billion. Even though 

that is a fact, you are going to sit there and tell me, tell us, tell 

the world that the sanctions today are stronger than they were 

under the previous Administration, even though there has been a 

reversal of fortune? 

Mr. PALEY. This Administration—we have not lifted any sanctions against Iran, and in fact, we have actually rolled out countless—— 

Mr. MEUSER. You have not enforced the sanctions, however. 

Mr. PALEY. ——numbers of sanctions. 

Mr. MEUSER. Is it true that the amount of oil exported from Iran 

is nearly 10 times what it was 4 years ago? 

Mr. PALEY. We continue to closely monitor their oil exports. 

Mr. MEUSER. I am asking you a question. Is it true or false? Is 

it true that the amount of oil being exported from Iran is nearly 

10 times more than it was 4 years ago? 

Mr. PALEY. The oil export—— 

Mr. MEUSER. Even though you did not change the sanctions—— 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. MEUSER. ——is that true? 

Mr. PALEY. Congressman, the oil exports from Iran have fluctuated over time. There are a variety of reasons for that. But what 

does remain in place is all of our sanctions, which we continue to 

enforce. 

Mr. MEUSER. Okay. But the sanctions are clearly not working. In 

fact, they are one-tenth what they were before in enforcement. The 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found many violations—I was there—of the uranium enrichment taking place in 

Iran. Many violations. 
20 

Can Iran be trusted to abide by those so-called rules that are trying to be worked out with the Biden Administration, with no surprise inspections in place? 

Mr. PALEY. Thanks for the question. 

The Biden Administration has been clear that we will never let 

Iran get a nuclear weapon. One of the things that we have done 

is continue to encourage our partners and allies to press Iran to cooperate more fully with the IAEA. We engage regularly with the 

IAEA and this is one of our top priorities. 

Mr. MEUSER. I hope so. 

Do you agree that Iran is the primary supporter of terrorism and 

the number-one supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, 

and is behind the nearly 100 attacks on American forces in the last 

2 months? 

Mr. PALEY. We have minced no words about our concerns about 

Iran’s support for terrorist groups. 

Mr. MEUSER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired, and per 

the ranking member’s request, we will once again go to a Republican Member on this side. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation. 

I know everyone in this room is committed to protecting the 

United States, and I appreciate your public service and the bipartisan work of this committee to hold Iran accountable. 

There is work that needs to continue here, and this is one of the 

reasons we are in the Financial Services Committee today, because 

on October 7th, the attack on Israel was one of the most heinous 

elements that we have seen, and we can all agree that Iran was 

one of the primary funders for this attack to occur by Hamas. 

Challengingly, though, the United States has stalled in freezing 

Iran assets. The $6 billion in illegal oil sales, we have been good 

on this committee, and I am proud to lead the commitment that we 

will never transfer that money to Iran. However, they are continuing to move an unprecedented amount of oil out of the country 

for sale through a ghost armada. 

We have been briefed on this in both a classified setting and a 

public setting, so today we will talk at the unclassified level. 

We understand that this amount of new funding, over $80 billion, or to put that another way, a 400-percent increase since these 

tough sanctions we have talked about, has actually increased and 

it has precipitated a number of threats to the region, not just Israel 

but to our own forces right in the Middle East—areas where I have 

flown multiple combat operations out of, have received over 100 attacks, as been highlighted today, in just the last weeks alone. 

And during my time as a counterintelligence officer, I personally 

witnessed the shady tactics of the Iranian regime and their work 

to combat U.S. interests in the region as well as our allies by undermining them through nefarious relationships with Hamas, 

Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels, and ultimately through the Iranian 

Revolutionary Guards Corps. 
21 

So, let us get started. I want to talk to you, Ms. Rosenberg. Talk 

to us about, first of all, how the Iranians—you work for Treasury— 

are able to get oil out of Iran, bypassing these sanctions by using 

ships that fly under a false flag. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you very much for the question. 

Iran uses a variety of methods in order to try and earn money. 

Mr. NUNN. Talk to me specifically about the ships. Let us get to 

it. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Using obscured means—front companies, a network of individuals who are not who they say they are. They look 

to flag registries and insurance providers that do not look very 

closely to the—— 

Mr. NUNN. That is an interesting point, particularly on the insurance providers. What has Treasury done to clamp down on 

these ships? Because ultimately, while they fly under false flags, 

the insurance companies are the ones who have the ability to help 

stop this. What have you done to stop the insurance providers? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. If they have any touch point to U.S. jurisdiction, 

we have opportunities. 

Mr. NUNN. Great. How many have we shut down? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. The issue that you are getting at here is that 

Iran looks to fly-by-night providers that would seriously concern all 

of us in terms of their ability to pay out if there is a spill or any 

security situation. 

Mr. NUNN. I would agree. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. NUNN. Have we identified any of the insurance providers 

and taken action? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Iran uses its own insurance provision here 

which is—— 

Mr. NUNN. According to United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), 

there is a U.S. company, the American Steamship Company, that 

is providing that insurance. What actions have we taken against 

the American Steamship Company, right here on U.S. soil? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Getting to your point, any U.S. person—insurance provider, shipbroker, flagging authority, trader—anyone involved in the movement of Iranian oil has obligations and liabilities 

in our jurisdiction. 

Mr. NUNN. I understand that. We all do. So, what have you done 

to hold them accountable? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. On the specific entity that you asked about, I 

do not have an answer for you, but I would be happy to follow up 

with you. 

Mr. NUNN. It’s beyond the pale. We have asked this question 

multiple times. You are Treasury. What other U.S. entities are providing insurance to Iranian ghost fleet ships? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. None, of which I am aware. 

Mr. NUNN. Okay. I am going to hold you to that. 

Mr. Paley, are you aware that Iran has a history of freeing up 

funds to provide assistance to proxies in the region for terrorist 

purposes? 

Mr. PALEY. Yes. We have long expressed our concern about Iran’s 

support for—— 
22 

Mr. NUNN. So, when we talk about the humanitarian aid piece— 

let’s talk about Turk Bank. It has gone before U.S. review. We 

have seen that Iran has a long history of taking money intended 

to help the Iranian people and using it to fund terrorism. Would 

you agree with that? 

Mr. PALEY. We have long expressed our concerns about this and 

that is why we have—— 

Mr. NUNN. Tell me a tangible action that you have taken to 

clamp down on this? 

Mr. PALEY. We have, first of all, worked very closely with our 

Treasury colleagues to ensure that strict due diligence—— 

Mr. NUNN. Agreed. Has it stopped any of the flow of oil? Because 

I have only seen increases. 

Mr. PALEY. In terms of the flow of oil, we also have a series of 

actions that we continue to roll out to address these issues. In addition to sanctions, we also have diplomatic outreach to a variety of 

different countries when we are aware that they are involved somehow on Iran’s supports. 

Mr. NUNN. Mr. Paley, I would like a listing of all the actions that 

have actually resulted in a reduction of oil flow out of Iran and to 

terrorist groups. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired, and I 

will remind everyone on the committee that they are able to submit, through the Chair, questions in writing to our witnesses who 

are expected to respond promptly. 

Now, finally, the long-awaited gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

the ranking member of the subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes, before we will then move to a separate 2-minute closing. So, 

the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, and then an additional 

2 minutes. 

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

I am going to read from an article that was printed on Tuesday, 

December 12, 2023, and ask that it be included in the record at a 

later time. 

My colleagues—this is not contained in the article—are concerned about fungibility but it is selective fungibility. There’s not 

a lot of concern about what happened with money and cash in a 

previous Administration. 

The article is styled, ‘‘Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years-with 

Israel’s backing. Here is what we know about the controversial 

deal.’’ I shall not read it in its entirety. I will read excerpts. 

When did the Qatar payments start? In 2018, Qatar began making monthly payments to the Gaza Strip. Some $15 million was 

sent to Gaza in cash-filled suitcases. 

There was some talk earlier about cash and how it is fungible. 

Well, the money was supposed to go into Gaza to help with payments to people who were working to help the persons who live in 

Gaza. 

But cash is supposed to be fungible—$15 million sent in cashfilled suitcases delivered by the Qataris through Israeli territory 

after months of negotiation, and then it goes on to read that Israel 

approved the deal in a security cabinet meeting in August 2018 
23 

when Netanyahu was serving his previous tenure as prime minister. 

The U.S.—that would be under the Trump Administration, I am 

adding—was aware of the Qatari payments to Hamas, a former 

senior State Department official involved in the region told CNN 

on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. 

It goes on to read that Shlomo Brom, a former deputy to Israel’s 

national security adviser, told The New York Times that an empowered Hamas helped Netanyahu avoid negotiating over a Palestinian state, saying the division of the Palestinians helped him 

make the case that he had no partner for peace in Palestine, thus 

avoiding pressure for peace talks that could lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. 

You see, this money was sent to Hamas or to the persons in Gaza 

because the Palestinian Authority (PA) was withholding making 

payments, and as a result, this money was to fill in this gap. 

Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli prime minister, told CNN Sunday that after years of flagging his concerns to Netanyahu when 

he was prime minister of education—this is Bennett—he stopped 

the suitcase transfers when he became prime minister in 2021, and 

here is an exact quote from him: ‘‘I stopped the cash suitcases because I believe that horrendous mistake to allow Hamas to have all 

these suitcases full of cash that goes directly to reordering themselves against Israelis.’’ This is the exact quote: ‘‘Why would we 

feed them cash to kill us?’’ Bennett asked. 

Continuing: Qatar denies those funds were intended for Hamas, 

saying they were meant as aid to salaries of workers in the besieged enclave. 

So, friends, under the theory of fungibility given to us today by 

my colleagues, when you give money to workers that Hamas might 

normally have to use from its coffer, now you have aided Hamas, 

and the United States was aware of all of this under the Trump 

Administration. 

I am bringing this to our attention for many reasons, but my 

principal reason is this: I believe in a two-state solution. I believe 

in it so strongly that I have a resolution that I have filed indicating 

that we should have a state for the Palestinians. We have filed 

such a resolution to benefit the Israelis. I support Israel. I voted 

for more than $50 billion to support Israel. But I think it is time 

for us to have a Palestinian state, and I regret that Mr. Netanyahu 

has thwarted these efforts. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired, and now 

we will put 2 minutes on the clock for you to have a closing statement. 

Mr. GREEN. I think we agreed on one minute each. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. At the discretion of the Chair, I am giving 

you up to 2 minutes. How about that? 

Mr. GREEN. But is that because you will have 2 minutes as well? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. It will be even. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I do not mind it being even. It is just that—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. It will be even. The gentleman is recognized for one minute for a closing statement. 
24 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Then, I will take part of my one minute to say 

this: We agreed on one minute, and if you want to change what we 

agreed to, I think you should at least respect me enough to say, 

let us change the agreement and make it 2 minutes. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Sure. 

Mr. GREEN. That was our agreement, one minute. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Which is why I am saying, one minute. I 

was attempting to be charitable to give the gentleman up to 2 minutes. But in respect for our handshake agreement, the gentleman 

will be recognized for one minute. 

Mr. GREEN. I greatly appreciate the Chair honoring our handshake agreement. 

Friends, as you can see, these issues can become quite contentious but here is where we are. Fungibility is something that was 

contemplated, I am sure, when these protocols, these rules, these 

laws were drafted. I do not know how you can contend that people 

cannot process funds in this way. 

But here is the point: We still want to provide humanitarian assistance to people who need it. I support this humanitarian assistance. But what I do not support is empowering Hamas, as Mr. 

Netanyahu did, so that Hamas could be the perfect enemy. He 

could utilize Hamas, because Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and 

say, I cannot negotiate for peace. We cannot have a two-state solution because Hamas is not amenable to that kind of peace talk. 

That is what I am opposed to, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired. Now, I 

will recognize myself for a one-minute close. 

You have both said today that keeping money in Iraq was a benefit to Iran. Are we to assume that Iran did not support the transfer to Oman and other jurisdictions? I did not think so. It is clear 

that the transfer was at the request of Iran to the Biden Administration. 

Ms. Rosenberg said that she could not tell us or would not tell 

us today in an open setting if there had been problems with the 

transactions out of Oman, the two transactions out of Oman that 

have been acknowledged, and the way I understand it is that saying, ‘‘yes or no,’’ is not classified. 

But I guess if the answer is, ‘‘yes,’’ you apparently did not want 

to confirm that on the record. I expect a follow-up in a classified 

setting for all of us to understand why this is classified. 

Additionally, Ms. Rosenberg spoke at length about the controls of 

the Europeans but the Europeans do not have control over money 

in Oman or Qatar. 

Mr. Paley repeatedly said to Ms. Garcia that there have not been 

any transactions. To be clear, Ms. Rosenberg said there have been 

two transactions with money in Oman, and that there were problems, and she would not answer that. What I think he meant to 

say is that there have not been any transactions, ‘‘yet,’’ using the 

money out of Qatar. 

And finally, we sent a very narrow document request on the 

waiver issue to Treasury that remains outstanding. Ms. Rosenberg, 

I expect that Treasury will produce an outstanding document 

quickly. 
25 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are 

able. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

December 13, 2023 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53