[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Page H3075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NEW DETAILS ON IRAN DEAL PRISONER SWAP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, we recently learned troubling details 
surrounding the terms of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with 
Iran from early last year. As I have said before, the more details we 
learn about this deal, the more apparent it is that it was neither 
prudent nor transparent.
  The safety and security of the American people and our allies around 
the world should remain a top priority for the United States. But we 
are learning, according to reports, as part of this prisoner swap with 
Iran in 2016, the Obama administration released seven prisoners and 
dropped charges and international arrest warrants of 14 fugitives, many 
of whom had been directly involved in supplying Iran with U.S.-built 
equipment or sensitive information that could be used for military 
systems, primarily Iran's nuclear program.
  The administration downplayed the security threat that these men 
posed. In a variety of ways, these individuals deliberately worked to 
undermine the United States and smuggle American military technology to 
Tehran.
  In one instance, a man was allegedly part of a conspiracy to steal 
sensitive software information from a defense contractor in Vermont. 
Another one of the men was in the middle of serving an 8-year prison 
sentence on charges related to a separate conspiracy to provide 
satellite technology and hardware to Iran.
  Three of the fugitives were allegedly working to lease an aircraft 
from Boeing for an Iranian airline that authorities say supported 
Hezbollah, which the United States, of course, has designated as a 
terrorist organization.
  And the list goes on as these are just a few of the cases. All of 
this poses a serious threat to our national security as sensitive 
military information and technology could be used to bolster Iran's 
weapons programs.
  As you may recall, this comes after we learned last fall that, as a 
part of the deal, the United States paid $400 million that was 
contingent on Iran releasing four American hostages. This broke from 
longstanding United States policy to not pay ransoms to rogue nations 
because it encourages bad actors like Iran to take more hostages. 
Again, this was not made known to Congress or the American public. We 
only learned about it nearly a year after the deal was finalized.
  What makes this most concerning or more disconcerting is the Obama 
administration's lack of transparency on the backgrounds of these 
prisoners. These are not merely civilians or businessmen, as the 
President and his officials referred to them on multiple occasions. The 
administration left the impression that these individuals were nothing 
more than violators of sanctions and not as dangerous as they truly 
were. Each of these men pose very real threats that the administration 
hid from the American people.
  This isn't a partisan talking point, Mr. Speaker. Even President 
Obama's own Justice Department had accused many of these men of being 
involved in terrorist activities.
  I support diplomatic efforts with Iran, and I am hopeful that we can 
continue to engage in diplomacy and secure a good deal at some point, 
but this latest news continues to exemplify why both Republicans and 
Democrats could not and did not support this deal.
  Iran continues to push every boundary, exploit every loophole, and 
avoid as much oversight as possible, all while it is antagonizing the 
rest of the world. It continues to reap the benefits of this deal at 
the expense of our national security and that of our allies, such as 
Israel.
  We continue to learn something new and bad about this deal that 
wasn't shared with Congress or the public. Our national security is too 
important to put at risk, and no President's legacy is worth taking 
that risk. This new information validates many of the concerns that led 
to the bipartisan opposition to the nuclear deal.

                          ____________________