[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 196 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5652-S5653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Iran

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if the Biden administration decides to 
allow a terrorist state access to billions of dollars, then, at a bare 
minimum, the Biden administration must perform exceedingly strict 
oversight of how that money is used.
  It is pretty simple, common sense requires considering the attendant 
risk that this money gives to Iran. The Biden administration has 
created a serious problem that needs strict oversight.
  More than all that, the Congress must also have the same regard of 
how the executive branch conducts its business in regard to these 
billions of dollars.
  Today, I have an on-point example to present to my colleagues. In 
September of this year, the administration's State Department provided 
Iran access to $6 billion as part of a prisoner swap agreement. Then, 
in mid-October, the United States and the Qatari Governments decided to 
refreeze these funds due to the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on 
Israel.
  Hamas, an Iranian-funded terrorist organization, as we all know, 
attacked Israel and murdered civilians, seized hostages, and destroyed 
towns. Hamas committed unspeakable acts of terror and evil, not seen 
since the Nazis, toward Jewish people.
  On October 12 of this year, Secretary of State Blinken addressed the 
international media and, in that address, claimed that the State 
Department has ``strict oversight of the funds and retains the right to 
freeze them''--meaning freezing the $6 billion.
  Now, there had better be strict oversight--the taxpayers ought to 
require that--exceedingly strict oversight. I now ask: What did the 
Secretary of State mean when he said ``strict oversight''?
  I don't want lip service from the Secretary. I want details. So on 
October 12 of this year, I wrote a letter asking exactly that: What are 
the details?
  My letter also sought to know what government Agencies are involved 
in this alleged oversight. What are the roles of the respective 
Agencies in this oversight? What enforcement mechanisms are in place to 
ensure compliance? How will the State Department be able to punish Iran 
if conditions of the $6 billion is violated?
  I also asked what components of the State Department are responsible 
for conducting this oversight, among other questions.
  Almost a month past the 2-week deadline to respond, the State 
Department did finally send me a letter. That letter was very 
incomplete and a very insufficient response that failed to answer the 
essential question, using his words: What does ``strict oversight'' 
mean? The letter didn't deal with that, and it seems to be a pretty 
simple question.
  The State Department letter meekly said: ``The United States will 
have full visibility and will exercise strict oversight as to how and 
when the funds are used.''
  This isn't an answer; this is lip service. We are talking about 
billions of dollars accessible by a terrorist regime.
  So as you would expect Senator Grassley to do, on November 21, I sent 
a letter, a followup letter, to Secretary Blinken, informing him of his 
failed response and then again renewing my request for Congress and the 
American people to know and understand what the Secretary meant by the 
words he used of ``strict oversight.''
  (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
  The Secretary made these oversight promises publicly in an 
international setting, and the Secretary has an obligation to explain 
himself what ``strict oversight'' is. If the State Department is 
engaging in strict oversight, then say what it is and give us, the 
Congress, the response, the details of that. The taxpayers deserve to 
know exactly

[[Page S5653]]

how the Biden administration plans to ensure proper oversight of $6 
billion to Iran.
  This Senator, obviously, won't stop demanding answers, especially 
when it comes to a terrorist regime's access to billions of dollars 
that the United States has something to say about.