[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13384-13396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PROHIBITING FUTURE RANSOM PAYMENTS TO IRAN ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include 
any extraneous materials they might want to include on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5931.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1820


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5931) to provide for the prohibition on cash payments to the 
Government of Iran, and for other purposes, with Mr. Russell in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I raise this issue because, on three occasions now, we have had the 
transfer of pallets of cash to the Government of Iran, and this 
legislation would make certain that that does not happen again.
  The reason we do not want to pay cash to the Government of Iran has 
to do with all of the efforts that the international community has put 
into trying to track the conduct of that regime, which is a primary 
money laundering concern for the international financial community, and 
for the fact that particular government in Iran, the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps, has been the primary source of cash support 
for Hamas in the past and also today for Hezbollah.
  We could add to that the work of the IRGC in trying to get parts for 
their ballistic missile program as their agents are out and about 
Europe trying to buy this equipment.
  It is not in the interest of the United States to have the regime 
have cold, hard cash. So this legislation would put an end to that.
  As the Members of the House will recall, the President announced in 
January that the United States would pay Iran $1.7 billion to settle a 
dispute involving a 1979 arms deal. This payment came out of the blue.
  From the start, by the way, Iranian military commanders were saying 
that a hostage exchange, which I think most of us originally assumed, 
was going to be nine prisoners who were in the process of being 
convicted in the United States, of Iranian nationality, were going to 
be exchanged for the four hostages, the four Americans, that Iran was 
holding.
  Yet, from the beginning, as this was announced, you saw the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps speaking to this issue saying there was going 
to be a transfer of cash. Basically, there was going to be a ransom 
payment here in exchange for letting the Americans go.
  Well, it turns out that, after months of pressing from the Foreign 
Affairs Committee and the media, the Obama administration finally 
admitted that it had ignored the concerns from the Justice Department.
  Now, what was the Justice Department's concerns? It had to do with 
the way in which the payment was being

[[Page 13385]]

made. It had to do with the transfer of cash.
  As the Justice Department said, there is a longstanding U.S. policy 
against this process. Why? Because when you do so, you can expect to 
get more of the same kind of action from a state like Iran.
  Indeed, once the $1.7 billion in these three tranches of cash were 
paid, the result, after the release of Americans held hostage in Iran 
and after they announced in Iran that this was linked to these pallets 
of cash, then they took three more American hostages. They detained 
three more Americans and held them, plus a Canadian, plus a Frenchman, 
and a Brit. So, not surprisingly, I guess, Iran is continuing in this 
behavior.
  I think now the administration claims also that cash was the only way 
they could do this particular transaction, but that is simply not true. 
It could have permitted a transaction to go through the international 
financial system. How do we know this? Because they were making other 
payments through the international financial system to Iran as 
sanctions were being lifted through the proper procedure there.
  Just this week, the Treasury Department confirmed that other recent 
transactions with Iran were conducted through traditional banking 
channels.
  I think the reason this was done in pallets of cash, in my opinion, 
was because that is what the Iranians were demanding. The reason I 
think that is because that is what they are saying in terms of their 
television coverage of this.
  So the administration did choose to deliver $1.7 billion in 
untraceable assets to Iran's radical regime. And that is problematic 
when the international body charged with developing policies to combat 
money laundering and combat terrorism financing tells us that, in their 
words, physical transportation of currency is one of the main methods 
used to move criminal assets, to launder money, and--to me, most 
importantly--to ``finance terrorism.''
  I believe that, again, that is why the Iranian regime wanted the 
cash. It is not a coincidence to me that the desire for cash comes just 
as this committee's legislation to crack down on banks that finance 
Hezbollah is having an impact. What kind of an impact? We have made it 
very, very hard for those in Hezbollah and Hamas to now get their hands 
on the support that previously had come through Iran.
  Iran and its proxies need cash, and we should not be transferring it 
to them. So this legislation, which passed out of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee last week, has two core elements: One, it prohibits future 
cash payments for any reason to Iran. And, two, it demands transparency 
and advanced notification of any future settlements related to the 
U.S.-Iran Hague Tribunal so that the Congress is not surprised again.
  It poses a fundamental question: Are we comfortable providing Iran, 
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism that is fueling a 
bloodbath in Syria, with billions of dollars in cash that they can turn 
around and funnel to the Assad regime, to Hezbollah, and to Hamas? I 
think, for all Members, the answer to that question is clear.
  I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Let me start by underscoring my respect and admiration for our 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my friend, Ed Royce. It 
is unusual that we debate a Foreign Affairs bill subject to a rule 
because the vast majority of our legislation is the product of strong 
bipartisan collaboration.
  So I regret that the bill we are debating today doesn't have support 
across the aisle, and all you need to do is read the bill's title to 
know what I mean. There were 50 Republican sponsors and no Democrats. 
We really weren't part of putting this bill together. And again and 
again in the bill, we see the word ``ransom.''
  Now, I know that some of my colleagues and the chairman believe 
sincerely that the latest payment to Iran was a ransom. I happen to 
disagree. I think holding Iran's money until Iran released American 
detainees was a pretty shrewd bargain. Whatever we think, using the 
word ``ransom'' turns this bill into a political hot button, a poke in 
the eye of the administration.
  Now, I don't like or trust the Government of Iran. I voted against 
the Iran bill last year, and it is no secret that I have some 
differences with the President's Iran policy. But I do know that 
pushing legislation just to embarrass the White House won't help to 
resolve those differences we might have.

                              {time}  1830

  I also question the bill's focus on cash. Look, I share the view that 
any sum dumped into Iran's bank account may be put to bad use. But, Mr. 
Chairman, I would have that concern whether the money got to Iran via 
cash, check, wire transfer, or stacks of gold bars. Money is money; it 
is fungible. We have no way of knowing what happens to it once it is in 
Iran's hands. We can guess, but we have no way of knowing.
  Does that irk me? Sure, it does. Iran's leaders do all sorts of 
things that irk me and, more important, that make the world less safe. 
But whether we like it or not, the payment we are talking about was 
Iran's money. We paid it as part of a settlement under the Algiers 
Accords, which the United States signed in 1981. We have been making 
payments like this for decades--under Ronald Reagan, under George H.W. 
Bush, and now under Barack Obama--and in that time, regardless of how 
we sent the money, we haven't had any control over what Iran does with 
it. I agree, it is deeply frustrating because we know what Iran is up 
to.
  We can't control that, Mr. Chairman. But there are some things we can 
control. For instance, I agree with Chairman Royce that the way we 
found out about this payment gave Congress short shrift. We did receive 
a briefing, but we did not learn how and when the payment was going 
forward. Congress can, and should, make sure that happens with respect 
to future payments. That is what my amendment does, which I am going to 
introduce.
  In my view, that is what the Committee on Foreign Affairs would have 
done if we had advanced this bill according to our normal bipartisan 
process. Again, as I said, there was no input from the minority. It 
comes to the floor with 50 Republican cosponsors and not a single 
Democrat. I am not able to support the bill because, to me, it puts 
political concerns ahead of our legitimate concerns. I share the 
chairman's feelings about Iran. I don't think there is a dime's worth 
of difference between our feelings with Iran. It is simply a matter of 
what is the best way to go about doing it. I don't think this is the 
best way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would make the point that, as we talk about whether Iran took 
possession of this money in cash or by check, that transaction is 
immaterial. I understand the argument here, but let me explain why I do 
not think that holds true with respect to the process here.
  There are other options that could have been followed, that have been 
followed by the international community when payment is made. For 
example, the administration could have held the funds in an escrow 
account overseas, verified that the end recipients of the funds were, 
in Iran, not sanctioned entities, like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard 
Corps.
  By providing cash, the administration is doing the work for the 
Iranians that they need done in terms of preparatory work for money 
laundering. That is the problem. That is the problem with the way this 
was done. Cash transactions, in and of themselves, raise serious 
terrorism financing risks, according to the Financial Action Task 
Force; and that is the official body, international body, that sets the 
global standards for preventing money laundering and is most focused on 
stopping terror finance. What they say, again, is that the physical 
cross-border transportation of currency is the main

[[Page 13386]]

method used to move illicit funds, to launder money, and to finance 
terrorism. That is why we want to cut off cash.
  These risks are particularly acute here because the State Department 
has identified Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism and as 
the country that is actively supporting terrorist organizations with 
cash, such as Hezbollah, Hamas as well, and then also assisting Syrian 
President Assad in his murderous assault on civilians. So that is the 
first point I would make.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Young), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Royce for his 
leadership on this issue. I rise in support of this legislation, the 
Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act, of which I am a proud 
cosponsor.
  Last month, Mr. Chairman, information came to light the 
administration secretly paid a cash ransom to Iran, a state sponsor of 
terrorism, in exchange for the release of American hostages, a decision 
kept secret from Congress, a decision kept from Congress because, as 
this administration and its own State Department know well, it is 
longstanding U.S. policy to deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom.
  In fact, just last year, President Obama issued a Presidential Policy 
Directive stating just that: ``The United States Government will make 
no concessions to individuals or groups holding U.S. nationals hostage. 
It is United States policy to deny hostage-takers the benefits of 
ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of 
concession.''
  I fear this President has set a dangerous precedent for United States 
nationals and personnel abroad. We are already seeing it, Mr. Chairman. 
Since the ransom has been paid, Iran has taken seven more United States 
citizens hostage.
  This decision was not only foolish, but shortsighted. I have yet to 
mention where this money is likely to go. Iran has been designated as a 
state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department since 1984. It 
has supported groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which call for the 
destruction of our allies, including Israel.
  The President would understandably like to deny ransom was paid and 
instead claim this was simply leverage and part of a settlement deal 
that he struck with the same Iranians who, by his own admission, have 
violated the spirit of his generous agreements before. For someone who 
holds the spirit of pledges in such high esteem, Mr. Chairman, I don't 
think even the President could disagree that, at the very least, he 
violated the spirit of his own policy.
  This administration's desire to appease a radical Iranian regime 
knows no bounds. Though the President stands idly by as the Iranians 
violate the terms of their agreement with the United States, Congress 
must not stand idly by while he violates his own deal with the American 
people.
  I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on this. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 5931. It is time to cut 
off the cash.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin), whose helpful amendment to this bill was adopted 
during the Committee on Foreign Affairs' markup.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Royce and rise in support 
of his legislation, Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act, 
which I cosponsored, to prohibit ransom payments to Iran, the largest 
state sponsor of terror.
  Iran calls America the Great Satan and pledges death to America. Iran 
is illegally test-firing ICBMs. They finance Assad in Syria, Hezbollah, 
Hamas, and other terror groups. Iran recently detained and embarrassed, 
publicly, U.S. Navy sailors. Iran currently is threatening U.S. Navy 
warships. Iran leaders do not respect American weakness--they prey upon 
it--and the U.S. is feeding into it, like the unsigned political 
commitment otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. Purchasing Iran's 
heavy water didn't help. Speaker Ryan has aptly pointed out, Secretary 
Kerry has been a shill for Iran, as if he is the president of the 
Tehran Chamber of Commerce.
  I am deeply troubled that earlier this year the Obama administration 
airlifted a cash ransom payment at the exact same moment as the release 
of four unjustly detained American hostages. Some people blindly loyal 
to this President will say that this was Iran's money. No, it wasn't. 
This was a disputed claim for decades, and for very good reason. In the 
late 1970s, Iran fell behind in their payments under the Foreign 
Military Sales program. Iran canceled their orders, overtook our 
Embassy, and then repudiated all foreign obligations.
  Not only have we been disputing Iran's claim for $400 million, we had 
counterclaims against Iran, including one for $817 million. In fact, a 
Federal law from 2000 details a very specific requirement regarding 
payments to Iran from the FMS account, which was directly violated by 
the ransom payment to Iran.
  Between the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 2000 law, U.S. victims of 
Iranian-sponsored terrorism sued the Iranian Government in U.S. court 
with claims caused by Iran's terrorism. The claims were paid by the 
U.S. Government. These claims were subrogated to the U.S., meaning that 
their claims against Iran became the U.S. claims against Iran.
  The 2000 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.''
  Yet President Obama 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, in violation of the 2000 law. You can call a 
ransom payment leverage. But guess what, folks; it is still ransom. And 
why don't we pay ransom? Because now, with the price paid on American 
hostages, Iran has now captured new, unjustly imprisoned American 
hostages.
  Passage of this bill is critically important, and I thank Chairman 
Royce for his unyielding, inspiring leadership on this issue to hold 
Iran accountable.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The argument that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) was making 
is based on the counter to this argument that the administration has 
made. What the administration has said is: Look, Iran says we owe them 
$400 million. We will impute the interest on that. The interest on the 
$400 million is $1.3 billion. Thus, we get to the $1.7 billion that the 
tribunal says we owe, and we will pay that in three tranches.
  The only way you get to that number, as Mr. Zeldin has pointed out, 
is if you ignore the fact that in 2000, pursuant to a law signed by 
President Clinton, American taxpayers provided $400 million, the same 
amount as in the FMS trust fund, to U.S. citizens who had won judgments 
against Iran for its support of terror. So the United States Government 
then took on their $400 million in claims against Iran. So, in fact, 
those two sums should have been netted out.
  In fact, according to this law, the Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act, the President was required to attempt to 
recover that money, that $400 million from Iran, to the satisfaction of 
the United States. As part of this settlement, we are just finding 
out--get this--we are just finding out that the administration is 
letting Iran off the hook for the $400 million plus interest. These 
sums would have netted out to zero.
  According to the State Department, the administration has agreed to 
no longer pursue that $400 million claim against Iran plus interest. 
Why? Why? And that is why this bill is so important, because it brings 
much-needed transparency to the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal by allowing 
Congress to see what claims each side has filed when they are likely to 
come in front of the tribunal and the likelihood that either Iran or 
the United States will prevail.
  So again, what I am concerned happened here is because of the push 
from

[[Page 13387]]

Iran--and we need pushback against this. So Iran comes in at the 
eleventh hour of this deal and says: Wait a minute. We want this $400 
million in cash plus we want the interest. We are going to the 
tribunal. That is the decision from the tribunal. And then we give up 
on the counterclaim for the same amount. That is the concern here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say this: None of us likes the 
Government of Iran. None of us likes the idea of making payments to 
Iran, but this bill imposes a blanket ban on most forms of payment of 
our international obligations.
  Let me just say that the Algiers Accords, which were signed 35 or 40 
years ago, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H.W. Bush did 
the same thing that President Obama is doing now by making payments to 
Iran. There are things that gall us, but there are international 
obligations that we really have to follow through with.

                              {time}  1845

  It wasn't a matter and isn't a matter of giving money for hostages. 
We know this was part of a larger transaction. In fact, it was Iran's 
money that we held back; and we didn't release their money until we 
knew that those hostages were free. So I think it was pretty shrewd on 
our part to wait and use their money to hold back until the hostages 
were released.
  Again, I think the Government of Iran is a terrible government. I 
think there are lots of things we could and should be doing together to 
put the skids on them. And we will be developing legislation together. 
But this legislation, to me, is more about poking a finger in the eye 
of the President and the eye of the administration by using words like 
``ransom'' and saying all kind of things.
  That is not really what we should be doing. We should be working 
together to find bipartisan solutions to check Iran, which nobody here 
will say is a good actor--certainly not me--one of the worst actors in 
the world, a leading sponsor of terrorism. But the United States has to 
fulfill international obligations, and we will do that, and we will do 
it at the same time we are countering Iran and making sure that it 
doesn't get away with its aggression and all the other horrific things 
the Government of Iran does. So I have to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, it looks as though I have one more Member who 
has arrived and wishes to speak on this measure. I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. LANCE. I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on this 
extremely important issue.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5931, the Prohibiting 
Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act.
  It is a sad day when the American people see their tax funds being 
given to the world's most notorious financier of international 
terrorism. This legislation puts an end to it. And it is taxpayer 
funds. That was the original purpose in the 1970s. Since then, the 
Iranian regime has sponsored state terrorism across the globe.
  The total now stands at $1.7 billion that this administration has 
handed over to Iran. And despite weeks of denial after denial, the 
administration has finally acknowledged that these cash shipments to 
Iran were leveraged for the release of four innocent Americans 
unlawfully held by Tehran. I translate the term ``leverage'' to mean 
ransom.
  We already know that the world is less safe based upon the nuclear 
agreement with Iran and that we are catering to Iran's demands. I 
believe that the $1.7 billion to Iran sets a dangerous precedent that a 
terrorist network convicted in our courts can escape compensating U.S. 
victims.
  There have been quite a few victims who were compensated in our 
courts, and those amounts of money have never been paid to the victims' 
families. The cash payments shipped in the middle of the night to Iran 
should instead have gone to the loved ones of those murdered by the 
Iranian regime.
  The bill would stop the flow of funds to the terrorist networks long 
supported by Iran. I fear it may be inevitable that these funds would 
make their way to some of the world's worst actors. It is a risk we 
shouldn't have taken, and this legislation would ensure that it cannot 
happen again not only regarding this administration--this 
administration is going out of office and there will be a new President 
and a new administration come January--but this legislation goes well 
beyond the remaining months in office of this administration.
  This is excellent legislation, regardless of which political party 
controls the White House, the executive branch, the State Department.
  All of us should honor the judgments that have been rendered in 
courts of law for those who have lost their lives in acts of terrorism 
where the responsibility has been adjudicated in our courts of law. And 
it is to that end that Chairman Royce and the Foreign Affairs Committee 
and many others of us in the Congress have been involved in this issue.
  The Prohibiting Future Ransom Payments to Iran Act is needed, and I 
urge its passage.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the esteemed majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, back in June of 2015, President Obama said: ``It is 
United States policy to deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom, 
prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession.''
  That was back in 2015. Of course, just 6 months later, President 
Obama released seven Iranians and sent $400 million in cash to Iran in 
exchange for Americans held hostage.
  When the initial word came out that $400 million was sent in unmarked 
bills on an unmarked plane to, in essence, exchange that money for 
American hostages, it sent a chilling signal all across the world. Not 
only was the administration completing a prisoner swap, but the 
administration was actually cowering to the Iranians' request for a 
cash payment.
  $400 million was converted into European currency, flown through 
Geneva, and then transferred to Iran just as the American hostages were 
released. But what we heard from the White House were denials, actually 
calling us out, saying it wasn't a ransom payment, despite the clearly 
coordinated series of events.
  Mr. Chairman, nonetheless, we learn that the President's own Justice 
Department warned that this cash payment would signal a change in U.S. 
ransom policy and, of course, the Iranians themselves consider it a 
ransom payment. In fact, the Iranians bragged that they received cash 
ransom from the United States.
  Nonetheless, the administration continues to refuse to confront this 
problem and how it actually makes America less safe. And we have seen 
that play out. Since this hostage ransom payment, more Americans and 
other Westerners have been taken hostage because the President put a 
bounty on the heads of Americans and other Westerners.
  We have also learned there is another $1.3 billion sent to Iran in 
cash. The administration said that there was no other way to send the 
payment; that they couldn't wire it. But, of course, since then, we 
have learned that there have been wire transfers made to Iran. So the 
President continued to mislead the American people about this serious 
breach of American protocol as it deals with Iran.
  Now, a serious question to ask is: Where is that $1.7 billion going? 
And not if, but how much of that $1.7 billion is going to end up in the 
hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations?
  After all, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror.

[[Page 13388]]

  I think these are all important questions that need to be answered, 
Mr. Chairman. So all of these serious questions need to be answered by 
the administration, which has continued throughout this entire process 
of misleading the American people about what really happened. And the 
American people are demanding answers.
  This bill by Chairman Royce is a serious response to stop these kinds 
of cash ransom payments from ever happening again to make America less 
safe. I appreciate all of my colleagues voting for this.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In summation, Mr. Chairman, throughout negotiations on the 
President's nuclear deal, the Foreign Affairs Committee held scores of 
briefings and hearings and meetings with the Obama administration on 
Iran.
  So if the goal of this settlement was only to put to rest a decade-
old excuse over an abandoned arms sale, why the secrecy? And why the 
secrecy, especially, about transferring this in pallets of cash?
  I believe what happened here was that Iran, at the eleventh hour, 
demanded this cash payment and we ended up acquiescing.
  And why ignore your own lawyers?
  That is the other real question, to me. The head of the Justice 
Department's National Security Division warned that Iran would see it 
as a ransom and respond by taking more American hostages. And that is 
exactly what happened. They held the cash until the hostages left Iran 
that day. Even the State Department calls it leverage. It was textbook 
ransom. The Iranians viewed it as a ransom. They bragged about it. And 
now 3 more Americans have been taken hostage.
  In an interview just yesterday, President Rouhani said Iran is 
actively engaged in negotiations with the Obama administration to get 
more money. And that is why the bill in front of us today does two 
things: it provides more transparency regarding the Iran-U.S. Claims 
Tribunal and it prohibits cash payments to the Government of Iran, the 
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, for any reason.
  Remember, as international authorities have made clear, the physical 
transportation of currency--that means cash--is one of the main methods 
used for the purpose of money laundering and to finance terrorism.
  So, once again, all Members must ask themselves today one important 
question: Are you comfortable providing Iran, the world's leading state 
sponsor of terrorism, with billions of dollars in cash that they can 
turn around and funnel to the Assad regime, to Hezbollah, and to Hamas?
  Mr. Chairman, the answer is clear. And I ask all Members to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I am grateful to be a co-
sponsor of H.R. 5931, to prohibit future cash payments to Iran.
  In January, the President made a $1.7 billion cash payment along with 
the dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal. After months of questions from the 
Foreign Affairs Committee about the deal and other leaders, we are just 
now getting the truth--
  The payment was a ransom for four Americans who sat on a runway until 
the currency was en route.
  The payment was made in cash--provided in pallets of untraceable 
foreign currency easily provided to murderous terrorists.
  The Administration claimed cash was the only way to pay the ransom, 
yet the Treasury Department stated that the U.S. has made payments to 
the Iranian government via wire transfer in the past year.
  As a leading state sponsor of terrorism, a cash payment to Iran will 
almost certainly go to finance terrorist activities, putting American 
families at risk.
  Needless to say, the cash payment to the Iranian regime is a 
dangerous precedent that puts American families at risk. Last week, I 
sent a letter to the Treasury Department's Acting Under Secretary for 
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence asking what steps his office took 
to ensure the cash ransom did not go to finance terrorism. I am still 
awaiting response.
  I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Ed Royce for sponsoring this 
legislation and for his work to stop the dangerous practice of 
providing cash to state sponsors of terrorism threatening American 
families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this crucial legislation.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which is not a product of bipartisan collaboration as is the tradition 
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  The facts of this case are simple. Unfortunately, they have been 
muddied by election year politics and a lack of careful deliberation on 
this matter.
  In 1979, U.S. weapons sales to Iran were interrupted by the Iranian 
revolution, and $400 million worth of American weapons that were paid 
for by Iran were never delivered.
  In December 2015, the U.S. and Iran settled the claim over the 
weapons sale for $1.7 billion, including $1.3 billion in interest.
  Payment of the claim on January 16, 2016 coincided with 
Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 
and the release of four Americans detained in Iran.
  The settlement was announced the next day, and Congress was briefed 
on the payment.
  For eight months this settlement was not the emergency it has somehow 
become.
  And now with less than 50 days until the election we have rushed this 
legislation to the Floor without any input from the Minority.
  We did not even bother to have a hearing on this subject, which the 
Majority obviously views as important.
  In fact, the hearing on the settlement payment was scheduled for this 
week, after we marked up this bill in Committee last week.
  The hearing was subsequently cancelled, which was probably for the 
best.
  The Committee might have looked a little foolish sending a bill to 
the Floor to be voted on and then seeking out the facts of the case in 
a hearing.
  Point, shoot, aim, should not be the manner in which Congress 
conducts U.S. foreign policy.
  Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and try to move 
forward in a bipartisan fashion.
  That is how the House Foreign Affairs Committee functions best.
  It is how we passed Iranian sanctions to bring Iran to the 
negotiating table.
  It is how we have gone after Iran's financing of Hezbollah.
  And it is how we should continue to confront the legitimate 
challenges Iranian behavior poses to security and stability in the 
world.
  This legislation is not in keeping with that successful tradition, 
and I must oppose it.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-64. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 5931

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Prohibiting Future Ransom 
     Payments to Iran Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1979, when it held more than 50 United States 
     citizens for 444 days, Iran has repeatedly held United States 
     citizens hostage.
       (2) Presidential Policy Directive 30 issued by President 
     Barack Obama on June 24, 2015, states that ``It is United 
     States policy to deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom, 
     prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of 
     concession.''.
       (3) On January 17, 2016, the President announced that Iran 
     would release several United States citizens while the United 
     States would grant clemency to and release seven Iranian 
     nationals serving sentences or awaiting trial in the United 
     States for serious crimes.
       (4) Senior officials of the Department of State have 
     acknowledged that these United States citizens were released 
     as part of a ``prisoner swap'' and Iranian negotiators 
     reportedly asked for a cash payment.
       (5) On January 17, 2016, the President also announced that 
     ``The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding 
     Iranian government claim against the United States 
     Government.''.
       (6) The overall amount of the settlement is approximately 
     $1,700,000,000.
       (7) Subsequent reports revealed that $400,000,000 of this 
     $1,700,000,000 settlement was secretly flown to Iran, in 
     cash, simultaneously with the release of these United States 
     citizens.
       (8) One of the United States citizens released that night, 
     Pastor Saeed Abedini, has stated

[[Page 13389]]

     that Iranian officials explained a delay in their departure 
     was due to the status of another plane.
       (9) Senior officials at the National Security Division of 
     the Department of Justice reportedly objected to the 
     $400,000,000 cash payment, warning that Iran would see it as 
     a ransom.
       (10) On August 18, 2016, a Department of State spokesman 
     admitted that the $400,000,000 cash payment was ``leverage'' 
     to gain the release of Americans held hostage by Iran.
       (11) Iranian State Television quoted General Mohammad Reza 
     Naghdi, commander of the Basij militia, as claiming ``Taking 
     this much money back was in return for the release of the 
     American spies.''.
       (12) According to Presidential Policy Directive 30, the 
     United States policy against paying ransom and releasing 
     prisoners ``protects United States nationals and strengthens 
     national security by removing a key incentive for hostage-
     takers to target United States nationals, thereby 
     interrupting the vicious cycle of hostage-takings, and by 
     helping to deny terrorists and other malicious actors the 
     money, personnel, and other resources they need to conduct 
     attacks against the United States, its nationals, and its 
     interests.''.
       (13) Since the United States released Iranians serving 
     sentences or awaiting trial in the United States for serious 
     crimes and provided Iran with $400,000,000 in cash, Iran has 
     taken several more United States citizens hostage.
       (14) On August 22, 2016, the Department of State issued an 
     ``Iran Travel Warning'' noting that ``Iranian authorities 
     continue to unjustly detain and imprison U.S. citizens, 
     particularly Iranian-Americans, including students, 
     journalists, business travelers, and academics, on charges 
     including espionage and posing a threat to national 
     security.''.
       (15) The Government of the United States has designated 
     Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and a 
     jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern since 2011.
       (16) The Department of State's most recent Country Reports 
     on Terrorism makes clear that ``Iran continued its terrorist-
     related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, 
     Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in 
     Iraq and throughout the Middle East.''.
       (17) In announcing Iran's designation as a jurisdiction of 
     primary money laundering concern, the Department of the 
     Treasury made clear that ``any and every financial 
     transaction with Iran poses grave risk of supporting'' Iran's 
     ongoing illicit activities, including terrorism.
       (18) On March 17, 2016, the Department of State 
     acknowledged in a letter to Congress that there remain some 
     ``large claims'' pending before the Iran-United States Claims 
     Tribunal, ``many of which are against the United States''.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It shall be the policy of the United States Government not 
     to pay ransom or release prisoners for the purpose of 
     securing the release of United States citizens taken hostage 
     abroad.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON CASH PAYMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   IRAN.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     United States Government may not provide, directly or 
     indirectly, promissory notes (including currency) issued by 
     the United States Government or promissory notes (including 
     currency) issued by a foreign government, to the Government 
     of Iran.
       (b) Licensing Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the conduct of a transaction or payment in 
     connection with an agreement to settle a claim or claims 
     brought before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal may be 
     made only--
       (A) on a case-by-case basis and pursuant to a specific 
     license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the 
     Department of the Treasury; and
       (B) in a manner that is not in contravention of the 
     prohibition in subsection (a).
       (2) Publication in federal register.--The President shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a list of transactions and 
     payments, including the amount and method of each such 
     transaction and payment, by the United States Government to 
     the Government of Iran in connection with the agreement 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Termination.--The prohibition in subsection (a) and the 
     licensing requirement in subsection (b) shall remain in 
     effect until the date on which the President certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that--
       (1) the President has rescinded a preliminary draft rule or 
     final rule (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act) that provides for the designation of 
     Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern 
     pursuant to section 5318A of title 31, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) the Secretary of State has removed Iran from the list 
     of countries determined to have repeatedly provided support 
     for acts of international terrorism under section 6(j) of the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect 
     pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), 
     section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, section 620A of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other provision of 
     law.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.

     SEC. 5. REPORT ON OUTSTANDING CLAIMS BEFORE THE IRAN-UNITED 
                   STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

       (a) Report.--The President shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that lists and evaluates 
     each outstanding claim before the Iran-United States Claims 
     Tribunal.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) The total value of each outstanding claim.
       (2) The current status of each outstanding claim.
       (3) The likelihood that each claim will be resolved in the 
     next 6 months.
       (c) Submission to Congress.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and every 180 days 
     thereafter for a period not to exceed 3 years.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

     SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION RELATING TO 
                   SETTLEMENTS OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS BEFORE THE 
                   IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

       (a) Notification.--The President shall notify the 
     appropriate congressional committees not later than 30 days 
     prior to conducting a transaction or payment from the 
     Government of the United States to the Government of Iran in 
     connection with an agreement to settle a claim or claims 
     brought before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The notification required 
     under subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) The total amount of the settlement, including the total 
     principal and interest, and an explanation of the calculation 
     of the interest.
       (2) A legal analysis of why the settlement was made, 
     including a detailed description of all claims and counter-
     claims covered by the settlement.
       (3) A certification by the President that the settlement is 
     not a ransom for the release of individuals held hostage by 
     Iran.
       (4) An identification of each entity of the Government of 
     Iran that will receive amounts from the settlement.
       (5) A certification that the funds provided to Iran under 
     the settlement will not be used to provide support to foreign 
     terrorist organizations, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, or 
     other destabilizing activities.
       (6) Whether an equal amount of Iranian funds are available 
     and accessible in the United States to satisfy judgments 
     against Iran by victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.
       (7) A copy of the settlement agreement.
       (8) A description of the disposition of any related claims 
     that have been subrogated to the United States Government.
       (9) A certification that the settlement is in the best 
     interest of the United States.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

     SEC. 7. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall apply to any activities subject 
     to the reporting requirements of title V of the National 
     Security Act of 1947.

     SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any 
     payment by the Government of the United States to the 
     Government of Iran.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Government of iran.--The term ``Government of Iran'' 
     means--
       (A) the state and the Government of Iran, as well as any 
     political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof;
       (B) any entity owned or controlled directly or indirectly 
     by the foregoing;
       (C) any person to the extent that such person is, or has 
     been, or to the extent that there is reasonable cause to 
     believe that such person is, or has been, acting or 
     purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of 
     the foregoing; and
       (D) any person or entity identified by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to be the Government of Iran under part 560 of title 
     31, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Iran-united states claims tribunal.--The term ``Iran-
     United States Claims Tribunal'' means the tribunal 
     established pursuant to the Algiers Accords on January 19, 
     1981, to resolve certain claims by nationals of one party 
     against the other party and certain claims between the 
     parties.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
781. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not

[[Page 13390]]

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-781.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, strike line 11 and all that follows through line 17 
     and insert the following:
       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     United States Government may not provide, directly or 
     indirectly, to the Government of Iran--
       (A) monetary instruments; or
       (B) precious metals.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``monetary instruments'' has the meaning given 
     the term in paragraph (dd) of section 1010.100 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (B) the term ``precious metal'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1027.100(d) of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       Page 6, after line 11, insert the following:
       (c) Rule of Construction.--The term ``agreement to settle a 
     claim or claims brought before the Iran-United States Claims 
     Tribunal'', as used in subsection (b), shall not be construed 
     to mean a ``promissory note'', as used in the definition of 
     ``monetary instrument'' for purposes of subsection (a).
       Page 6, line 12, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 7, line 6, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, last week, when the Foreign Affairs 
Committee met to consider this legislation, the ranking member 
expressed concerns that the bill, as introduced, was too broad in our 
attempt to end payments to Iran in cash and cash-like equivalent. So I 
committed to sharpening this language as the process moves forward.
  The amendment before us makes good on that commitment, using the more 
precise term ``monetary instrument,'' which has a much more specific 
definition in U.S. law, while also adding precious metals, a real 
concern among those who closely follow Iran.
  So that is the nature of the amendment before us.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, say I appreciate 
Chairman Royce's consideration of my feedback during the markup, and I 
know he is well-intentioned with this measure.
  As he mentioned, I believe that the underlying legislation was too 
broad. It could have been interpreted as a ban on any payment, 
including wire transfers, checks, or cash. This does improve the bill.
  I don't like sending money to Iran, but if we ban any payments to 
Iran, we would be violating our obligations under the Algiers Accords. 
So, the specific changes in this bill narrow the banned payments to 
cash and precious metals.
  To me, cash is a red herring. No matter how we pay money to Iran, 
whether cash or wire transfer, once the money gets to an Iranian bank 
account, it is impossible for us to track it. We can imagine how 
Iranians use it, but we can't know for certain.
  Whether cash or wire transfer, we can't prevent them from doing the 
terrible things they do. So let's not talk about the form of the 
payment when I think our real concern is that we don't like what Iran 
does with money that it legally obtains.
  Additionally, my understanding is that the settlement in question 
required an immediate payment. So as much as it might be 
counterintuitive, electronic wire payments to Iran have taken months to 
complete, while the cash option met the terms of the settlement.
  It is galling. It is nothing we like to do, but, again, we signed an 
agreement called the Algiers Accords, and every President, in terms of 
giving money back to Iran, which was legally their money, has used the 
rules of the Accords. President Obama is not the first President to do 
that. As I pointed out before, both President Reagan and President 
George H.W. Bush did it as well.
  It takes a long time to make a wire transfer to Iran because U.S. 
sanctions against Iran are so powerful and so comprehensive that there 
are virtually no banking relationships between the United States and 
Iran. Therefore, a wire transfer was not an option; it would have taken 
too long. So in order to abide by the settlement, the U.S. Government 
had to make an immediate payment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, that is the reason I will have to oppose this 
amendment, even though I appreciate that the chairman is seeking to 
clarify the bill and make it better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the following points. We 
did have another way to transfer any agreed-upon settlement without 
transferring pallets of cash, and we know that because the 
administration had made other transfers to Iran.
  So this bill does not withdraw the U.S. from the Claims Tribunal or 
Algiers Accords. It doesn't impact that. Nor does it effectively 
prevent the United States from paying out awards rendered by the 
tribunal.
  As I have indicated, we simply, with this bill, prohibit cash from 
being used as a payment method. If the United States has to pay Iran a 
tribunal award in the future, the payment should be processed through 
the formal financial system as the other payments to Iran have been, 
and that is how the Hague Tribunal payments have been handled for 35 
years, and that is how it should work in the future.
  But our sanctions system was designed with tribunal payments in mind. 
The Iran transaction 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.
  So going back to the original argument, we are trying to perfect the 
bill. But at the end of the day, we can't collapse the effort because 
we have now had three planeloads full of cash, with pallets of cash 
transferred to the regime, and we can bet Iran will angle for more.
  Just last night, the Iranian President asserted that considerable 
sums of money are under discussion to be returned in Iran. This can't 
happen again. This cannot happen by another pallets-of-cash shipment to 
the Iranian regime or the IRGC, so this amendment is important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me respond just to some of the things that we have heard from 
some of our colleagues.
  This was not a ransom payment. This was payment for a 30-year-old 
claim over a weapons shipment that was never delivered, and the United 
States actually got a pretty good deal in the settlement. We might have 
had to pay more interest if we hadn't settled and the claim had gone to 
judgment at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.
  When the prisoners' plane was sitting on the tarmac, the 
administration, as I mentioned before, held up the settlement money. 
They couldn't find the mother and wife of one of the prisoners, Jason 
Rezaian from The Washington Post. Administration officials feared that, 
as Mr. Rezaian was being released, the Iranians were detaining his 
family, and this was unacceptable. The administration leveraged the 
settlement money, holding it up until Mr. Rezaian's family could be 
found and the prisoners could leave the country.
  Leveraging the money, money that belonged to Iran in the first place 
and

[[Page 13391]]

was going to be paid to Iran under the Algiers Accords, was smart. Can 
you imagine if the administration had paid the settlement anyway, even 
if the prisoner release was stalled? That didn't happen.
  Some people are saying that the administration made payments to Iran 
via wire transfer before and after the ransom, so why did the ransom 
have to be cash? Well, the payments that were made via wire transfer 
before and after the settlement payments were months in the making. It 
takes a long time to make a wire transfer to Iran because U.S. 
sanctions against Iran are so powerful and so comprehensive, as I 
mentioned before, that there are virtually no banking relationships 
between the U.S. and Iran. It takes a long time to wire money to Iran.
  But the requirement of the settlement was that the payment had to be 
immediate; therefore, a wire transfer, instead of cash, was not an 
option. It would have taken too long.
  Let me say this. I said it before and I will say it again. Money is 
fungible. Whether cash, wire transfers, checks, gold, or any other form 
of payment, once it gets to Iran, we have no way of tracking it. So I 
believe this debate about cash is beside the point. Money can be moved, 
be used for nefarious purposes once it gets to Iran, no matter what the 
method.
  But when we are going to make a payment to Iran pursuant to a 
settlement or a judgment, Congress should know about it, and I am 
offended that we didn't know about it. And that is why, when I 
introduce my amendment a little bit later on, we are going to require 
that Congress be informed of any kinds of transfer, not only to Iran, 
but to any other rogue nation, at least 5 days before.
  So we should have greater oversight of these payments. I agree with 
that. But I don't think that we should worry about whether it was cash 
or some other method.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-781.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PAYMENT OF 
                   RANSOM.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), the 
     President and all officers of the United States Government 
     shall not make a payment to a government or person for the 
     purpose of securing the release of unjustly detained 
     individuals who are nationals of the United States or aliens 
     who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 
     United States.
       (b) Exception.--The prohibition under subsection (a) does 
     not prohibit the United States Government from providing 
     assistance to individuals who are nationals of the United 
     States or aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence in the United States that have been arrested.
       (c) Enforcement.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney 
     General, may take such actions, including the promulgation of 
     such rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity.--The term ``entity'' means a corporation, 
     business association, partnership, trust, society, or any 
     other entity.
       (2) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual or 
     entity.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, in short, prohibits ransom 
payments to any country. Although the American people consider this to 
be U.S. policy, given the administration's recent actions, we have to 
make this prohibition explicit. This amendment will support and 
strengthen the good work of Chairman Royce on H.R. 5931.
  Think about this timeline. The U.S. wires $400 million in cash from 
the Swiss National Bank and then physically transports it to another 
city to hand off to Iranian officials, all in 3 days, 3 days before 
Iran releases four American hostages. But it gets worse. Less than a 
week after this, the U.S. again sends hoards of cash to Iran.
  We only know this timeline thanks to multiple and persistent 
inquiries from myself and other Members of Congress. And yet there are 
so many details that we still don't know.
  For instance, on April 5, 2016, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest, 
in response to a reporter's question on whether the Obama 
administration misled Congress about the Iran deal, stated: ``I don't 
think there is any evidence to substantiate this claim . . . I think 
you should take a rather dim view of that suggestion because 
Congressman Pompeo . . . didn't approve this deal and he certainly 
didn't favor it.''
  But of course my personal view of the JCPOA is irrelevant if the 
administration stonewalls Congress. The State Department has admitted 
that its payment of millions of dollars in pallets of cash to the 
Iranians would not have been made without the release of American 
hostages. The administration's selective noun use does not excuse 
criminality, nor does it explain away months of lying to the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, ransom payments put a price on the head of every 
American. This bill prohibits the United States Government from making 
a payment to secure the release of unjustly detained U.S. nationals or 
lawful residents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Let me say, first of all, on the face of it, the amendment 
makes sense. It is already U.S. policy not to pay ransom.
  On June 24, 2015, President Obama issued a directive:

       It is the United States' policy to deny hostage-takers the 
     benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or 
     other acts of concession.

  Codifying this policy though, without giving the President any 
flexibility, is not what we should be doing. There is no waiver in this 
bill. Things like this usually have waivers so the President--any 
President, this President and future Presidents--would have 
flexibility.
  But again, this whole issue, I believe, is a red herring. The United 
States did not pay ransom for the four Americans detained in Iran. We 
were paying Iran back its own money, money it had given us to buy 
weapons before the Iranian Revolution.
  I have never heard of paying a ransom using the captor's own money. 
It is galling, but it is not a ransom. Every mention of ransom is an 
attempt to politicize this issue and criticize the President, and that 
is not what we should be doing here. We should be putting our heads 
together and finding a solution.
  These issues are too important to get caught in partisan fights. It 
is not how we do things on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kansas for offering this amendment to a very important underlying bill 
from the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce.
  It is really important to point out, as a matter of policy and what, 
unfortunately, is very necessary for this Congress to take action on, 
to make it very clear that we don't pay ransom.
  Now, with regard to the $1.7 billion that has been paid to Iran to 
secure the release of the four Iranian hostages, other terms have been 
used. The one most often used lately is called ``leverage.''
  The fact is, if the money did not arrive immediately, the hostages 
wouldn't have been released. No money, no hostage release.
  Why are we debating as if this wasn't a ransom? If the money didn't 
show up,

[[Page 13392]]

$400 million in cash, the hostages wouldn't have been released.
  Why do we not put a price on securing the release, a financial price? 
It is because now more Americans are being unjustly imprisoned by Iran. 
Mr. Shahini, from California, in Iran visiting his mother, is being 
held, accused of ``cooperating with hostile governments, actions 
against national security, and communication with antirevolutionary 
agents and media.'' This is an American visiting his mom in Iran.
  And why do we not pay ransom? Why we do not give money to secure the 
release of American hostages is that now more Americans have been taken 
hostage.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. We need to codify what 
we have known for years has been American policy under Democrat 
Presidents and Republican Presidents that we simply won't pay ransom to 
get Americans back. It is enormously important to our country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that the Iranian regime is a 
bad regime. They hold American prisoners before we paid them the money, 
and they will hold prisoners after. It has no basis whatsoever. It is 
easy to put out the word ``ransom,'' but this was not a ransom.
  It is a reprehensible regime. They do reprehensible things. The 
United States fulfills its obligations. Again, the Algiers Accords, by 
the logic that this should not have been done, then when George H.W. 
Bush did it, it shouldn't have been done; when Ronald Reagan did it, it 
shouldn't have been done. They did it because we maintain our 
obligations in the United States.
  So any of us can get up and give a litany of things we don't like 
about the Iranian Government. Believe me, I take second to none when it 
comes to that. But the United States needs to fulfill its obligations, 
and the Iranian regime needs to be checked. But it is not a ransom, and 
that is just the problem.
  By calling it a ransom, by calling names, by trying to poke a finger 
in front of the eyes of the administration, we don't get to the real 
issue. The real issue, which I hope we will get to later, is, again, to 
give Congress notice before this happens. That is the issue. To just 
say ransom and throw that word out, anybody can do that; but this 
wasn't a ransom.
  We are fulfilling our obligations under the accords that we signed 
that each American President facing the same type of thing has sent 
money to Iran because we fulfill our obligations. It doesn't matter 
from which party the President comes. President Obama did nothing more 
than other Presidents have done before him.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-781.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 10. SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRANIAN PERSONS THAT HOLD 
                   OR DETAIN UNITED STATES NATIONALS OR ALIENS 
                   LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       (a) Imposition of Sanctions.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect 
     to--
       (1) any Iranian person involved in the kidnapping or unjust 
     detention on or after March 9, 2007, of any individual who is 
     a national of the United States or an alien who is lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
       (2) any Iranian person that engages, or attempts to engage, 
     in an activity or transaction that materially contributes to, 
     or poses a risk of materially contributing to, kidnapping or 
     unjust detention described in paragraph (1); and
       (3) any Iranian person that--
       (A) is owned or controlled by a person described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2);
       (B) is acting for or on behalf of such a person; or
       (C) provides, or attempts to provide--
       (i) financial, material, technological, or other support to 
     a person described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
       (ii) goods or services in support of an activity or 
     transaction described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (b) Sanctions Described.--The President shall block, in 
     accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), all transactions in all 
     property and interests in property of any person subject to 
     subsection (a) if such property and interests in property are 
     in the United States, come within the United States, or are 
     or come within the possession or control of a United States 
     person.
       (c) Exception; Penalties.--
       (1) Inapplicability of national emergency requirement.--The 
     requirements of section 202 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply for 
     purposes of subsection (b).
       (2) Exception relating to importation of goods.--The 
     requirement to block and prohibit all transactions in all 
     property and interests in property under subsection (b) shall 
     not include the authority to impose sanctions on the 
     importation of goods.
       (3) Penalties.--The penalties provided for in subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) shall apply to a person 
     that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or 
     causes a violation of regulations prescribed under subsection 
     (b) to the same extent that such penalties apply to a person 
     that commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) of 
     such section 206.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity.--The term ``entity'' means a corporation, 
     business association, partnership, trust, society, or any 
     other entity.
       (2) Iranian person.--The term ``Iranian person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a citizen or national of the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual or 
     entity.
       (4) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a national of the United States or 
     an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
     the United States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.


         Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
3 printed in House Report 114-781 be modified in the form I have placed 
at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 11, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 10. SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRANIAN PERSONS THAT HOLD 
                   OR DETAIN UNITED STATES NATIONALS OR ALIENS 
                   LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       (a) Imposition of Sanctions.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect 
     to--
       (1) any Iranian person involved in the kidnapping or unjust 
     detention of any individual who is a national of the United 
     States or an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence in the United States;
       (2) any Iranian person that engages, or attempts to engage, 
     in an activity or transaction that materially contributes to, 
     or poses a risk of materially contributing to, kidnapping or 
     unjust detention described in paragraph (1); and
       (3) any Iranian person that--
       (A) is owned or controlled by a person described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2);
       (B) is acting for or on behalf of such a person; or
       (C) provides, or attempts to provide--
       (i) financial, material, technological, or other support to 
     a person described in paragraph (1) or (2); or

[[Page 13393]]

       (ii) goods or services in support of an activity or 
     transaction described in paragraph (1) or (2).
       (b) Sanctions Described.--The President shall block, in 
     accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), all transactions in all 
     property and interests in property of any person subject to 
     subsection (a) if such property and interests in property are 
     in the United States, come within the United States, or are 
     or come within the possession or control of a United States 
     person.
       (c) Exception; Penalties.--
       (1) Inapplicability of national emergency requirement.--The 
     requirements of section 202 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply for 
     purposes of subsection (b).
       (2) Exception relating to importation of goods.--The 
     requirement to block and prohibit all transactions in all 
     property and interests in property under subsection (b) shall 
     not include the authority to impose sanctions on the 
     importation of goods.
       (3) Penalties.--The penalties provided for in subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) shall apply to a person 
     that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or 
     causes a violation of regulations prescribed under subsection 
     (b) to the same extent that such penalties apply to a person 
     that commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) of 
     such section 206.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity.--The term ``entity'' means a corporation, 
     business association, partnership, trust, society, or any 
     other entity.
       (2) Iranian person.--The term ``Iranian person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a citizen or national of the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual or 
     entity.
       (4) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a national of the United States or 
     an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
     the United States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity.

  Mr. POMPEO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered today 
places comprehensive sanctions on individuals who hold Americans 
hostage. This amendment will support and strengthen the good work of 
Chairman Royce on H.R. 5931.
  This week marks 1 year the Iranian Government has been holding 
hostage Nizar Zakka, a U.S. legal permanent resident and international 
Internet development expert. Mr. Zakka, this week, was sentenced to 10 
years in prison and millions of dollars in fines. His only crime was to 
bring greater Internet access to the women of Iran. He joins two other 
Americans held hostage and one who is missing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the sentiment behind what 
the gentleman is seeking to do. Of course we want to punish anyone who 
is unjustly holding American citizens behind bars, but there are so 
many potential unintended consequences in this amendment, I simply 
don't know where to start.
  First, the amendment requires sanctions against any Iranian who 
unjustly detains a U.S. citizen. But the term ``unjustly detained'' is 
not defined.
  So who defines it? Does the White House? The Congress? Iran? It is 
very difficult.
  Secondly, as anyone who has worked on sanctions policy knows--and we 
work on sanctions a lot on the Foreign Affairs Committee--it is 
typically not the use of sanctions that encourages the change in 
behavior; it is the threat of sanctions that encourages the change in 
behavior. That means that the Iranians have to believe that we will 
implement sanctions against them, but the President has to be given 
flexibility to use it or suspend it if they do change their behavior.
  This is impossible under this amendment. The President has no 
flexibility, no waiver, no termination authority, none of the typical 
details that compels regimes to change their behavior.
  So let me say, because of that, I encourage all Members to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch), our colleague and the ranking member of the 
Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I thank my 
friend, the ranking member.
  I have to oppose the amendment of my friend from Kansas. I oppose the 
amendment not because of what my friend is trying to accomplish, but 
because of the way that we are trying to do it.
  I proudly represent Bob Levinson, who went missing on March 9, 2007. 
He is the longest held American in history. We have worked tirelessly 
in this House--working with my friend, the sponsor of this amendment; 
Mr. Royce, the chairman of the committee; and Mr. Engel, the ranking 
member, we have worked in a strong, bipartisan way, all of us together, 
to bring Bob home.
  By amending this legislation--which I explained last week in our 
committee hearing why I opposed, just as the ranking member did today, 
because of the risks that the underlying bill causes in violating our 
legal obligations under the Algiers Accords that has yielded over $2.5 
billion for American claimants and prohibiting settlement of claims 
until certification, that requirement that could prevent the U.S. from 
reaching settlement. This is a piece of legislation that we oppose. The 
goal is to continue to ensure that everything we do in focusing on 
bringing Bob home is done in a way that can pass with overwhelming 
support.
  So, unfortunately, I have to oppose my good friend's amendment. But I 
want to thank him for the effort of focusing attention, again, on 
American citizens who continue to be held in Iran.
  Eight months ago we were told when Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and 
Jason Rezaian finally were able to return home to their families and 
that the Iranians agreed to continue cooperating with the United States 
to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson. It is 8 months later, 
and Bob Levinson is not home with his family in Coral Springs, Florida.
  I look forward to working with my friend from Kansas and I look 
forward to working with every Member of this House and all of us in 
this country who understand that as long as there are Americans being 
held and as long as Bob Levinson, the longest held American in history, 
continues to be missing in Iran that this House of Representatives will 
not rest, and that we will continue to pay attention and work together 
to find ways to maximize our efforts to bring him home through whatever 
pressure is necessary. It is intolerable that we have to come to the 
floor over and over and over again as this poor family continues to 
wait for the return of their father and grandfather.
  I thank my friend for helping to raise this issue. I, unfortunately, 
have to oppose the amendment for the reasons that I have stated. But I 
look forward to working together with my friend from Kansas, Democrats, 
Republicans, and all of the people of goodwill in this House and in 
this country until we bring him home.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Duffy

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-781.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 13394]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON CASH PAYMENTS TO STATE SPONSORS OF 
                   TERRORISM.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     United States Government may not provide, directly or 
     indirectly, to a government of a state sponsor of terrorism, 
     or an agent acting on behalf of such a government--
       (A) monetary instruments; or
       (B) precious metals.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``monetary instruments'' has the meaning given 
     the term in paragraph (dd) of section 1010.100 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (B) the term ``precious metal'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1027.100(d) of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (b) Application to North Korea.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to 
     a payment, or an agreement to make a payment, to an agency or 
     instrumentality of the Government of the Democratic Peoples' 
     Republic of Korea, or an agent acting on behalf of such 
     Government, in the same manner and to the same extent as such 
     subsection applies with respect to a payment, or an agreement 
     to make a payment, to an agency or instrumentality of a state 
     sponsor of terrorism, subject to the termination provisions 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall cease to apply with 
     respect to a payment, or an agreement to make a payment, to 
     an agency or instrumentality of the Government of the 
     Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, or an agent acting on 
     behalf of such Government, beginning on the date on which the 
     President makes the certification to Congress under section 
     402 of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act 
     of 2016 (Public Law 114-122; 22 U.S.C. 92512).
       (c) State Sponsor of Terrorism Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``state sponsor of terrorism'' means a country the 
     government of which the Secretary of State has determined, 
     for purposes of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)) (as 
     continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 
     620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371(a)), section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2780(d)), or any other provision of law, to be a 
     government that has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Royce for 
all of his work on this commonsense bill.
  But I have to say I am a little bit shocked that Chairman Royce has 
to put so much work into this kind of a bill to prohibit cash payments 
to Iran, the lead sponsor of terrorism in the world. Shame on us for 
being in a situation where we need legislation to stop cash payments to 
a state sponsor of terror.
  Have we so soon forgotten what happened on 9/11? Have we so soon 
forgotten Iran's role in 9/11 15 years ago?
  Just recently, former U.S. Senator and Democratic Party vice 
presidential nominee Joe Lieberman quoted the 9/11 Commission saying 
that there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al 
Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11 and that some of 
these were future 9/11 hijackers.
  Iran supports international terror. They have been designated a state 
sponsor of terror since 1984.
  We know that the currency of terror is what?
  It is cash. They use cash to fund terrorism.
  So instead of saying, Do you know what, we are going to make 
payments--if payments have to be made--by wire transfer to some Iranian 
bank in Europe where those payments can be traced, we say, No, no, no; 
we have been so successful in cutting them off from the financial 
world, we want to make these payments in cash to them.
  It is illegal right now for us to actually load up a plane full of 
cash and send it from the U.S. to Iran. So the recent transaction that 
happened to get around that rule, the administration--President Obama 
and Jack Lew--said: We are going to wire the money. We are going to 
actually wire the money. We are going to wire it to a European bank and 
instruct them to convert it to cash and send it to Iran.
  Shame on the American administration and shame on this House for not 
stopping it.
  I have an amendment that says not just Iran, but all state sponsors 
of terror; and we should also include North Korea to be included on the 
list of folks that we are unwilling to send cash payments to.
  This is just commonsense American policy that we have had in place 
for a long time that now is being rolled back by this administration. 
We have had so many people on both sides of the aisle who understand 
the threat of terror and the threat of cash in terrorists' hands that 
we have all stood together. We now see a division in this House to not 
support that very commonsense effort, which is an effort to support the 
American citizens and their safety. I think this is a sad day for this 
institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think everybody knows I am 
from New York, and, frankly, I don't need anyone lecturing me about 9/
11. That is a pain in my heart that I will live with for the rest of my 
life. So I think that any reference to 9/11 from this bill is just 
totally off base.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't like the idea of shipping payments to 
Iran or any government hostile to the United States, but we have to 
abide by our obligations whether we like it or not. We also don't want 
to tie our hands, which is what this amendment would do.
  This measure would impose a permanent and blanket prohibition on most 
forms of money transfers, not just cash, whether made directly or 
indirectly through third parties. It would preempt all existing 
provisions of law.
  We have no idea what sort of consequences could come with something 
like this. We may face diplomatic or strategic opportunities that would 
require quick action. But this provision is all-encompassing, 
regardless of circumstance. And, again, there is no waiver for 
unforeseen situations. There are always waivers for the President in 
bills like this because the President can best decide what unforeseen 
situations there are. And, again, it is any President from any party.
  So I think this amendment would take us down a wrong path. I am going 
to oppose it, and I urge all Members to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the chairman's bill 
and my amendment don't prohibit cash payments to a lot of countries 
around the world. It restricts cash payments to only a few countries 
around the world and those countries that are American designated 
states that sponsor terrorism.
  I don't mean to lecture anybody about 9/11. I didn't live in New 
York, I am not from New York, but I watched what happened in New York. 
And I think it is important that we not forget what happened, who was 
responsible, and that we don't lose our focus today for partisan 
reasons on who those bad actors are, and that we remain vigilant in our 
effort to push back and fight back against state sponsors of terror. 
And part of that fight is the fight against allowing them cash.
  On the Financial Services Committee--I know Mr. Royce works on this 
aggressively--we can use the global financial system to shut them out, 
and we have been successful at that. But if you open up the global 
financial system and you pour cash and gold into Iran that can be used 
to sponsor terror, to buy technology in regard to missiles, or to 
advance your nuclear program, that has a direct impact on all 
Americans, our security, and our safety.
  I think it is incumbent upon this House to look out first for our 
constituents and our countrymen, which

[[Page 13395]]

means let's prohibit cash payments, not any payment. You can make a 
wire transfer that you can actually trace. But let's not send cash 
payments that are untraceable to State sponsors of terror.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Engel

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-781.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike the text of the committee print and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restrictions on Payments to 
     State Sponsors of Terrorism Act''.

     SEC. 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 of Congress in writing--
       (1) a notification of the proposed payment or agreement; 
     and
       (2) the text of the claim or judgment with respect to which 
     such payment or agreement relates.
       (b) Application to North Korea.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (c) shall apply with 
     respect to a payment, or an agreement to make a payment, to 
     an agency or instrumentality of the Government of the 
     Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, or an agent acting on 
     behalf of such Government, in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as such subsections apply with respect to a payment, 
     or an agreement to make a payment, to an agency or 
     instrumentality of a state sponsor of terrorism, subject to 
     the termination provisions described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Termination.--Subsections (a) and (c) shall cease to 
     apply with respect to a payment, or an agreement to make a 
     payment, to an agency or instrumentality of the Government of 
     the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, or an agent acting 
     on behalf of such Government, beginning on the date on which 
     the President makes the certification to Congress under 
     section 402 of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy 
     Enhancement Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-122; 22 U.S.C. 
     92512).
       (c) Publication in the Federal Register.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the 
     President shall publish in the Federal Register a list of 
     payments, and agreements to make payments, to agencies and 
     instrumentalities of governments of a state sponsors of 
     terrorism as described in subsection (a) that were made or 
     entered into during the prior 180-day period.
       (2) Contents.--The list of payments, and agreements to make 
     payments, required to be published in the Federal Register 
     under paragraph (1) shall, with respect to each such payment 
     or agreement, include the following:
       (A) The amount of the payment or agreement.
       (B) The agency or instrumentality of the United States 
     Government that made the payment or entered into the 
     agreement.
       (C) The reason or reasons for the payment or agreement.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON OUTSTANDING CLAIMS BEFORE THE IRAN-UNITED 
                   STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

       (a) Report.--The President shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that describes each claim 
     pending before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Matters to Be Included.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include the amount (if an amount is 
     specified) and the status before the Iran-United States 
     Claims Tribunal of each claim described in subsection (a).
       (c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex if necessary.
       (d) Deadline.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and annually thereafter until the disposition of all 
     claims pending before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

     SEC. 4. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall apply to any activities subject 
     to the reporting requirements of title V of the National 
     Security Act of 1947.

     SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any 
     payment by the Government of the United States to a state 
     sponsor of terrorism or North Korea.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and the Committee on Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) State sponsor of terrorism.--The term ``state sponsor 
     of terrorism'' means a country the government of which the 
     Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 
     6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)) (as continued in effect pursuant 
     to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.)), section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), section 40(d) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)), or any other provision of 
     law, to be a government that has repeatedly provided support 
     for acts of international terrorism.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment because I do 
think there is a lot of common ground when it comes to this issue.
  My concern is that the administration really did not give Congress 
its due with respect to this payment. We were told about the payment 
but not notified about how this transition would take place, and that 
is just not right, especially when it is somewhat unusual.
  My amendment would require the administration, and future 
administrations, to notify Congress at least 5 days in advance of any 
settlement agreement or payment to Iran, to other countries on the 
state sponsors of terrorism list, and to North Korea, and it provides 
appropriate oversight on the claims that are remaining at the tribunal.
  It is straightforward, and it ensures that Congress' role in foreign 
policymaking is not overlooked. I don't think anyone here disagrees 
with that idea.
  My amendment gets to the heart of it. I think it would allow this 
bill to sail through the House with strong support on both sides. It 
leaves aside the areas that are sure to eventually derail the 
underlying measure--talk of ransom again and again, or to focus 
exclusively on cash payments. We are not going to agree on these areas. 
Putting them front and center guarantees that this bill has no path 
forward.
  So let's put those issues aside and advance legislation that 
addresses all our concerns. That is what we do every day on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. I hope my amendment will help get our committee's 
work back on track.
  Again, I ask all Members to support the amendment. I don't think 
anyone can disagree with the fact that the administration, or future 
administrations, give Congress enough time so that we will hear about 
payments, we will hear about transactions before they are done, not 
while they are done or after they are done.
  I ask all Members to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
will regretfully oppose the ranking member's substitute.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with part of the argument that is 
being made here by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  You just heard a common theme between the underlying bill and the 
ranking member's substitute, and that is the need for greater 
transparency, especially transparency around the Claims Tribunal. That 
is a must.
  I will go back to the underlying problem. If diplomats were working 
overtime on a settlement, why not tell the

[[Page 13396]]

committee of jurisdiction of the possibility? If the goal of this 
settlement was merely to put to rest a decade-old dispute over an 
abandoned arms sale, as we were told after the fact, then why the 
secrecy? The administration has intentionally left us, the committee, 
and this Congress in the dark.
  Both the underlying bill and the ranking member's substitute requires 
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 the American taxpayers, these 
requirements should be welcomed, not 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, cannot be manipulated by either 
the next administration or this administration. So here the two of us 
agree.
  But I am afraid that this substitute does not address a larger 
problem, and that is because this proposal, unlike the underlying bill, 
contains no restriction on the way in which Iran could be paid. I was 
raising questions about the $1.7 billion payment when it was first 
made. Quite frankly, not too many were focused on it until it was 
revealed that it was paid in cash.
  Let me explain why many of us believe that this is a crucial problem. 
It is because checks and wire transfers do leave a paper trail. Cash 
does not leave a paper trail. If Iran wires money to its terrorist 
proxies, we can see the banks it used, and we can work to cut them out 
of the financial system. That is what we are trying to do in isolating 
their ability to transfer funds to Hezbollah or Hamas.
  Now, when we give Iran cash then Iran can put that cash on a plane or 
on the back of a truck, and they can send that cash to Syria, or send 
it to Gaza, or to Hamas, or send it to Lebanon, or to Hezbollah. And 
that is why cash, the physical bills, are so valuable to Iran. Cash, 
not wire transfers, is the currency of terror.
  So the bottom line is that because everyone knows that cash is a 
conduit for all sorts of illegal behavior, my hope is to carry the day 
here with this argument that the underlying bill has got to maintain 
this ability to cut off payments in cash to the terrorists in Tehran.
  I call them terrorists because that is what the Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard Corps is funding, as well as ballistic missile production, and 
that is what the Quds Force--and the head of the Quds Force is in 
charge of assassinations outside of the country--that is what he is 
doing.
  They have just toppled a government in Yemen that was an ally to the 
United States, they just committed further atrocities in Syria, and 
they are bulking up Hezbollah as we speak.
  That is why I feel that portion has to remain in the bill, and that 
is why I reluctantly oppose this amendment which would remove the 
effectiveness of the cutting off of cash.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I appreciate my friend, 
Chairman Royce's words. We don't agree totally on this, but we do agree 
that the Iranian regime is a bad regime and they need to be checked. 
And I would hope that after this whole process is done, because this 
bill is not going to become law, that we can put our heads together and 
come up with something that can become law. The Iranians need to be 
checked, and the Congress needs to be informed and needs to be a part 
of the process. We are, obviously, an independent branch of government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Engel.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal here tonight, I think, is to both 
simultaneously ensure that we don't take any action that would make it 
difficult for Americans to bring claims to the Iran-U.S. Claims 
Tribunal that would enhance our ability to continue with our legal 
obligations under the Algiers Accords but that will also focus on the 
very specific problem that we have at hand.
  Mr. Engel's substitute amendment, I think, will permit us to do all 
of that. It carries over the provision from the underlying bill that 
requires reporting to Congress on claims settlements and payments to 
Iran, it enhances our ability to be aware of and to have greater 
disability of transfer of funds to Iran going forward, and it ensures 
that Congress will be able to keep in sharp focus before any of those 
transfers happen so that we can then act accordingly.
  And I would just remind everyone that we have really done meaningful 
work in the House under the leadership of the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, and the ranking member, Mr. Engel. We 
have done meaningful work because we have been able to work together to 
take on the threats posed by Iran.
  It is because of the work, the bipartisan effort, the work that has 
been done together that Iran faced unprecedented economic sanctions. 
And it is because of the work, again, that has been done in a 
bipartisan way that members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who 
direct the funding of terror and commit egregious human rights 
violations, continue to remain sanctioned. And it is because of the 
efforts of Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel that banks continue 
to be weary of dealing with Iran, and Iran is still fully unable to 
access the international financial market in U.S. dollars.
  So there are plenty of examples of the good work that we have done 
together. When we work together on these issues of critical importance, 
the country is stronger and safer. I think Mr. Engel's amendment will 
provide us the opportunity to go forward in a bipartisan way in a 
manner that, again, will help the United States be stronger and safer. 
I know that is everyone's goal, both on the Foreign Affairs Committee 
and in the House. That is why I support the amendment, and that is why 
I urge my colleagues to also support it.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, I will be opposing the 
substitute. As Members of the House know, it is unusual for the two of 
us to be at odds. In working together, we have a long track record of 
success: 14 bills this session, 18 in the last session. Just yesterday, 
the House sent to the President's desk bipartisan legislation, which 
was authored by me and Ranking Member Engel, to crack down on the 
illegal trafficking of wildlife; but here we have a disagreement. 
Sending pallets of cash is bad policy. This bill fixes the problem. I 
oppose the substitute and urge the passage of the underlying measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Duffy) having assumed the chair, Mr. Russell, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5931) to 
provide for the prohibition on cash payments to the Government of Iran, 
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________