Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a very valued member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the ranking member of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. Let me start by thanking our chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, for his leadership. I had the good occasion to travel with him to Congo last year, and we pushed very, very hard on the fact that we believe democracy needs to be carried out there. In fact, the President of Congo, who is running for an unprecedented third term, which he is not supposed to do according to their Constitution, opted not to see us because he was angry at the fact that we came to Congo and spoke out so heavily, with one voice I might say, for democratic reforms. That has been the tradition of the Foreign Affairs Committee during the time that Chairman Royce has been chairman and I have been ranking member. We speak with one voice on most things, and we are more effective that way. I think that foreign policy, especially, should be bipartisan and partisanship should stop at the water's edge. So we, personally, the two of us and the colleagues that came with us on the trip, drove that message home to the President of Congo. We met with the Prime Minister, and we didn't mince our words. So I want to thank Chairman Royce for his leadership. I want to thank the chair and ranking member of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and Ms. Bass of California for her hard work in bringing this measure to the floor. As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, in recent months, protesters in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have faced an increasingly violent crackdown at the hands of armed authorities. These people are protesting, again, the illegal third-term grab by the President of Congo. Citizens have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and civil society groups are finding it harder and harder to operate. In just over a month, when President Joseph Kabila's term expires, I fear that this instability will grow even worse. We want to see democracy thrive and the constitution prevail in the DRC, but we know forces are hard at work to tear that country's democracy down. This resolution sends a message that the United States is watching this situation closely. Those who try to undermine democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo won't get a free pass from us. This measure calls for U.S. sanctions on core government and opposition officials who hinder democratic processes or stand in the way of progress toward a peaceful democratic transition. It calls for sanctions to remain in place until President Kabila declares that he will abide by the constitution and step down on December 19--until there is verifiable progress toward holding a free and fair election and until the opposition and civil society groups are free to operate without interference. Lastly, this resolution requests that our government support civil society groups and the media so that the DRC citizens and the world have a clear picture of democracy and governance. I am glad to support this timely resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We cannot delay action on Syria any longer. The violence has gone on too long and at too great a cost. If we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back at square one. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who spoke earlier, talked about working in this region and the legislation that we did. Well, in 2004, I believe, she and I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act and it passed into law. We really regarded it at the time as a major achievement which helped calm things down in that area. But now it has been many years and things are getting worse. When I speak with people who have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis in Aleppo and in other places, they tell me that not only are barrel bombs being dropped on the civilian population-- and, as somebody mentioned before, these aren't people dying who are dying in war; they are civilians, and they have had barrel bombs dropped on them, which is terrible--now do you know what the Assad regime is doing? It is dropping bunker-buster bombs on its people, on its civilians. So the people who go underground--literally underground--to avoid the bombs from being dropped on top of them get murdered by bunker-busting bombs that actually go there and have no purpose except to kill innocent civilians. It is absolutely a disgrace, and we cannot stand idly by and just allow this to happen. This legislation won't tie the hands of this administration or the next administration. This bill has plenty of flexibility built in so that we can adapt to changing conditions. But if we pass it and put it to work, this measure will tie the hands of the Assad regime. It will help to cut off its ability to carry out violence against its own people, and it will discourage other powers from sustaining the campaign of violence. I echo every word that was said today from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. So let's do the right thing for the Syrian people, the right thing for humanity, and pass this bill. I urge all Members to vote ``aye.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, yesterday there was an explosion in my district and yesterday New York City lost one of its bravest: FDNY Battalion Chief Michael Fahy, a 17-year veteran of the department and a father of three. He was a resident of Yonkers, New York, in my district, and a constituent of mine as well. Fahy was responding to a house fire when the building exploded, taking Battalion Chief Fahy's life and wounding nine others, including another firefighter, seven NYPD officers, and one electrical worker. Thanks to these brave first responders, nobody else was hurt. Every New Yorker mourns this loss today. Battalion Chief Fahy was a second-generation firefighter. His family's example is a reminder of the courage and dedication that the FDNY exemplifies. We honor Battalion Chief Fahy and his family for their service and their sacrifice. I want to send along my personal prayers, thoughts, and condolences to his wife, his children, and the rest of his family. He may be gone, but he will never be forgotten. Today and forever more, we will mourn his loss.

Mr. ENGEL

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. 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. 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. 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. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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. 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. 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. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. 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 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.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.