Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. 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 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. 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.

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 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. 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 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. 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. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the esteemed majority whip.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, September 26, 2016, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2494) to support global anti-poaching efforts, strengthen the capacity of partner countries to counter wildlife trafficking, designate major wildlife trafficking countries, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I have an amendment to the text of the resolution at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 220) condemning the Government of Iran's state- sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Castro and Mr. McCaul for their innovation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3924, which authorizes the U.S. Global Development Lab within the U.S. Agency for International Development. Through the Lab, USAID workers, with the private sector, partner up; and they tap into the science and technology needed to source and to test proven, low-cost, high-impact solutions to pressing development challenges around the world. From maternal health to food security, the innovations supported by the Lab are changing the way we think about and the way we deliver foreign aid. This bill provides important authorities to improve the Lab's efficacy and efficiency, and it approves incentive awards through a competitive pay-for-performance process. It enables the Lab to bring in technical experts on a short-term basis without long-term salary and benefit obligations. When one of these new technologies becomes successful, it allows USAID to keep a portion of its initial investment so the Lab can become financially self-sustaining. Mr. Speaker, this is the approach that will bend the development curve. This is effective foreign aid. I want to thank Representative Castro and Representative McCaul for introducing this very important, bipartisan measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3924) to establish in the United States Agency for International Development an entity to be known as the United States Global Development Lab, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5708) to oppose loans at international financial institutions for the Government of Nicaragua unless the Government of Nicaragua is taking effective steps to hold free, fair, and transparent elections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill at the desk.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the people of Ukraine have struggled against great odds to defend their freedom and ensure their national existence. It is a tortured history. One of the Members who is on the floor today, Eliot Engel, who was in Ukraine with me, his family, grandparents, all four of them came from Ukraine. Together we saw some of the evidence of that history in a gorge in Ukraine where so many Jewish Ukrainians were slaughtered. It is a reminder. The Holocaust and the other deprivations, the famine that Ukrainians lived through, are a reminder of the perils to the people in that country. For several years, Vladimir Putin has employed all of the tools at his command to dominate that country, and that includes arming separatists in the east where almost 10,000 people have lost their lives in the fighting. It includes annexing Crimea, and the latest effort to legitimize his aggression was to include Crimea in Russia's parliamentary elections held last Sunday. These were a sham, and the delegates represent no one but the rulers in Moscow. The administration cannot allow Putin to believe that U.S. opposition to his aggression is weakening. Instead, the U.S. and its allies and partners in Europe must step up their pressure against Moscow, including providing the lethal assistance needed to stop Russian tanks, that the Ukrainians have repeatedly asked for. Their primary concern is to be able to check that armor in the east. This legislation strengthens the sanctions imposed on Russia as well. It is a clear demonstration that the U.S. remains committed to supporting the Ukrainian peoples' unyielding defense of their freedom and their national existence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, September 15, 2016. Hon. Edward R. Royce, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Royce, I am writing with respect to H.R. 5094, the ``Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act,'' on which the Committee on Ways and Means was granted an additional referral. In order to allow H.R. 5094 to move expeditiously to the House floor, I agree to waive formal consideration of this bill. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with the mutual understanding that by forgoing formal consideration of H.R. 5094, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Kevin Brady, Chairman.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).