No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first start off by saying the President of the United States did the right thing. It is easy to say why we should vote against this bill.
My good friend, the chairman, has talked about October 7 over and over. Our committee has had several family members come before our committee where we have vowed to do everything we can to get their family members back home.
For me, it has been very personal. Yesterday, we talked to a group of family members. We told them we will not stop until we get their family members back home.
Negotiating to bring our hostages home is hard because you have to do it with bad people.
Guess what? Hamas committed the heinous acts on October 7, but who are we negotiating with to get the hostages home? Hamas. It is not easy, but we vowed in front of these witnesses.
I wonder what we would say to those five individuals and families, who are now safe at home, before they were released? Would we have promised them and didn't we promise them we would do everything we could to get them back home?
Yes, President Biden did the right thing. He brought five Americans home who were rotting in Iran's notorious Evan prison.
Every Member of Congress--I repeat, every Member of this Congress who was aware of these cases wanted our fellow citizens to come home. Now, they are saying they should not have come home.
This was done, wanting them to come home, with a bipartisan voice. President Biden thus succeeded in doing what his predecessors could not. He got them home.
Iran, of course, as is Hamas, is a murderous and corrupt regime. They are not pleasant, and this isn't easy. Thanks to this agreement, five American families are now whole again, and Iran has lost the leverage of holding these American hostages.
Now, H.R. 5961 would sanction parties that carry out the financial terms of the hostage agreement in question. These include three European commercial banks and the Central Bank of Qatar, who, by the way, has been very instrumental in working with us to get hostages home that were taken on October 7, but let's really talk about the facts.
Yes, I have been in classified sessions and nonclassified sessions and have heard it, as all of us have. Let's talk about the facts.
Billions of Iran's own profits from oil sales were sitting in a restricted account in South Korea. It was done by the prior administration. It was established by the Trump administration for Iran to make approved humanitarian purchases. This wasn't done by the Biden administration. It was sitting in South Korea, by the Trump administration, for humanitarian purchases.
The United States had no control over that account while it was sitting there. The agreement moved that $6 billion from the restricted account in South Korea, converted it to euros, and relocated it into the restricted account in Qatar, which now the United States has visibility over--not a single penny--facts, not conjecture, facts.
I don't think anyone can refute the fact that not a single penny has moved into Iran. Not one. Not a penny, much less a dime. Not a penny has moved into Iran.
Under the terms of the agreement, Iran can use the money in Qatar to make approved humanitarian purchases to acquire medicine, medical equipment, agricultural goods, and food. Iran's government physically will never touch this money. The entirety of the transaction occurs outside of Iran, and Iran only receives the vetted humanitarian goods.
By the way, that is consistent with our values, and that is why we, in all of this, are talking about humanitarian concerns for people who are just victimized by bad people.
Thus far, Iran has not made any requests of the humanitarian fund, and nothing has been gained by Iran. All of the money remains in the account, an account that the United States can watch.
We have leverage over that account due to our relationship with the correspondent banks in Europe that would help process any transactions. In other words, we know we now have more control over this money than we did when it was sitting in South Korea. In fact, this account provides us with leverage, not the other way around.
Furthermore, following the horrific attacks in Israel on October 7, the United States and Qatar froze the humanitarian fund, so it is frozen now in Qatar. No humanitarian purchases will be approved any time soon. Again, nothing has changed.
The money remains in the account and we continue to have leverage. Nothing has changed from when the money was sitting in South Korea.
The only thing that has changed is five American citizens are no longer sitting in an Iranian prison. They are back home with their families.
Madam Chair, if H.R. 5961 is passed into law, that leverage will be gone. It will disappear. We will also lose our ability to conduct diplomacy with Iran and others in the future. If we blow up this agreement by passing this bill, we, the United States, will be the ones breaking yet another sensitive negotiated agreement.
Our word and integrity will no longer be good in negotiations, whether it is with Iran or any other parties. The United States must continue to address--and here is where I think we agree--no one is saying that the United States needs to continue to address Iran's backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Iranian-supported Hamas terrorists unleashed pure evil when they broke a cease-fire in the attacks on October 7. The population of Gaza would not be engulfed in war right now if it were not for Hamas. But we must also remain sober and serious about the challenge of Iran's nefarious nuclear program. None of the bad options we possess to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions are better than the diplomatic track, which has already proven successful.
It was the United States who actually violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Pulling out of this hostage agreement will be the second time we violate an agreement with Iran's leaders. Passage of this bill would mean potentially slamming the door closed on future diplomacy, leaving us only with dangerous and highly risky options of confronting Iran's nuclear program.
We all agree, Iran must not ever have a nuclear weapon, but guess what, since we pulled out of JCPOA, they are closer to getting a nuclear weapon than had we been in there.
Madam Chair, the prisoner swap confirms to the Iranian regime that the United States is a reliable negotiating partner, just as we see taking place right now.
As we bring the hostages home from Gaza, they have to deal with Hamas. Both sides have to keep their word. We have warned Israel, who is a strong, diplomatic, honest country moving forward, fighting for its existence but have to deal with Hamas. They made an agreement, and they are living by that agreement. Hostages are coming home, and we want that to continue for each and every one of them. They are not just simply being released, Israel is giving something back in return.
In our case, Iran is actually not getting anything because they are not getting a dime to be utilized for their nefarious purposes.
Madam Chair, let me conclude with this: The agreement has freed five Americans--I repeat, five American citizens--who were suffering in an Iranian prison, who we all, in a bipartisan way, said we would do anything to get them home. We wanted them to be home.
It shifted Iran's own money from an account in Korea that we did not control, to one where we play a role and have control that we didn't in South Korea.
Not a single penny has left the account. I don't think anybody can refute that. Not a single penny has left the account. Not a single penny has entered Iran. Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar has been involved.
This fund remains frozen indefinitely by the United States in Qatar, which has been working closely with us and Israel.
There is no reason to jeopardize future negotiations or further inflame an already dangerous situation by passing this bill. The fact of the matter is, I don't see why we would want to pass this bill. We know that diplomacy is the first thing we need to move forward in bringing our people home.
Lastly, let me just say this because I want to be absolutely clear: I don't want Iran's leaders to benefit from our actions in any shape, fashion, or form. This hostage agreement that stands today, they have not benefited from it and will not benefit from it.
Unfortunately, this legislation will shoot American global credibility in the foot without even touching Iranian regime leaders. We encourage this House not to rush into passing this bill. Let's keep the door open for diplomacy.
This stands as an example with Iran and others because we have adversaries, but you always have to deal with those adversaries and negotiate and talk to try to figure out how we can live in a better place.
Let's think ahead. Let's not play checkers. Let's play chess. That is what this is all about.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say that I keep hearing this demonstrates weakness. The Biden administration demonstrated strength in being willing to stand with your enemies and negotiate.
I can recall, for me, even in our own country, what I learned to live by. Many folks were thinking that when Dr. King was moving forward with nonviolence, he was demonstrating weakness and that we should go back and fight. He demonstrated strength. Sometimes when dealing and negotiating, that is where strength comes from, and if you just go out swinging, you demonstrate weakness.
What Joe Biden has done was kept his word, number one. He said that he would bring, whenever he could, American hostages home. This body has said to American families that we would do everything and anything to bring their families home. We should keep our word.
President Biden kept his word to those five American hostages, and the United States House of Representatives should keep its word and not challenge the agreement that the President made to return those five American hostages.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I haven't heard a reply. Not one penny has gone to Iran. If I am wrong, then someone tell me. Not one cent. The money is frozen in Qatar. Not one penny.
None of this could have been used by Hamas, Iran, or anyone for October 7. They didn't have a dime.
The money was there already, put there for humanitarian purposes by the Trump administration. It was in South Korea, but we didn't have any control over it.
I didn't hear anybody talk about that when the Trump administration was there, that he should not have sent the money to South Korea. This should not be something that we are playing politics on.
The money shifted from South Korea and was changed into euros and sent to Qatar, where we have now more visibility than ever. Not a dime is going to Iran. We have five American hostages home, and then we are going to question the deal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say this: The United States has values. What is taking place and what took place in Israel and is taking place in Gaza right now is why we are fighting so hard to make sure that we have a supplemental that includes humanitarian aid.
We know that there are people in Gaza, Palestinians, who are not part of Hamas. Everyone wants to make sure, as we are doing in this pause, that humanitarian aid is getting to them. It shows the best of who we are as Americans.
It is also so in Iran. Every Iranian is not part of the regime. In fact, the regime is cruel and does not provide humanitarian aid to many of its citizens.
We don't want to be like the regime. We want to show our humanity. Yes, when human beings are suffering, we want to make sure that we get in humanitarian aid so that we can take care of them. That is what is happening right now. That is why we are having the pause in the Middle East, in Gaza.
Doing the hostage exchange, bringing people home, is what we should be doing. What we are also doing is bringing in humanitarian aid to those individuals who Hamas would never aid.
So people around the world will respect and know who we are, we should never give up on our values. The money that we are talking about is not going to be used or getting into the hands of the Iranian regime. We are talking about trying to show that we have care and humanity for those who are the victims of the regime.
Humanitarian aid. That is who we should be. We should be proud of the fact that we want to try to take care of those who are a part, unfortunately, of dictators and authoritarian regimes who will not take care of their people. That is not who we are.
If, in the future, through the constraints that we have and the approval that needs to take place we can help somebody that has been victimized, I think that is the right thing to do.
To say that we don't care is the wrong thing to do. I just wonder if we would invite those five families of those who have now returned home, what would we say to them?
We wish your folks would have stayed in the prison because the President should not have made this deal because of humanitarian aid?
What would we say to them?
What can we say to them now? They are listening to us.
We should renege on the deal and let their loved ones stay in prison?
Thank God President Biden understands being a humanitarian, bringing our folks home, and at the same time having a hard line against Iran and Hamas and its affiliates.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, one question that I think remains unanswered to my colleagues on the other side: Are you willing to go and tell the family members of those five hostages that are now home that they should still be in that prison?
Are you willing to tell them that we should not have worked out a deal with the $6 billion frozen for humanitarian concern and that we should renege on the deal and they should go back to prison?
The one thing that is missing is that we got these hostages home, and that can't be held over our heads by Iran anymore.
I don't hear an answer to that.
What do you say to those families?
We have talked to families who have loved ones that are hostages. What do you say to them? You should still be there? We should not have made the deal?
Is that what you are saying? I think that what I am hearing is that this deal should not have been made and those American hostages should still be sitting in that Iranian prison?
I ask my colleagues on the other side: What do you say to those five families?
Do we renege on the deal?
Do you tell them they should not be home, so we should not have made the deal?
We have hostages before us all the time. What do you say to them?
I know what I am going to say to them. I am glad their family members are home and I am glad Joe Biden made the deal to get them home. He is not threatening and not using any U.S. dollars. There is no threat from Iran in regard to that $6 billion to be utilized for any aggression on their part.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. First, the debate on the House floor today is a rare moment where the House Foreign Affairs Committee is debating legislation under a rule, rather than under suspension.
For those who don't know what that means, it signifies that this bill is not bipartisan. That is in contrast to the great majority of legislation that comes out of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
This is the first primary Foreign Affairs bill this year that we are debating under a rule this Congress. In the previous two Congresses, under the Democratic leadership, we debated a total of one bill under a rule.
One thing I will say, as I have talked throughout this debate, one thing that is a fact is that Mr. McCaul is my friend. We always try to reach an agreement on all bills. There is no question about that. I am not questioning that at all. We are frequently, as we did yesterday, very successful.
We had a completely bipartisan markup, including on a potentially game-changing bill that would codify an outbound investment regime to protect our economy and our national security. I would say that that is the way I do believe this committee is ran, and we work very closely together.
On this bill is one of those times where I do fundamentally disagree with the arguments put forward by the majority. I submitted an amendment that would have added a national security waiver to the legislation. Such a waiver is a very restrictive standard. The President can only waive the sanctions if it was vital to the national security of the United States. He could not waive the sanctions for trivial reasons, nor even for an important economic reason. He could only waive the sanctions to protect our national security. Of course, that amendment was not made in order.
Every major sanctions bill over the last 20 years has had basic exemptions and waivers, like the amendment I offered to this bill. This history includes numerous Republican sanctions, bills targeting Iran. By moving a bill today without those very basic guardrails, we are undermining bipartisan practices that have been held for decades. We are also forfeiting leverage to promote American interests and undercutting our credibility around the world.
As such, I oppose this legislation. It is the wrong time for this legislation. It is improper. It will hurt down the road. We need to look and have a vision for down the road because, for me, what we do is not just about today. It is about--I have three granddaughters, and I say this everywhere--it is about 5, 2, and 6 months, so it is about what takes place and what opportunities might be available 60 years from now.
As we look back at prior history, things that were done by prior Congresses had an effect 50 and 60 years later. People that are our allies now, 60 years ago were our enemy. Time changes things. People who were our enemies 60 years ago are now our allies.
Let's think forward. Let's vote this bill down--at least we should have the waivers in there. I must oppose this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I strongly support this amendment.
The United States must stand for humanitarian aid and must stand for helping the people of Iran, even while we condemn the Iranian governing regime. The regime's medieval views on women's rights and religious freedom and their depraved agenda of financing terrorists around the region are separate from the people of Iran.
This amendment simply separates the government from the people, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this very good and humanitarian amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is counterproductive. The House has voted in a bipartisan manner to support general licenses to Iran to allow open internet access to the protesters against the regime of Iran. That could violate this vaguely drafted amendment. In the recent past, the United States has spent very small sums of money to promote civil society and democratic ideals in Iran, and that could violate this amendment.
This amendment, I believe, with all due respect, is carelessly drafted and unvetted. Therefore, I must oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment targets Qatar, the most important partner of the United States in freeing Americans and Israelis held hostage by Hamas.
Passage of this amendment and, in my opinion, this overall bill would jeopardize sensitive, ongoing diplomacy related to the hostage crisis in Gaza and further endanger Americans and Israelis in harm's way. Israel's National Security Adviser publicly praised Qatar's role as crucial to ongoing efforts to facilitate humanitarian solutions.
Furthermore, it was reported in late October that Qatar's Emir told Secretary of State Blinken that his government was open to reconsidering the presence of Hamas in Qatar once the hostage crisis is resolved.
I agree that Hamas' continued presence in Qatar and Turkiye is problematic. These terrorist leaders are living a life of luxury while their people suffer in Gaza. They should be held accountable, but this is not the way to go about it.
Let's free our hostages. Then, we can talk and work with Qatar to hold Hamas' leadership in Doha accountable.
This amendment is simply grandstanding and not the best way to deal with this issue, and certainly, it is being offered at the worst possible time.
Diplomacy is very important. If we challenge or damage these diplomatic channels, it further endangers Americans.
We can't pass this legislation. We should not pass this legislation. I ask my colleagues to please join me in voting ``no'' on this amendment. We shouldn't even need the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I will just simply say, very briefly, when you hear from Israel, its leaders, Israel's national security advisor publicly praising Qatar's role as crucial, and when I visited Israel and talked to the head of their defense, talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu, all said that Qatar was crucial to this negotiation.
Let's not do this. It is the wrong time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, this amendment is needless and simply not rooted in fact. The sponsor bases his claims for this amendment on the assertion that the administration has not condemned Houthi militants for their violent actions and continued destabilizing behavior. This simply is not accurate.
The Biden administration has repeatedly called out the violence of Houthi militants that they have perpetuated against civilians, including recent missile launches toward Israel, as well as our Gulf partners.
In fact, as recently as this past Tuesday, November 28, the State Department called out the violence of Iranian proxies across the region as well, and especially called on the Houthis to immediately cease attacks.
The United States led other G-7 nations in this public effort, which follows other similar statements. These statements include the State Department's condemnation of Houthi militants seizing the cargo ship Galaxy Leader on November 20.
Spokesperson Matt Miller called such actions flagrant violations of international law and demanded the immediate release of the ship and its crew.
The administration made similar statements earlier this year and last, calling out Houthi abuses against Yemeni civilians, missile launches against Gulf partners, and more.
I, along with many of my colleagues, have and will continue to call out abuses, escalatory actions, and violence throughout the region, just as the administration has.
This amendment is an unnecessary and ill-conceived attempt to misrepresent the facts, so I must oppose it, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this.
Joe Biden has been one of the staunchest Israel supporters of any President of the United States.
You are going to take the word of the Ayatollah over the word of the President of the United States?
The President of the United States has said not a penny will get to the Ayatollah, but yet you want to take the side or believe in that brutal authoritarian dictator.
I think that the American people know better than that. I think that the American people understand better than that. I think that the American people can look at the facts and see what side Joe Biden is on, as he talks on a regular basis with the leadership of Israel, almost every day since October 7.
I wouldn't trust or believe anything that the Ayatollah says, but I do believe in Joe Biden.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be counterproductive to America's interest.
No President, whether he be Democratic or Republican, has used this waiver for anything but the most pressing reasons.
Rescinding this waiver would likely prevent the administration from waiving sanctions that allow Iraq to pay for electricity imports from Iran. Without this waiver, Iraq likely will be unable to import electricity from Iran, leading to electricity outages and instability across Iraq.
We have seen what instability in Iraq looks like over the past decade: the decay of central governance, the rise of ISIS, and a growing terrorist ideology that struck America and Europe in numerous deadly attacks.
America has many interests in the Middle East, and this waiver is important for ensuring that this administration or any future administration has the flexibility it needs to promote American interests.
It is important for the Presidents, this one and those in the future, to have that flexibility. Thereby, I oppose my good friend from Texas' amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment.
The world in 2023 does not look like the world in 2018. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Hamas has attacked Israel. The Burmese partial democracy has collapsed in a coup.
On the positive side of the ledger, NATO is more united than divided. The AUKUS pact has fortified our relationship with our closest allies. Japan and Korea are cooperating with each other like never before.
In 2018, most of us were unfamiliar with the term ``coronavirus.'' In 2023, many of us are trying to forget it. The point here is that the world can change dramatically in just 5 years.
Congress does itself a disservice when we lock into policies without oversight or a chance to reconsider. Mr. Jackson's amendment would fix that flaw in the bill, and I strongly support his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source