The House GOP wasn’t satisfied with just one vote undermining the Iran Deal this week, so they decided to have a second. This time, it was the Prohibiting Future Payments to Iran Act, which purports to solve a problem that doesn’t exist—in a harmful way.
The Obama administration explained why this bill is so misguided in its Statement of Administrative Policy:
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5931, which is an ill-advised attempt to respond to a problem – so-called "ransom" payments to Iran – that does not exist, in a way that would undermine U.S. obligations and ultimately benefit Iran at the expense of the United States. The bill purports to raise concerns about the announcement in January that the United States brought home several unjustly detained Americans from Iran. As the Administration has repeatedly made clear, Iran released several detained Americans, and the United States provided relief to certain Iranian citizens charged with primarily sanctions-related offenses, several of whom are dual U.S.-Iranian nationals, in a one-time, reciprocal humanitarian gesture that brought our Americans home after 14 months of intensive negotiations. As the President has affirmed, the United States did not pay ransom to secure the return of our Americans from Iran. As was also announced publicly in January, the United States transferred funds to Iran to effectuate the settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague (the Tribunal). The settlement of this 35-year old claim was resolved to the benefit of the U.S. taxpayer. The timing of the settlement was a consequence of the United States taking advantage of the opening of diplomatic opportunities with Iran on several fronts simultaneously, including Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the intensification of negotiations to release unjustly detained Americans. Both of these diplomatic achievements and the settlement of the Tribunal claim were made possible by this intensified engagement – all three were resolved on their own merits and were profoundly in the U.S. interest.
This bill, while styled as prohibiting future purported "ransom payments," instead bars virtually any payment from the U.S. Government to Iran, including those permitted or even required by law. Specifically, this bill would effectively prevent the United States from paying out awards rendered by the Tribunal and, thus, risk putting the United States in violation of our obligations under the Algiers Accords – an agreement concluded by President Carter, endorsed by President Reagan and honored by every President since that time. Since the establishment of the Tribunal in 1981, the Tribunal has resolved numerous substantial claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, with over $2.5 billion being paid out to the U.S. claimants.
Further, this bill could effectively remove the President's ability to settle Tribunal claims with Iran for the foreseeable and indefinite future by requiring unrealistic certifications and notifications. This is an unprecedented restriction on the President's claims settlement authority that would adversely affect our ability to resolve Tribunal claims on favorable terms to the U.S. taxpayer, as we did in January. It would be unprecedented for the Congress to impose rigid, ex ante conditions on the President's prerogative to settle claims with foreign sovereigns.
Nonetheless, it passed on Thursday 254 to 163. Only one Republican—Tom Massie (KY-04)—voted against it. 16 Democrats voted for it;
Here are the 16 Democrats:
Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
