Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, for the Markup of H.R. 1669, the “Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2016,”by the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

While the purpose of H.R. 1669, the “Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2016,” is ostensibly to promote greater transparency in government, I fear that its real purpose is to once again attack the Obama Administration’s integrity.While the purpose of H.R. 1669, the “Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2016,” is ostensibly to promote greater transparency in government, I fear that its real purpose is to once again attack the Obama Administration’s integrity.

The bill would require the Treasury Department to publicly disclose via the Internet various details about payments it makes on claims paid out of the Judgment Fund, most of which is already available on the Department’s website. 

I question the impetus for this bill, which seems to be assertions by some that the Obama Administration’s payment of money to Iran to settle longstanding pre-revolutionary legal claims was somehow illegitimate.  

If that is the case, I reject such a premise.

To begin with, no one can dispute that the Administration’s use of the Judgment Fund to settle Iranian claims against the U.S. earlier this year was perfectly legal.

The State Department negotiated a $1.7 billion deal to settle claims between the U.S. and pre-revolutionary Iran, which included $1.3 billion in interest paid out of the Judgment Fund.

A 1989 Justice Department opinion makes clear that the State Department may seek payment from the Judgment Fund to pay claims or settlements stemming from matters before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal, as was the case here.

Indeed, Professor Paul Figley, the Majority’s own witness, acknowledged that “the Obama Administration had the authority under the Judgment Fund statute to pay and settle the Iranian claim with interest.”

In addition to being perfectly legal, the Obama Administration’s action actually saved American taxpayers billions of dollars.

I know that $1.3 billion sounds like a large sum for interest payments.

The U.S., however, could have owed Iran billions more for over 30 years’ worth of interest on the principal owed to Iran if we had not settled those claims.

The Iran payments demonstrate that the Obama Administration acted prudentially to protect American taxpayers.  

Finally, contrary to what critics claim, the Administration has been fully transparent.

The Iran payments were disclosed to the public at the time they were made.

The Obama Administration announced the Iran payments when they were made in January 2016, and there is no doubt that the Administration made no effort to hide them.

And there is no support for characterizing these payments as “ransom.”

While the Obama Administration has acknowledged that it withheld payments to ensure the Iranians followed through on the release of 4 American prisoners, these negotiations were carried out by separate teams and were unrelated. 

In short, the Obama Administration’s actions regarding the Iran payments, by themselves, do not justify additional scrutiny of the Judgment Fund. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Oversight of the Judgment Fund: Iran, Big Settlements, and the Lack of Transparency” Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund.

Congress created the Judgment Fund in 1956 to reduce its appropriations workload. 

Prior to establishing the Fund, Congress devoted an inordinate amount of its time to appropriating monies to satisfy run-of-the-mill legal judgments and settlements on a case-by-case basis.

      

Today, the Fund permits agencies to obtain payment for legal judgments and settlements without having to request appropriations from Congress under limited statutorily prescribed circumstances.

Unfortunately, given the title of today’s hearing, it appears the Majority is more interested in criticizing the Administration’s recent settlement of longstanding claims with Iran than in conducting oversight of the Fund.

That criticism is without merit.

To begin with, it was legally permissible for the State Department to request that the payments come from the Judgment Fund. 

The payment settled longstanding claims made before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal that related to a curtailed arms deal between the United States and the pre-revolutionary government of Iran.

The Tribunal was created to hear claims between U.S. and Iranian nationals and their respective governments that arose as a result of the deterioration in relations following the Iranian Revolution.

In order to avoid an adverse judgment before the Tribunal, the State Department negotiated a $1.7 billion deal to settle the claim, of which $1.3 billion in interest payments came from the Judgment Fund.

As Professor Paul Figley, a Majority witness, points out in his written testimony, this is legally permissible.

And, past administrations going back decades have used the Fund to settle claims with Iran.

      

In addition to being perfectly legal, the Iran settlement saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

According to the State Department, negotiators determined that the United States could have possibly owed Iran billions more for over 30 years’ worth of interest on the $400 million principal had the claim been adjudicated before the Tribunal.

Rather than demonstrate that the Judgment Fund may encourage Executive Branch officials to negotiate profligate settlements, the Iran payments instead show that the State Department was acting to protect U.S. financial interests.

Finally, in terms of transparency, I note that the payments were disclosed to the public at the time they were made.

The Obama Administration announced the payments when they were made in January 2016. 

While much has been made of the timing of the payments in relation to Iran’s release of three American prisoners, it is undisputed that the Administration made no effort to hide these payments or that separate, unrelated teams carried out the negotiations for the settlement and the prisoner release.

Although few would oppose greater transparency for government actions, the Majority’s examples of purported Executive Branch “overreach” in settlement negotiations fail to show that the Administration has misused the Judgment Fund.

In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for participating in this hearing and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Executive Overreach in Foreign Affairs” Before the Executive Overreach Task Force

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The issue of the appropriate roles of Congress and the President with respect to the subject of foreign affairs is certainly worthy of a genuinely substantive discussion.

For instance, we could consider whether our Nation’s current military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have been properly authorized by Congress.

Unfortunately, however, today’s hearing – like the prior Task Force hearings – is yet another thinly veiled attack against the current Administration. 

To begin with, neither the Iran nuclear agreement nor the Paris climate change agreement is a “treaty” within the meaning of the Constitution’s Treaty Clause that requires  Senate consent.

The Paris climate change agreement, for example, contains no mandatory quantitative emission reductions.  Rather, it is a strong exhortation that parties take concrete, transparent, but, ultimately, self-directed steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Contrary to the assertions of some, this agreement does not contain legally-binding requirements, nor does it purport to grant new authority to the President to meet any such requirements.

In short, it does not meet the traditional criteria of a “treaty” within the meaning of the Treaty Clause.

And, the Iran agreement was a set of political commitments rather than legally-binding requirements.  Thus, it also was not constitutionally required to be subject to Senate approval.

In addition, both agreements are consistent with existing United States law. 

For instance, the statutes imposing sanctions on Iran for its nuclear weapons program also give the President the discretion to remove these sanctions should certain criteria be met.

And, the Paris climate agreement was reached pursuant to a 1992 climate change treaty that the Senate had already ratified.  In other words, the Paris agreement is consistent with the obligations created by a treaty that, under the Supremacy Clause, was already the law of the land.

Finally, as Professor Stephen Vladeck, the Minority witness, correctly notes, arguments questioning the legality of these agreements are part of an ongoing attempt to paint policy disputes as constitutional matters.

Whatever one thinks about the merits of either the Iran nuclear agreement or the Paris climate agreement, the Constitution and historical practice make clear that the President was within his authority to enter into them.

           

At any rate, Congress already had the opportunity to make its voice heard. With respect to the Iran nuclear agreement, Congress had the chance to disapprove the agreement, but opponents of the agreement failed to obtain the necessary votes to prevent the agreement from taking effect.

And, as I noted, the Senate long ago ratified the climate change treaty pursuant to which the Paris agreement was entered.

Rather than sparking enlightened discussion, today’s hearing, I fear, appears to be yet another in a long string of partisan exercises by this Task Force. 

Nevertheless, I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I look forward to hearing their testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Why I Strongly Support the Iran Nuclear Deal

Conyers: Why I Strongly Support the Iran Nuclear Deal

DETROIT – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement expressing his support of the Obama Administration’s agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“The Obama Administration’s determined diplomatic efforts have yielded one of the most important international agreements in memory: a verifiable deal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“While there are numerous arguments for the deal, there's one underlying point that's essential to understand: the deal accomplishes the core objective that the United States set out to accomplish in entering the negotiations in the first place.  It eliminates two-thirds of Iran’s centrifuges, removes 98 percent of its enriched-uranium, and establishes the strictest inspection regime in history.  This vastly reduces the potential for a successful secret nuclear program.  Should Iran violate the terms of the agreement, we and our allies will have sufficient time to discover the violation, and all our current options to stop it—including the re-imposition of multilateral sanctions—remain on the table.  

“While some claim that Congress rejecting the hard-won agreement will result in a ‘better deal,’ the far likelier outcome is that our international coalition would splinter and the sanctions regime would collapse as our foreign partners come to believe that the United States is incapable of accepting ‘yes’ for an answer.  Rather than bolstering our bargaining position, a Congressional rejection of the deal would empower Iran’s hardliners, enable the resumption of unmonitored nuclear fuel enrichment, and increase the likelihood of conflict. 

“Nothing would endanger American and Israeli security and economic interests more than a war that would unleash terrorism around the world and result in the blockage of the crucial Strait of Hormuz.  Such a war might delay an Iranian nuclear program by two years at most while discrediting US diplomacy in the eyes of our allies around the world.

“Approval of the deal would not only obstruct Iranian nuclear ambitions and promote stability in the Middle East.  It would strengthen US diplomatic authority in the world and, potentially, set forth a wave of reformist energies within Iran.  President Obama fought successfully for the strong multilateral sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy.  By conditionally lifting some sanctions in exchange for a verifiable freezing of nuclear activities, this deal demonstrates to the Iranian people that constructive engagement with the United States is the path to the prosperity.  

“The American people have been clear—they strongly prefer a negotiated agreement to the alternative of war and bloodshed.  Congressional approval of this deal would be crucial win for peace.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Iran diplomacy: History is on Obama’s side

By John Conyers, Jr.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

An American president, approaching the end of his second term, stands up to foreign policy hawks to defend his legacy-defining efforts toward nuclear disarmament. Exacerbated by relentless criticism from the right, he makes his case bluntly: “Some of the people who are objecting the most ... whether they realize it or not, those people basically down in their deepest thoughts have accepted that war is inevitable.”

The year was 1987. The president was Ronald Reagan.

While I was often at odds with President Reagan during his time in office, I’m grateful for his dedicated pursuit of nuclear arms reductions with the Soviet Union. This tenacious work made the world safer and helped to create the political space for reformers to eventually dismantle old dictatorial structures. 

Today, with his historic Iran agreement, President Obama is on track to do the same. 

Of all the arguments on the Iran deal, there's one key point that's essential to understand: The deal accomplishes the core objective that the United States set out to accomplish in entering the negotiations in the first place. It eliminates two-thirds of Iran’s centrifuges, removes 98 percent of its enriched uranium, and establishes the strictest inspection regime in history. This vastly reduces the possibility of a successful secret nuclear program. Should Iran violate the terms of the agreement, we will have sufficient time to discover the violation, and all our current options to stop it — including the re-imposition of multilateral sanctions — remain on the table.  

Just as in Reagan’s day, the critics of this nuclear negotiation are all but assuming the inevitability of military conflict. While some claim that Congress rejecting the hard-won agreement will result in a “better deal,” the far likelier outcome is that our international coalition would splinter and the sanctions regime would collapse as our foreign partners come to believe that the United States is incapable of accepting “yes” for an answer.  Rather than bolstering our bargaining position, a Congressional rejection of the deal would empower Iran’s hardliners, enable the resumption of unmonitored nuclear fuel enrichment and increase the likelihood of conflict.  

Nothing would endanger American and Israeli security and economic interests more than a war that would unleash terrorism around the world and result in the blockage of the crucial Strait of Hormuz. Such a war might delay an Iranian nuclear program by two years at most while irrevocably discrediting U.S. diplomacy in the eyes of allies. The only winner in such a destructive conflict would be the enemy that the United States and Iran share: ISIS.

Approving the deal would not only inhibit Iranian nuclear ambitions and promote stability in the Middle East. It would bolster U.S. diplomatic authority in the world and, potentially, set forth a wave of reformist energies within Iran. Obama fought successfully for the strong multilateral sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. By conditionally lifting some sanctions in exchange for a verifiable freezing of nuclear activities, this deal demonstrates to the Iranian people that constructive engagement with the United States — not reversion to the ideology of the ayatollahs — is the path to the prosperity they desire.

Just over half a century ago, another American president, John F. Kennedy, in another era of difficult engagement with the Soviets, provided a piece of enduring wisdom for American diplomats and for our nation as a whole: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Obama’s diplomacy with Iran is grounded in strength and realism. But it’s also animated by something all too rare in foreign relations: Hope.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Iran Agreement Is Historic Win For Peace

WASHINGTON— Today, following the announcement of a long-awaited nuclear agreement between Iran, the United States, and world powers, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement: 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“President Obama Administration's determined diplomatic efforts have yielded one of the great international agreements of our time: a verifiable deal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“Concluding an agreement will not only promote long-term security in the Middle East, but also remove the short-term specter of a destructive military confrontation. While I plan to meticulously examine the proposed deal and consult closely with administration officials and the intelligence community in in the coming days, we have every reason to believe that this deal will make the Middle East and the broader world safer. 

“The American people have been clear—they strongly prefer a negotiated agreement to the alternative of war and bloodshed.  Today’s announcement is an important step towards achieving peace.”  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Dems push for report on consequences of military strike on Iran

Democrats on Thursday are hoping the House accepts an amendment that would require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to report to Congress on the consequences of a military attack against Iran.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and two other Democrats won the right to have their language considered as an amendment to the 2013 intelligence authorization bill, H.R. 5743. Under their amendment, the DNI would have 60 days after passage to send a report to the congressional intelligence committees that includes an "assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran."

Democrats in particular have grown more concerned about what they see as a risk that the United States will soon be at war with Iran. In recent weeks, Congress has taken several steps that worry these members.

For example, both the House and Senate have approved Iran sanctions legislation — the Senate bill, S. 2101, says the United States will pursue all options to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.

Earlier this month, the House approved a resolution saying a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable. Also, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 includes language that would require the movement of military assets into the Middle East to counter Tehran, and says the United States will take "all necessary measures, including military action if required," to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.

On Wednesday, the House Rules Committee decided against making another Iran-related amendment in order. This one, from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would have required a report on the nuclear activities of Iran, including whether it is trying to build a nuclear weapon.Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said this language is moving the country closer to war. "We're getting ready for war against Iran," he said.

The unclassified text of the Intelligence Authorization Act makes no mention of Iran, although most of the bill is classified, making it hard to determine what steps it might authorize as it relates to intelligence gathering against Iran.

Aside from the Conyers amendment, eight others will be considered today before the bill is passed — these deal with information sharing with Canada and Mexico, improving security clearances for subcontractors and ensuring the rights of racial and ethnic minorities within the intelligence agencies.

More broadly, the bill would authorize U.S. intelligence activities for the next fiscal year, as well as the Department of Defense's new Clandestine Service, which is meant to gather intelligence beyond the countries in which U.S. forces are already engaged.

Reps. Conyers, Lewis balk at Obama's position on Iran

Two long-serving Democrats are objecting to President Obama's position on Iran, claiming military action should be taken off the table.


Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) told The Hill Thursday that they have concerns with the administration's refusal to rule out military action against Iran.


Obama on Thursday strongly criticized Iran after news broke of an alleged plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil.

Lewis said, "We've got enough wars," stressing the need for diplomacy.


Conyers said, "I want military options off the table."


Asked about sanctions against Iran, Conyers said he is concerned sanctions "might hurt the people (of Iran), not the government."


Meanwhile, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's (R-Fla.) Iran sanctions bill has picked up 21 co-sponsors this week. The measure now has a total of 318 backers, and is scheduled to be marked up later this month.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©