Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about Iran's irresponsible violations both of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, and its agreements which it signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
I share my colleague's conviction to stop an Iranian regime headed by Ahmadinejad from getting nuclear weapons. However, I think we should do so without crippling the Iranian people (as is noted in this legislation towards whom the people of the United States have feelings of friendship and hold in the highest esteem) or crippling efforts to raise a unified and international response to Iran's continuing noncompliance.
While we all recognize that the intention of this act is not to punish the Iranian people, it does not escape me that the impact of these sanctions will result in more suffering for them nonetheless. Upon introducing this bill in April, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee noted his belief ``that this measure could have a powerfully negative impact on the Iranian economy.'' For sanctions to be truly crippling to Iran, they have to ``cripple'' the people first.
At a time when the Iranian people have courageously challenged the mullahs and the rulers in Iran by taking to the streets after the elections and recently again this month, there is concern that this unilateral approach may end up benefitting, not hindering, the regime and sowing the anger of the Iranian people at the U.S., not the Iranian government.
Unilateral sanctions can have unintended consequences. In a recent Dear Colleague, it was noted that ``in two recent instances, Microsoft and Google each determined that they must deny instant messaging services to the Iranian people that were previously available, citing their duty to comply with U.S. sanctions.'' Apparently, this medium had become a popular way for protesters to get around increasing efforts by the Iranian government to monitor their communications. As a result, my colleagues warned that ``Congress must act quickly to ensure that we are not unwittingly doing the repressive work of the Iranian government on its behalf.''
The President is currently working with our international partners not only as part of a renewed diplomatic outreach effort but also to fashion a strong multilateral response if Iran continues to refuse to cooperate with the international community.
In testimony in October, the State Department told Congress that it believes it has ``the authorities necessary to take strong action alone and together with our international partners, should they prove necessary'' to squeeze off financing of Iran's nuclear weapons efforts.
For example, the Treasury Department can continue to use the authority that it has used for over three years now to blacklist Iranian banks and encourage international banks to avoid doing business with Iran.
As a result, since 2006, the U.S. has taken action against over 100 banks, government entities, companies, and people involved in Iran's support for terrorism and its proliferation activities including freezing assets and preventing U.S. persons, wherever located, from doing business with them.
Recently, the Department wrote to express its concerns about companion Senate legislation to the bill before us today warning that ``during this crucial period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran'' it was concerned that such legislation, ``in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for'' these efforts.
In this letter, the Administration appealed for a delay of that bill in order not to undermine ``its diplomacy at this critical juncture.''
Israeli officials have also made clear that broad-based international efforts, including for sanctions, are better than the unilateral approach before us today. Very recently, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak noted that ``There is a need for tough sanctions ..... Something that is well and coherently coordinated to include the Americans, the EU, the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians.''
I also share the concerns that some have that the legislation before the House today will ``disempower''--not empower--the President to bring this multination coalition together by taking away or limiting his flexibility to use sanctions as necessary to assist diplomatic efforts. That's a very curious definition of ``empowerment.''
It's as curious as saying that it is in the U.S. national security interest and helps diplomacy to make it harder for the President--any President--to use and waive sanctions when he thinks the timing best serves our efforts to put pressure on Iran.
The President's flexibility to conduct foreign relations and diplomatic efforts to achieve a strong international consensus against Iran is not a loophole that needs to be closed but a vital tool that needs to be supported. I am concerned that this bill as written would keep our allies from working with us to address the threat from Iran.
Earlier this year, Nicholas Burns, who served under the Administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and as George W. Bush's top State Department negotiator in efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear program, testified in dealing with Iran, ``My main recommendation for this committee and the Congress, however, is to permit the President maximum flexibility and maneuverability as he deals with an extraordinarily difficult and complex situation in Iran and in discussions with the international group of countries considering sanctions. It would be unwise to tie the President's hands in legislation when it is impossible to know how the situation will develop in the coming months.''
An action taken against Iran--including sanctions--should have the broadest possible support in the international community. According to the Administration, ``with wide international support, sanctions regimes can be enforced, pressure can be sustained, and Iran's leaders are less able to shift the blame from themselves to the U.S. for the pains caused by their behavior.'' Even the Senate version of this same legislation recognizes the limits of more U.S. only sanctions. In section 111 of S. 2799, it is noted that ``in general, multilateral sanctions are more effective than unilateral sanctions at achieving desired results from countries such as Iran.''
International pressure for Iran to act or to face more forceful international action is building, as evidenced by the recent IAEA vote condemning Iran for its Qom enrichment facilities.
All five veto-wielding members of the Security Council (China and Russia included) voted for that measure, which opens up the potential for another round of Security Council sanctions.
The progress in uniting the Security Council is attributable to President Obama's investment in diplomacy. If Congress moves forward with sanctions that target our allies, that unity may very well collapse.
Sanctions have a place. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1327, the Iran Enabling Sanctions Act of 2009, which passed the House with my support by a vote of 414-6 on October 29th. There are even provisions of this legislation which are worthwhile and which I have supported in the past as stand-alone legislation (H.R. 957 in the 110th Congress) that make clear that current U.S. sanctions can be used against financial institutions, insurers, underwriters, guarantors, and any other business organizations, including foreign subsidiaries, that aid investment in Iran's energy sector.
However, the less united the international community is in applying pressure against Iran, the greater the risk our measures will not have the impact we seek. And given the gravity of the stakes at risk here, that would be truly regrettable.
As noted by Secretary of State Clinton just yesterday, ``we have pursued, under President Obama's direction, a dual-track approach to Iran. We have reached out. We have offered the opportunity to engage in meaningful, serious discussions with our Iranian counterparts ..... The second track of our dual-track strategy is to bring the international community together to stand in a united front against the Iranians.''
I hope that as this legislation moves forward in the legislative process, further changes will be made to strengthen this bill in a way that will truly enhance, and not hobble, strong diplomatic efforts to diplomatically engage with Iran as well as to enact multilateral sanctions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source