To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the Week Ending December 18, 2009

1.  Bills and Resolutions 
2.  Houses Passes IRPSA (Despite Oversight Committee Hearing) 
3.  Senate Holds Off on IRPSA (for Now) 
4.  Statements on IRPSA (excerpts) 
5.  APN on Iran-South Africa Comparison in IRPSA Debate 

(Note:  This will - hopefully - be the last Round-Up of 2009.  See you next year!)
 
1.  BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
 
(IRAN) HR 2194:  Introduced 4/30/09 by Berman (D-CA) and having 343 cosponsors, "To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran." Passed under suspension of the rules by a vote of 412 - 12, with 4 voting "Present."  See below for details.
 
(IRAN) HR 4301:  Introduced 12/14/09 by Reps. Moran (D-VA) and Inglis (R-SC), "To support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people by enhancing their ability to access the Internet and communications services."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.   APN strongly supports this bill, also called the Iran Digital Empowerment Act (IDEA), which would ensure that the Iranian people have access to software and related technology crucial to internet communications amongst themselves and between Iran and the outside world.  It would also ensure that Iranian private citizens have access to tools that allow them to circumvent Iranian government efforts to stifle and monitor internet communications. 
 
(IRAN) HR 4303:  Introduced 12/14/09 by Reps. Ellison (D-MN) and Delahunt (D-MA), "To enhance United States sanctions against Iran by targeting Iranian governmental officials, prohibiting Federal procurement contracts with persons that provide censorship or surveillance technology to the Government of Iran, providing humanitarian and people-to-people assistance to the Iranian people, and for other purposes."  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Financial Services.  APN strongly supports this bill, also called the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA), which would (a) bar the issuance of visa to or entry into the US of any Iranian government official credibly alleged to have involvement in human rights abuses; (b) prohibit US procurement contracts with companies that have aided Iranian government efforts to stifle free speech by providing censorship or monitoring technology; and (c)  authorize US non-profit organizations' activities in Iran for the provision of humanitarian and people-to-people assistance.
 
(ISRAEL)  HR 4406: Introduced 12/16/09 by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) and no cosponsors, "To render nationals of Israel eligible to enter the United States as nonimmigrant traders and investors." Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
 
(IRAN) H. Res. 992: Introduced 12/16/09 by Reps. Poe (R-TX) and Rohrabacher (R-CA), "Expressing the sense of the House that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should halt the widespread and brutal repression of the peaceful reformist protestors, opposition supporters, human rights defenders, students, and journalists following the disputed Iranian presidential election of June 12, 2009."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign of Affairs. [note: On 6/19/09 the House passed a very similar resolution, H. Res. 560 - introduced by Chairman Berman (D-CA) - by a vote of 405-1, with 2 voting present.]

(JORDAN) S. Res. 376: Introduced 12/16/09 by Sen. Inouye (D-HI) and 3 cosponsors, "A resolution honoring the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the 10th anniversary of the accession to the throne of His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein, and for other purposes."  Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
 
(US-Israel Defense Programs) HR 3326:  Introduced 7/24/09 by Rep. Murtha (D-PA), "Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.   On 12/16/09 the House amended the Senate version of HR 3326 and sent the amended text back to the Senate.  The various versions of the bill all contain language (Sec. 8075) earmarking $202,434,000 out of funds appropriated under the heading "Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide" for the "Israeli Cooperative Programs."  These funds, which are separate from and additional to funding for Israel contained in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (detailed in last week's Round-Up), are sub-earmarked as follows:   "$80,092,000 shall be for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense research and development under the SRBMD program, $50,036,000 shall be available for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture, and $72,306,000 shall be for the Arrow Missile Defense Program, of which $25,000,000 shall be for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, regulations and procedures..."  Sec. 8075 also permits that funds "made available under this provision for production of missiles and missile components" to be "transferred to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred."
 
2.  HOUSE PASSES IRPSA
 
Surprising absolutely nobody, the House voted this afternoon to suspend the rules and pass HR 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), by a vote of 412-12, with 4 voting "present."  The full roll call vote can be viewed here.  Voting "No" were:  Baldwin (D-WI), Blumenauer (D-OR), Conyers (D-MI), Duncan (R-TN), Flake (R-AZ), Hinchey (D-NY), Kucinich (D-OH), Lynch (D-MA), McDermott (D-WA), Moore (D-WI), Paul (R-TX), and Stark (D-CA).  Voting "Present" were:  E.B. Johnson (D-TX), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Lee (D-CA) and Waters (D-CA). 
 
As has been reported previously in the Round-Up, APN opposes HR 2194 in its present form and on 12/8/09 circulated an easy-to-read table laying out the bill text and the problems with it, alongside suggested changes, and published analysis of the issue.  On 12/14/09 APN sent a message to all House offices urging members to oppose the bill in its current form and to oppose precipitous action on it in the House.  APN urged members who felt they could not vote against the bill to vote "present" and speak out on the House floor and make clear their concerns.  APN urged members who felt they could not vote "no" or "present" to express on the record their concerns and their hope that the bill will be improved if and when it is re-considered in a House-Senate conference.
 
The floor discussion over HR 2194 included predictable statements (many eerily similar in tone to statements made in the period before the US invasion of Iraq) from members of both parties, making that case that Iran represents an imminent threat - and an imminent nuclear threat - to the US and to US interests, including Israel and Middle East energy markets.  Other arguments that were made included: these unilateral sanctions are the only option left, so you can't oppose them (ignoring the multilateral option and ignoring the option of amending these sanctions along the lines APN has suggested); IRPSA will work because crippling sanctions worked in South Africa (a totally false parallel, as discussed in Section 5, below); and the bill will empower President Obama by giving him an additional tool to use against Iran (an extremely inaccurate description of what the bill would do, since the bill would FORCE the president to impose sanctions, not EMPOWER him to do so at his).
 
Interestingly, Chairman Berman (D-CA), the lead sponsor of the bill, was one of the few members speaking in support of the bill who also sounded a public note of caution, stating at one point:  "I want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving forward with this legislation is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. As we move toward a likely conference with the Senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, I am open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as effective as possible in meeting that objective, including providing incentives to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral sanctions regime. One possibility would be to provide an exemption for companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in their national law."
 
Berman also entered into the Congressional Record his exchange of letters with the chairmen of the other House committees with jurisdiction over HR 2194 - Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Banking.  In all three cases the exchange makes clear that the committees are not relinquishing jurisdiction (and will insist on being part of any House-Senate conference).   In addition, in the cases of two committees - Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform - the exchange of letter records Committee concerns about the content of the bill, as well as Chairman Berman's commitment to address these concerns as the bill moves forward.
 
See section 4, below, for excerpts from the floor consideration of HR 2194. 
 
Ironically, the House passed IRPSA on the same day that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held a hearing entitled "Iran Sanctions: Options, Opportunities and Consequences." Witnesses were Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution (text of prepared testimony); Dr. George Lopez, Professor of Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame (text of prepared testimony); Robin Wright, Jennings Randolph Fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace (text of prepared testimony); and Ambassador James Dobbins, Director, RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center (text of prepared testimony). In addition, NIAC's Trita Parsi was invited to provide a statement for the hearing. For a summary of the hearing - which included all four witnesses saying that if they were voting, they would vote "no" on IRPSA - can be viewed here.
 
3.  SENATE HOLDS OFF ON IRPSA, FOR NOW
 
As noted last week, the Senate version of IRPSA, S.  2799, was hotlined on 12/8/09.  In response, APN sent a message to all Senate offices urging members to oppose passage of the bill (which differs significantly from the House version) in its current form, and providing another easy-to-read table laying out the bill text and the problems with it, alongside suggested changes.   APN also published analysis of the issue (analysis that has been widely cited and linked to in articles reporting on this issue).
 
Initially it was not clear whether or how the Administration might weigh in regarding S. 2799.  This question was resolved on 12/11/09 when Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg sent a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry (D-MA) expressing concerns about the content and timing of the bill (the House went ahead with HR 2194 despite the Steinberg letter).  In addition, the Administration is reportedly working with Kerry and S. 2799 lead sponsor Dodd (D-CT) to amend the bill to reflect specific Administration concerns.
 
4.  STATEMENTS ON IRPSA (EXCERPTS)
 
Blumenauer (D-OR) - voted "No"
---------------------------------------------
I have great respect for the Chair and ranking member, and I deeply share their concern about a nuclear-armed Iran. It is something that I think we are all deeply opposed to, we're deeply concerned about, in terms of the potential instability in that delicate region and frankly around the world. But I have a deep concern that the approach that is being offered here is not calculated to reach that objective.
 
First and foremost, there is correspondence, a letter from the Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Steinberg, talking about the problems of sanctions legislation on the Senate side, that talks about how we are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran.
 
It is not at all clear, Mr. Speaker, that moving forward right now with new sanctions on companies of other countries that are involved with the petroleum activities is actually going to be helpful at a time when the administration is ramping up its international efforts to deal with Iran; I think efforts that we all support and feel need to be as productive as possible.
 
I think there is also a very real question about whether the focus of this legislation is going to have its intended use, because there is nobody in the Iranian Government, in the Revolutionary Guard, in the inner circle of either the President or the Supreme Ruler that's not going to get their gasoline. The extent to which it is successful, and that remains questionable, it's going to be impactful on the people of Iran, common people who in the main are amongst the few Middle Eastern countries where they still have a favorable view of the United States. Sanctioning those people, not the leadership is not helpful.
 
I found it interesting on the front page of today's Washington Post, they discuss the evidence of Iran's nuclear-armed being expedited, despite sanctions. In fact, there is evidence in this article that it is the sanctions themselves that have spurred the indigenous development of that capacity in Iran. One of them said, 'thank God for the sanctions'' against us.
 
We need to be very careful about the application of sanctions and how they're going to be worked. I think we have a shortsighted view for dual use technology and dealing with export controls that have actually developed other countries' capacity, including those that aren't friendly to us, along with all companies from other competitor nations around the world. I think we need to be very careful here.
 
Last but by no means least, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the United States is really the only major country in the world that doesn't have a thoughtful sanctions policy--when to impose them, how to impose them, and, most important, when to take them off. I would respectfully suggest that this is not the right time. This is an instrument that's not likely to be successful, and it may complicate our efforts against Iran. While I agree with the gentleman's objective, I don't agree with the legislation and urge its rejection.
 
Paul (R-TX) - voted "No"
---------------------------------
...My main reason for opposing this bill is that I think it's detrimental to our national security. There's no other reason. It doesn't serve our interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it.  ...sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the dissidents. We'd like to encourage them to overthrow their government. But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things happen. We've been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it doesn't serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us...
 
[speaking later in the debate] ...There were those in the 1990s that wanted us to go to war with Iraq. We were looking for an excuse, and we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their country and bombing. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of kids died because of those sanctions, and eventually they got their war. We ended up in the war.   Anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in Iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their Ayatollah--it's the Ayatollah that carries the power--that's not going to happen. It just does exactly the opposite. So this is why I believe this is a much greater threat to our national security. It does not help us. It doesn't achieve the goals that are set out.  ...It is going to push the support of the Iranians in another direction. It's going to push them towards India, China, and Russia, and these countries have special associations with Iran. So we are going to separate us. We will be isolated from that, and they are going to have a much closer alliance with these countries. That will not serve our interests.   It's going to serve the interest of one country mostly, and that's China. China acts only almost like capitalists. They take our dollars they have earned from us and they are spending the dollars over there. They would like to buy the oil, refine the oil, and drill the oil. But here, we assume that we have to do it through force, through sanctions, threats, intimidation, and secret maneuvers to overthrow their regime. It just doesn't work. It sounds good. It sounds easy, but it does backfire on us. You get too many unintended consequences.   And besides, our national security does not depend on what we do in the Middle East. Our national security is threatened by this. We are overstretched. We're broke. ...Our archenemies in that region want to bankrupt us. They want to stir up hatred toward us, and they want to bog us down. And they're achieving what their goals are.
 
Lynch (D-MA)  - voted "No"
--------------------------------------
...if I thought for 1 minute that this bill would help the United States or protect Israel or undermine Mr. Ahmadinejad, I would support it. But I do not. I do, however, take great comfort in the chairman's and the chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference process he is open and willing to adjust the bill. And perhaps if these adjustments and improvements are made, I can support it at that time, but I am faced with the bill before me.  
 
And let me just say that I think that this bill will help Ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect as we have seen with other embargoes and other sanctions. I point to a couple of examples, one being the example in Cuba where we put in an embargo there, and ever since then, the Castro regime has been able to blame everything that has gone wrong in Cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, on the U.S. embargo. It has helped that regime stay in power. We see the same effect happening in Gaza. I have been there a couple of times. The fact that we've got an embargo there and a blockade has caused many in Gaza to rally around the flag--in this case, Hamas--and the blockade has helped them. That is the effect that this bill will have in Iran.
 
We have watched very closely. This past week, tens of thousands of students in Iran in the Green Revolution have come to oppose and call for the ousting of Ahmadinejad and his regime. What this will do, however, is this will undermine that opposition. This bill is focused on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to the middle class and families, the very people who are supporting the revolutionary movement there to get rid of Ahmadinejad.
 
We are, in a way, I think, substituting a plan that will not work for one that could very well work. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this bill. I hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, the chairman, Mr. Berman, that there will be important changes perhaps made during the conference process. I hope that does happen, and I hope that I am able to support this bill when it comes back from conference based on those changes."
 
Kucinich (D-OH) - voted "no" and led the opposition to HR 2194 on the House floor
[note: among other things, Kucinich entered into the Record APN's analysis of HR 2194]
----------------------
This legislation obstructs the Obama administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran, amounts to economic warfare against the Iranian people, and brings us closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. I would like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill.  First of all, I agree with Mr. Paul that the bill is opposed to our national security. I have a letter here, as Mr. Blumenauer submitted to the Record, from the Deputy Secretary of State which points out the ``serious substantive concerns of the administration, including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences.'' This letter is from the Obama administration, December 11, 2009. I would like it be included in the Record.
 
Second, I would like to include an article from the National Journal Online, dated November 2, 2009, in the record of debate. In this article, it points out that a gas shortage will be created in Iran, that Iran subsidizes its gasoline, and that the regime wants to shrink the program. So here the U.S. will be creating the gas shortage, and the regime, which wanted to shrink the program, is going to blame the U.S.
 
Third, the Revolutionary Guard has already been able to build its coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. It's widely understood that these sanctions would put the Revolutionary Guard in a position where they can make more money selling oil on the black market.
 
Number 4, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region into chaos, and the broader geopolitical landscape is thrown into chaos. Russia, Venezuela, and our European allies all come into play in ways at odds with stated U.S. policies.
 
Number 5, it undermines our diplomacy. It isolates us from our allies. It isolates us from our trading partners.
 
Number 6, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a back-channel role to try to help us with our diplomacy.
 
Number 7, it undermines democracy in Iran. All of us have seen those pictures. They have been all over the TV and the Internet in the last few months about a growing democratic movement in Iran. This sanction will force all people to close around the Iran's leadership. It will strengthen the hard-liners and will undermine democracy.
 
Next, it will make the U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan even more dangerous for our troops.
 
Number 9, it's a path to military escalation, and I will be discussing that later.
 
[speaking later in the debate]  In the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks to the purpose of H.R. 2194 as advancing along feelings of friendship for the Iranian people. We are telling the Iranian people, we have feelings of friendship for you, we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil. So we are asking the people, when they're freezing, to remember these warm feelings of friendship. I think people will find that the expression of friendship isn't to be believed, and that, in fact, what's happening here is an effort to punish the people of Iran for the policies of their government, which the Obama administration is trying to still find a way to deal with diplomatically.
 
Flake (R-AZ) - voted "No"
-----------------------------------
The gentleman from Indiana [Rep. Burton, R-IN] has mentioned, what do the opponents of this resolution have in mind. If not these sanctions, then what, what do we do? I think you are hard pressed to find anyone who will rationally say that this measure will have any real effect. This is a statement resolution more than anything.   And to the extent that it does bite, right now we don't export any refined petroleum products to Iran, but some of our allies do, those allies that we need for real sanctions that may or will bite. If we hope to get them on board, the last thing we want to do is get out in front and take measures where there will be punitive action on our allies that we need for sanctions that actually might have an impact.
 
So the notion that we have to do this or nothing is simply false. We need to address this situation there, but we need to do it in a way where we don't alienate the people of Iran who, when you're on the streets of Iran, people are not virulently anti-American, gratefully. We need to keep it that way. We shouldn't have sanctions that target the people, hoping that they will somehow revolt and then get mad at their leadership rather than the U.S.
 
I think that when you look at the history of sanctions, you're hard pressed to find examples where that kind of action works, where you try to entice some kind of rebellion among the people that you want to help and that somehow they will blame their government rather than those who are imposing the sanctions.
 
Again, multilateral sanctions can work. Multilateral action can work, and it needs to work. But in order to do that, you need to give the administration the flexibility, through a combination of diplomacy and other measures, to work with our allies, to bring measures that will work.   I am glad the gentleman has stood up to oppose this. I want people to know that we aren't all in agreement here, that there are other measures that can be taken."
 
Moran (D-VA) - voted "yes," apparently with reservations (comments inserted into the record)
-------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama has extended a hand to the Iranian government, offering a mutually beneficial deal that would severely limit Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. This confidence building measure is intended to give us the space and time to reach a more comprehensive agreement that would seek to integrate Iran back into the international community as a responsible actor and to impose strong, verifiable safeguards to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. After agreeing in principle to an initial agreement to send Iran's enriched uranium to Russia, Iran has since backed away from it and even refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency a formal response to the proposal.
 
Because of the seriousness of the challenges we face, I reluctantly support the IRSPA. It sends the clear message that Iran can either work cooperatively and beneficially with the international community or it can choose further international isolation.
 
However, for sanctions to succeed, they must impose a cost on Iran's ruling regime. I am concerned that it is the Iranian people--rather than the Iranian regime--that will suffer the most under IRPSA. If we are able to limit Iran's ability to import refined petroleum, the Iranian government will simply deflect this cost onto the Iranian people, by eliminating petroleum subsidies and blaming the United States for the hardship such actions will cause the general public.
 
A democratic uprising against the Iranian regime is currently under way. I believe we need to stand with the Iranian people as they fight for their freedoms. The Iranian government by contrast has brutally oppressed peaceful demonstrators. For that reason, Congress and the Obama administration should work to craft sanctions that affect the leaders of Iran and the IRGC. Only sanctions that hurt these decision makers will influence Iran's decision-making process.
 
While we must make the Iranian regime aware of our displeasure with their rejection of our positive advances, we must also provide a helping hand to Iranian citizens. That is why it is important for Congress, in addition to these punitive sanctions, to also provide assistance to the democracy movement in Iran by aiding their access to the internet, in order to provide the Iranian people unfettered access to information, free of government censorship. Congress should also take steps to increase the ability of non-governmental organizations in the U.S. to work with their counterparts in Iran, so that the Iranian people can benefit from better health services, educational opportunities, the promotion of equal rights, and the facilitation of people to people exchanges.
 
The Iranian people are among the most pro-American people in the Middle East. With passage of today's sanctions legislation, it is all the more important to reach out to, and around the Iranian government, to this pro-American society. This is the time to redouble our efforts to support the Iranian people and their courageous fight for democracy by increasing their access to information and communication both in country and internationally.
 
Lee (D-CA) - voted "Present" (comments inserted into the record)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Speaker, as one who has worked for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation efforts throughout my life, I share my colleagues concern regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.    I strongly believe Congress must support the Administration's diplomatic efforts and provide tools to help that diplomacy succeed in curbing Iran's belligerent and deceptive activities as related to their nuclear program, as well as put an end to the unjust and inhumane tactics used by the Iranian government to suppress democratic dissent amongst their own people.
 
I have serious concerns regarding Iran's violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT.   I believe strongly that the international community must work in a united collaboration to compel Iran to renounce and cease all activities that are in violation of the NPT, and submit fully to the international inspection regime.
 
Let me also be clear that I strongly oppose the use of military force and while sanctions, particularly, with international support, can be utilized effectively if designed appropriately and in the right circumstances, they cannot be viewed as a checkmark on the path to war. 
 
Madam Speaker, there certainly may come a time for additional unilateral sanctions against Iran and those that would do business with them.   Iran's recent rejection of international overtures and threats of expanding their nuclear enrichment program without allowing for improved transparency demand that Congress work with the administration to effectively increase pressure on Iran should multilateral diplomacy fail.  But let us do everything we can to support the Obama administration during this very critical juncture.
 
Iran's failure to-date to grasp this opportunity for engagement has opened the door to a multilateral sanctions regime that will be necessary to compel Iran to change course.   I have grave concerns that H.R. 2194, as currently written may jeopardize these efforts by:
 
-         Setting inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels
-         Risking unintended foreign policy consequences as a result of potential punitive measures against the very international partners from which we are seeking cooperation on this issue; and
-         Narrowing the President's waiver authority in a manner that may undermine the President's flexibility as he pursues a dual track of engagement coupled with increasingly unified international pressure.
 
Madam Speaker, after decades of levying unilateral measures against Iran with little effect, and in recognition of the essential support of our international partners, I cannot fully support moving forward with this bill in its current form.
 
In placing my vote today, I recognize that this bill is not in its final form-but in its current form it does not meet the test of efficacy for achieving our non-proliferation goals with respect to Iranian behavior.  It is my hope that changes to address these concerns will be reflected in the bill when it returns to the House floor.   While we are not able to make changes to this legislation here today, I plan to work with, and in support of Chairman Berman and the Administration, to ensure any sanctions package ultimately signed into law most effectively serves U.S. interests in preventing a nuclear armed Iran.
 
Camp (R-MI) - voted "Yes," apparently with reservations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194.   I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. The Iranian leader's abhorrent statements against America and Israel are outrageous.  Both current and previous Administrations view Iran as a profound threat to U.S. national security interests, a view that reflects my position as well.  We must address the situation. I have continually supported efforts to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I continue to do so today.
I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of H.R. 2194.  I believe we need to expand sanctions to refined petroleum resources to prevent Iran's nuclear proliferation. However, while domestic sanctions are critical, it is also important that our allies participate in an international coalition so that combating Iran's nuclear proliferation is a multilateral effort.
 
This bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. Usually on Iran bills, Foreign Affairs and Ways & Means discuss and agree jointly on the provisions in the bill that fall within the jurisdiction of my Committee. These conversations have always been very productive in the past. This process provides the best possible outcome, because it respects the strength and thrust of the bill, as well as positions the legislation to give our Administration the best chance at continuing to cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure.
 
We are still in the midst of that process for the bill now under consideration, and the bill we are voting on reflects the starting point of that process, not the end result. The aspects of the bill within the jurisdiction of Ways & Means that the two Committees are still discussing include the bill's provisions addressing the President's waiver authority, the structure and content of the additional mandatory sanctions, and certain definitions.   Although we have not completed our discussions, I can nevertheless offer my full support to this bill because of the Foreign Affairs Chairman's commitment to continue working with the Ways & Means Committee on these outstanding issues.   In light of that commitment, it is my expectation that bona fide, good-faith discussions between Ways & Means and Foreign Affairs will continue as this legislation proceeds in the legislative process."
 
E.B. Johnson (D-TX) - voted "Present"
-------------------------------------------------
Madam Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. This legislation seeks to expand economic sanctions against Iran. I believe that the foundation of this act reflects a misguided and self-defeating approach to United States foreign policy. Economic sanctions will target the Iranian people not just the Iranian government. These sanctions seek to make the Iranian people miserable enough so they will pressure their government to change course. We have seen from the past Iranian Presidential elections that public pressure directed at the government has, and did not, work. We have seen from the past with countries, such as Cuba and Iraq, that these sanctions harm the people and not the ruling government. I believe that these economic sanctions take authority away from the President and States of Department by tying their hand from achieving a diplomatic national security strategy. Let me be clear, I do not approve of Iran's nuclear program or of this governments human rights record. I believe that we must trust in our President and State Department to lead international pressures on Iran.
 
Madam Speaker, I have always promoted diplomacy, peace, and human rights. In 2001, I created 'A World of Women for World Peace' to bring greater visibility to peacemaking and peace-building activities in communities around the world. I firmly believe that the burden of peacemaking, peace building, and nation building cannot be left to one institution, gender or political party. It must be a shared responsibility that encompasses all, regardless of race, class, gender and religion. If these sanctions are passed, they will block Americans and Iranians from working together promoting peace, nation building, and human rights."
 
Moore (D-WI) - voted "No"
-----------------------------------
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 `'n 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."
 
Kilpatrick (D-MI) - voted "Present" (extension of remarks, 12/17/09)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and passed H.R. 2491, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. While Iran has been noncompliant with both United States and United Nations demands that it stop nuclear enrichment efforts, I could not, in good faith, support this initiative. My vote of ``present'' on this measure should not be interpreted nor misunderstood about a lack of concern regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. It does not.
 
Like many of my colleagues, I have significant reservations regarding Iran's violations of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The recent rejection by Iran of international organizations to inspect their nuclear capabilities and the threat of expanded nuclear enrichment programs continuing unchecked practically mandate that Congress and President Obama continue to work together. This combined effort must be toward increasing pressure on Iran if multilateral diplomacy reaches no reward. Congress must support President Obama's diplomatic efforts to help curb Iran's activities relating to their nuclear program. Congress must also support this administration's efforts to guarantee human rights and democracy for all people, especially women, in Iran. Congress must continue to forge with the President an all-out effort for diplomacy that is often difficult, but necessary.
 
H.R. 2491, as enacted, could very well threaten the diplomacy sought by the President. If enacted, the bill could punish the people of Iran who are suffering from its denial of democracy. Over the past few months, we have seen firsthand the discontent amongst Iranians with their government. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that our policy decisions, particularly sanctions, are implemented in a manner which does not detrimentally impact those not at fault. Broad, wide-reaching sanctions on gasoline will not only hit the people of Iran the hardest, but are unlikely to directly impact the government at all. I am not against sanctions.
 
In fact, I think sanctions in light of Iran's dissonance are not only appropriate but needed. However, targeted sanctions that impact those with whom we are at odds versus those that target an entire country are the best way to approach such an important decision.  While it is essential to curtail nuclear threats world-wide, sanctions must be seen as an option only after diplomacy has failed. In his letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg stated that the Obama Administration was 'entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran,' and that sanctions, 'might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts.' As we proceed in these important times, we must do so carefully, and in a manner that achieves the desired short-termed effect while remaining in accord with our long-term goals.
 
The decision whether to levy sanctions, particularly in the face of potential threat to peace, is of the utmost importance. Today, H.R. 2194 was brought to the floor under expedited procedures that limit debate and bar amendments reserved for non-controversial legislation. While the bill received overwhelming support, it does not make the subject matter any less controversial.
 
Iran has had decades of unilateral measures with practically no effect. In order for any sanctions to fully take effect, it must be multilateral. The unilateral approach of this legislation, combined with the potential unintended consequence it may have for the people, and the legislation's curtailing the waiver authority of President Obama so as to undermine the President's flexibility and pursuit of a dual track of diplomacy and unified multilateral pressure, are my reasons for my vote of present on this measure.
 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation. My goal is to ensure that any sanction bill, signed into law, protects the interests of the United States, ensures that the President can negotiate from a position of strength along our international partners, ensures that human rights and democracy grow for the people of Iran, and prevents another nation from being armed with nuclear weapons.
 
Paul (R-TX) - prepared comments inserted into the record
 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few more points as to why I oppose this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for 'non-controversial' business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices?
 
This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran's ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran's ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications.
 
Recently, the Financial Times reported that, '[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran's oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries--adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.'
 
Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran's petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the US economy if it is actually enforced?
 
As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.
 
This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that ``[i]t shall be the policy of the United States ..... to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.'' Article V of the NPT states clearly that, ``[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.'' As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT--has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes--this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.
 
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S. demands. I would remind them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive legislation.
 
5.  APN ON IRAN-SOUTH AFRICA COMPARISON IN IRPSA DEBATE
 
Iran is not South Africa
By Lara Friedman on December 16, 2009
 
Critics (including this writer) of HR 2194 -- the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), which was passed by the House yesterday -- have argued that if the US wants to put pressure on the government of Iran, sanctions that deliberately cause suffering to the Iranian people are unlikely to do the job and could well backfire.   During yesterday's House debate on IRPSA, several speakers attempted to refute this criticism by raising the South Africa precedent.  They noted, correctly, that in the South Africa context, crippling economic sanctions worked.   

It is clear why supporters of IRSPA want to focus on South Africa:  this is the only example in recent history where sanctions similar to those being proposed for use against Iran achieved their intended purpose.  

But those raising the South Africa ignore a key fact:  while the sanctions may be similar, their justification and intended purpose are not.  These differences render the comparison specious and the conclusion - that sanctions that worked in South Africa will work in Iran - dubious.

The unambiguous justification for crippling sanctions against South Africa was to promote the interests and rights of South African blacks who were suffering from systematic and institutionalized discrimination at the hands of the Apartheid regime.  The goal of the sanctions was to change the policies of the Apartheid government toward its own people.  The sanctions were imposed despite the fact that they involved very real financial and political costs to the US.   These sanctions thus had clear moral legitimacy, including among South African anti-Apartheid activists and in the eyes of the world.

In contrast, both the justification for and the goal of crippling sanctions against Iran have little to do with promoting the interests and rights of the Iranian people (except as an afterthought).  These sanctions are about promoting US interests, not the interests of the Iranian people.  No doubt some will argue, especially in the wake of the June 2009 Iranian elections, that human rights and democracy are among the reasons why the US must impose crippling sanctions on Iran.  But let's not kid ourselves: while no doubt the concern for the Iranian people is genuine, it is no more the real justification for these sanctions than democracy and human rights were the real reason for the US invasion of Iraq.

This is clear in the text of the bill, which makes no reference at all to human rights or democracy, either in the context of imposing sanctions or lifting them.  This was also clearly demonstrated yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives, where the many statements in support of IRPSA barely mentioned human rights or democracy.  They focused, instead, on Iran's nuclear programs and the threat of growing Iranian power to US interests (including Middle East energy resources), to Israel, to the balance of power in the region, etc...  

All of which are wholly legitimate US national security concerns, but have nothing to do with the rights and interests of the Iranian people.  Sanctions that result from such considerations may thus be viewed by the US as legitimate tools of US foreign policy, but by no stretch of the imagination do they have the moral legitimacy - in the eyes of the Iranian people or the world - that sanctions had in the South Africa context.

Supporters of IPRSA can try to sell these sanctions as an altruistic US effort to support the Iranian people; Iranians know better.  They know because they have been living with far-reaching US sanctions for more than 20 years and because they listen to the debate in Washington.  And they know that if tomorrow the Iranian government comes to an agreement with the international community on the nuclear program - a program that to many Iranians is a symbol of national pride and defiance in the face of decades of sanctions and anti-Iran rhetoric - human rights and democracy issues will be instantly relegated to a very low spot on the US-Iran agenda, just as is the case with countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

If members of Congress are looking for real parallels to the current Iran sanctions - examples where sanctions that cause serious harm to civilians were employed as part of an effort to promote US interests and goals - they should look not to South Africa, but to Cuba, Iraq, Gaza and, indeed, Iran.  

In all those cases, crippling sanctions - sanctions that continue to this day (except for Iraq, for obvious reasons) - are causing serious suffering to the civilian population.  

And in all these cases, the sanctions have failed to bring down the regime.  To the contrary, the regimes in question all remain firmly in power (again, except for Iraq, for reasons that have nothing to do with sanctions), while the sanctions and resulting hardship have fed anti-US sentiment.  

These are the real precedents for the proposed crippling Iran sanctions.  

If people want to support IRPSA despite these precedents - despite the fact that in parallel political contexts such sanctions have not achieved their intended results and have even backfired - that is their prerogative.  But let's not fool ourselves into believing that the South Africa experience has any relevance to this debate. 
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================
Past editions of the Round-Up are archived and available online at:
http://www.peacenow.org/roundup.asp
 
Americans for Peace Now promotes Israeli security through the peace process and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement.   For more information, visit the APN web site at www.peacenow.org or contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.