[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 192 (Thursday, December 17, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E3052-E3053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 15, 2009

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. 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

[[Page E3053]]

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.

                          ____________________