[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5394-S5409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IRAN SANCTIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DIVESTMENT ACT OF
2010--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. There will be 2\1/2\
hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I see the chairman of the Banking
Committee. If I have preempted him, I will be happy to delay my
remarks.
Mr. DODD. No, please proceed.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I was a member of the conference that
dealt with the bill that is now before the Senate, and I wish to make a
few remarks in favor of the conference report.
Iran poses an interesting threat to the United States and to our
allies in the Middle East. The Iranian regime is arguably the most
anti-American regime in the world. There may be some who would put
forth North Korea or some other countries, and I won't debate with them
where on the list they would be, but Iran is very much at the top of
the list of regimes that hate America. Ironically, every indication is
that the Iranian people do not support the position of their government
and that the Iranian people, if they had a legitimate government; that
is, one that was chosen by a legitimate election, would be strongly
pro-America. So we have this very challenging dichotomy here of a
regime that is bent on mischief or worse throughout the region, and a
very clear hatred for America, presiding over a population that is
strongly in favor of America.
I make that point because many people will say: Well, it is the
people of Iran who will be punished if this sanctions bill goes
forward.
I say it is the people of Iran who are desiring relief from their own
government, and anything we can do to punish that government, make the
situation more untenable, and ultimately help bring it down will be for
the benefit of the people of Iran. So I am standing here as an advocate
in favor of the Iranian population even as I have harsh things to say
about the Iranian Government.
There are those who say: Well, the Iranians have every right to a
nuclear capability. They are a sovereign nation. They have the right to
build a nuclear plant within their borders so they can have the
benefits of nuclear power. And you, Senator Bennett, are a supporter of
nuclear energy, so why do you oppose the Iranian effort with respect to
their nuclear program?
I do not oppose a program that would move toward peaceful
exploitation of nuclear power. Indeed, I would welcome it and support
it. In the world today, it is certainly possible, and, indeed, many
countries do have nuclear capability without creating the capacity to
produce a nuclear weapon. The two are not necessarily simultaneous and
coterminous. A nuclear capacity to provide electricity, to provide
power for the populous as a whole, is a good thing, a benign thing, and
something I support.
The Iranians oppose any kind of effort to put limits on their plan,
on their program. They say: We are doing this just for domestic power
purposes. But they refuse to take the kinds of steps other nations have
taken that will allow them to have all of the benefits of a domestic
nuclear plant and none of the challenges that go with the creation of a
nuclear weapon.
There was a time--the Cold War and shortly after the Second World
War--when nuclear weapons were seen as a very viable part of the
military arsenal. We have such an arsenal. The Soviet Union did. Some
of our allies joined us, and nuclear weapons were seen in the classic
power struggle between nation states. Today, however, the situation has
changed, and a nuclear weapon is seen primarily as a blackmailing
device for one nation to threaten another nation in a circumstance
different from the kind of confrontation we had with the Soviet Union.
If Iran got a nuclear weapon, they would use it as a destabilizing
instrument throughout the Middle East, which is already one of the
least stable portions of the world, and other countries all around Iran
would say: Well, if they are going to have a nuclear weapon for
blackmail purposes within foreign policy discussions, we will have to
have one too. And if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region will be enormous.
As long as they just use it as a blackmail weapon and talk about it,
one could say it is really not that big of a deal. Inevitably, the
creation of such weapons, the proliferation of such weapons in an area
as unstable as the Middle East runs a very high risk that one of those
weapons will be used. Then we will see the opening of a nuclear
holocaust the likes of which we have not seen before. The last time a
nuclear weapon was used was when we were in the midst of a horrendous
war where the projections were that if we stayed in a conventional
pattern and invaded Japan in a conventional way, the casualties would
be overwhelming on both sides. And by using a nuclear weapon to bring
the Second World War to an end, we tragically cost tens of thousands of
lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we saved millions of lives on the
beaches and in the streets of Tokyo and in the other places that would
have been lost if the war had continued with conventional weapons.
We cannot do anything that would encourage Iran with respect to its
nuclear program, and that is why this act is so important.
People will say: Well, it is economic sanctions, it is financial
sanctions, things of that kind. Yes, it is all of those things, but it
is aimed primarily at and focused entirely on Iran's efforts with
respect to the creation of a nuclear weapon.
Iran could get out from under these sanctions immediately if they
would say: We will follow the pattern of other peaceful nations and
pursue a nuclear domestic program for energy purposes in such a way
that it will not lead to the creation of a capability for nuclear
weapons. I stress again the division between the two: You can have
nuclear power for energy and electricity without producing the kinds of
things that are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran could go
down that road if they choose to, and if the Iranian regime were to
make that very wise decision--wise for themselves and their own ability
to remain at the head of a country whose population hates them; wise
for the region; wise for the world as a whole--I would be one of the
first to stand and say that this bill of sanctions for Iran should be
withdrawn. The initiative rests with them, not with us, as to what will
happen in the Middle East.
All right. Some specifics about the legislation. If it is
implemented, it would dramatically raise the price Iran will have to
pay for their activities because it will increase the scope of
sanctions already authorized under the Iranian sanctions act by
imposing sanctions on foreign companies that sell Iran goods, services,
or know-how that would assist in its nuclear sector. It includes a
provision with respect to refined petroleum being exported to Iran.
[[Page S5395]]
It is interesting that Iran is one of the major sources of crude oil,
but they do not have refined petroleum available to them in the
quantities they need within their own shores.
So they import it and this sanctions act will seriously hamper the
importation of refined products. The legislation mandates that in order
to do business with the U.S. Government, a company must certify that
it--or its subsidiaries--does not engage in sanctionable activities
with respect to Iran.
Financial. The conference report imposes severe restrictions on
foreign financial institutions that are doing business with key Iranian
banks, and it bans U.S. banks from engaging in financial transactions
with foreign banks doing business with the IRGC, the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In effect, the act says to foreign banks doing business with the
blacklisted Iranian entity that you have a stark choice: Cease your
activities, or be denied access to the American financial system.
There are other provisions, which I will not take the time to
outline. I close by making it clear, once again, that this is not a
knee-jerk reaction on the part of Americans in a fit of pique with
respect to the Iranians because the Iranian President says stupid
things in international fora. This is a deadly serious attempt to see
to it that a significant threat in the region does not go forward. In
the end, this is an attempt to help free the Iranian people from the
tyranny of one of the most repressive and difficult governments that
any country is forced to abide by in the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Commending John Isner
Mr. BURR. Madam President, it is appropriate that the occupant of the
Chair and I are here at the same time.
I rise to congratulate North Carolina native John Isner for not only
surviving the longest tennis match in Wimbledon history but for
emerging victorious over Nicolas Mahut of France. Clocking in at over
11 hours, this first round match was historic in its length and its
number of games--138 in the fifth set alone.
Picking up this morning at 59-59 in the fifth set, the match
continued with no break points until John hit a final backhand to
finish the match in front of a packed, standing-room only crowd of
amazed fans. Throughout that grueling competition, Isner maintained an
impressive sense of calm under pressure, serving his opponent a record-
breaking 112 aces.
In addition to impressive play, John showed great respect and honor
for his opponent after the match, and he displayed the kind of
sportsmanship and chivalry that are often forgotten in today's sports
world.
This extraordinary match will not only be remembered in the history
books but by all sports fans who witnessed the incredible competitive
spirit of these two great athletes.
John, congratulations to you, and we are pulling for you in the next
round.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
didn't watch the match. I am in a conference committee, and that
process has gone on for about a year and a half--for years--which may
be a record as well. I also commend that young man from North Carolina.
I congratulate the Presiding Officer and the other Senator from North
Carolina--the young man, more importantly, who went through the
grueling process of a lengthy tennis match.
Mr. BURR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Mikulski be recognized after I complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, as chairman of the Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs Committee, and as the cochair of the conference
committee, along with Howard Berman, the Congressman from California, I
want to begin by thanking my fellow conferees.
You have heard from Senator Bennett of Utah, a conferee; Senator
Menendez, of New Jersey; John Kerry, of Massachusetts; my colleague
from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman; Senator Shelby of Alabama; Senator
Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--
John Kerry is currently the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, and Senator Lieberman is the chairman of the Homeland
Security Committee. So we have had some very active members, along with
the House conferees. Numerous members in the House, as well, have
played a significant role in the development of this conference report.
I also commend the administration, and particularly the Secretary of
State, our former colleague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and
her staff for the remarkable job they have done over these many weeks,
when we have tried to craft this very important piece of legislation.
They were excellent in their work and did a wonderful job.
Obviously, the President, first and foremost, deserves credit for
insisting upon a multilateral approach, which they, to a large extent,
achieved.
This legislation complements that international effort. Three decades
ago, when I was serving in the other body--with a full head of black
hair in those days, so that is going back in time--the House
International Relations Committee collaborated with the Senate Banking
Committee to produce what was called landmark legislation in 1977. It
was called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as
IEEPA, which is how I will refer to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
To this day, IEEPA empowers Presidents of the United States to apply
strong sanctions against any nation, organization, or person that poses
an ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to the United States. It is
with these authorities that American Presidents, over the years, have
effectively enforced trade embargoes against, in this case, Iran,
banning exports and imports, and freezing key Iranian assets.
While IEEPA authorities have kept the U.S. businesses from entering
Iran, years ago, it had become very clear--abundantly clear--that much
more was needed to be done, not only in the case of Iran but other
nations as well.
That is why, in 1996, the Senate Banking Committee and the House
Foreign Affairs Committee once again collaborated to develop new
sanctions on non-U.S. businesses investing in Iran's energy sector.
Oil and gas was providing Iran's terrorist regime with key sources of
revenue, and action was needed to be taken. In those days, the
resulting Iran-Libya Sanctions Act--later named the Iran sanctions act
because Libya complied with the concerns we had at the time. As a
result of them stepping forward and renouncing terrorism, we were able
to drop Libya from the title of that bill. As I heard Senator Bennett
say--and I think other colleagues would join in this--there is no great
joy in crafting this bill. We are doing so out of defense of our Nation
and over a threat being posed by the Government of Iran. We hope that
they will understand the seriousness of this endeavor, the
collaborative nature of our efforts, and we hope they will see the
light as Libya did, and we urge them to take the proper steps to remove
the threat they are presently posing.
Regrettably, despite a very clear mandate, American Presidents have
failed to comply with the law, ISA legislation, adopted back in 1996,
despite billions of dollars in oil and gas investments.
How have administrations avoided complying with the law we passed in
1996? Frankly, that has been the subject of considerable discourse
within the Banking Committee over the last number of years.
First, when the Iran sanctions act mandates that American Presidents
``shall'' impose two out of a menu of six penalties on sanctionable
foreign companies, it only says that Presidents ``should'' investigate
credible evidence of energy investments and ``should'' make
determinations that they have, in fact, engaged in sanctionable acts.
Thus, administrations since 1996 have simply avoided launching
investigations and making those determinations.
[[Page S5396]]
Executive branch officials of both parties have conceded that they
did not even want to waive sanctions. Waiving imposition of sanctions,
they have contended, is an admission of a foreign company's guilt. If
we are, in effect, imposing a sanction on a company, and then
officially relieving them of U.S. penalties, we are impinging on those
companies' reputation and implying that the companies outside the U.S.
jurisdiction are nonetheless in violation of our laws.
Such extraterritorial provocations might be grounds for retribution--
either through reciprocal sanction or trade barriers. Thus,
administrations--Democrats and Republicans--have avoided even launching
the ISA investigations called for in 1996 or, of course, making any
determinations so as not to resort to sanctions waivers.
Administrations have certainly used the threat of imposing these
sanctions to some effect. But as multiple reports by the Congressional
Research Service and the GAO have indicated, investments in Iran's
energy sector have continued, and the regime in Iraq has benefited from
those revenues.
This measure that I am today managing, along with others, marks a new
chapter in Congress's long history of confronting the Iranian threat.
But far more importantly, the conference report, which we will be
voting on later this afternoon, we are considering makes profound
changes to the law, which, if implemented correctly, will bring about
strong pressure to bear on Tehran in order to combat its proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, support for international terrorism,
and gross human rights abuses.
The act says, in no uncertain terms, that Presidents shall be
required, if they have established that credible evidence of a firm
engaging in ISA-sanctionable activity exists, to launch investigations,
make determinations, and ultimately impose sanctions on those companies
investing in Iran's energy sector.
Moreover, it imposes new sanctions on companies providing refined
petroleum products or helping to build Iran's domestic refineries.
In response to Tehran's terrible abuses of its own people--Senator
Lieberman has gone on at some length about this, and he is absolutely
correct, a major part of the report focuses on the Iranian people and
what they are subjected to on an hourly basis by a government which the
majority of people in that country abhor. In the wake of what they have
been doing and Iran's fraudulent presidential election, the conference
report and the act imposes visa, property, and financial sanctions on
Iranians the President determines to be complicit in serious human
rights abuses against other Iranians on or after the date of Iran's
election.
The conference report and the act imposes a U.S. Government
procurement ban on foreign companies doing energy business in Iran or
helping the Iranian Government to monitor and jam communications among
its people. No longer will U.S. taxpayers' money be used to support
Iran's corporate sponsors.
The act further codifies trade restrictions in law and ends the few
remaining Iranian imports allowed into the United States.
Similarly, the legislation also allows States, local governments, and
private investors to exercise their own right to divest from companies
investing in Iran's energy sector.
The act explicitly states the sense of Congress that the United
States should support the decisions of State and local governments to
divest from these firms and clearly authorizes divestment decisions
made consistent with the standards of the act.
Elsewhere in the act and the conference report legislation is a
provision cracking down on the international black market weapons
trade, which rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran, have long
exploited. Under this act, the United States will identify countries
that are allowing sensitive U.S. technology that can be used for
weapons of mass destruction or terrorism to be transshipped into Iran,
and it will force these countries to cooperate in establishing
appropriate customs, intelligence gathering, and trade restrictions. If
they refuse to cooperate with the United States, the act requires
imposition of severe export restrictions on those countries.
Finally, the act establishes a very strong new banking section to be
undertaken by the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, and his colleagues. Stuart Levey
has worked in two administrations now and should be highly commended,
by the way, for the remarkable work he has done over the years. This is
an official of the Treasury Department who is so knowledgeable on this
subject matter and was invaluable in helping us craft this legislation.
I especially mention him and thank him for his contribution.
This new section takes aim squarely at Iran's powerful Revolutionary
Guard Corps--or the IRGC, as it is known--and attempts to choke it off
from an increasingly important source of power--international financial
investment.
Section 104 of the act has two principal parts. First, the Treasury
will direct American banks to prohibit or impose strict conditions on
correspondent or payable-through accounts of any foreign financial
institutions working with key Iranian entities.
For example, foreign banks conducting substantial business with the
IRGC, its front companies or affiliates, will be cut off from its
American accounts. Hypothetically, then, if an Asian or Latin American
bank were to provide services to an IRGC-owned construction company,
for instance, building a major gas pipeline, that bank would be shut
off from U.S. correspondent banking.
In addition, foreign banks servicing the various Iranian banks
blacklisted by the Treasury Department and the UN Security Council will
also be targeted under this section.
Section 104 directs the Treasury to restrict correspondent banking
for foreign banks directly involved in Iran's weapons of mass
destruction proliferation and terrorist financing, as well as money
laundering toward those aims.
In the end, the act presents foreign banks doing business with
blacklisted Iranian entities a very stark choice: Cease your activities
or be denied critical access to America's financial system.
The second part of section 104 would hold U.S. banks accountable for
actions by their foreign subsidiaries. Under IEEPA, which I described
earlier, U.S. companies have long been banned from doing business with
Iran. Now under this act, this conference report, foreign entities
owned or controlled by U.S. banks will also be prohibited from doing
business with the IRGC. If their foreign subsidiaries continue to do
so, the U.S. parent companies will be subjected to severe penalties--
civil fines amounting to twice the value of the transaction or $250,000
and criminal fines if there is proven willful intent, up to $1 million,
and 20 years in jail.
To be sure, we have included waivers in the act. We believe that the
President of the United States must have flexibility in executing
foreign policy. We all agree with that point. As I mentioned before,
foreign nations consider ISA waivers to have extraterritorial impact on
companies in their jurisdiction.
For the most part, waivers of the sanctions in this act may only be
exercised if they are deemed necessary to the national interest or, in
the case of energy investment and refined petroleum sanctions, if the
companies are from nations cooperating in multilateral efforts against
Iran. Reports to Congress are to be detailed about the particular
investments or transactions considered sanctionable, as well as why
these waivers are invoked.
Only in the case of refined petroleum sanctions do we allow for some
additional flexibility. In that case, the President of the United
States may delay making determinations about the sanctionability of
specific transactions every 6 months if the President can demonstrate
progressively greater reductions in refined petroleum transportations
in Iran.
These are very tough unilateral measures, but Congress does not
expect them to effect change in a vacuum. Unilateral sanctions are but
one tool of statecraft available to American Presidents to effect such
change. In my view, they are less likely to be effective than tough,
coordinated, multilateral sanctions.
All of us recognize that acting alone we may achieve some results.
Acting
[[Page S5397]]
together, we have the opportunity to truly bring about the desired
change we all seek.
These unilateral sanctions must be exercised as part of a
comprehensive, coordinated diplomatic and political effort conducted in
cooperation with our allies and designed to achieve the real results we
all seek.
I believe President Obama has been both thoughtful and deliberate in
his approach to pressuring Iran to change its conduct. Having just this
month achieved UN Security Council approval of Resolution 1929 and
European Union endorsement of additional energy and financial measures
on Iran, the President of the United States is clearly setting the
stage for what we all hope is strong, targeted, and effective
multilateral and multilayered pressure on Tehran.
These measures are not ends but merely a means to an end, first and
foremost, to suspend Iran's illicit nuclear program, to protect Israel
and our other friends and allies, to combat Tehran's proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and express support for human rights in
their country.
I see my colleague from Arizona. I believe it was his suggestion that
the human rights effort be part of this legislation. I did not have a
chance to mention him earlier in my remarks. I thank my colleague for
this proposal which includes very strong language and a message to the
Iranian people that this is not about them, this is about their
government. It is very important that all of us in our remarks today
make it clear that we are tremendously sympathetic to what they are
going through and, therefore, part of our proposal has strong language
that allows us to address--at least to try to address--the issue of
human rights abuses in Tehran. Again, I appreciate all the hard work.
I mentioned the conferees earlier: my colleague from Connecticut,
Senator Lieberman, Senator Menendez, Senator Kerry, Senator Shelby,
Senator Bennett, and Senator Lugar, from the Senate perspective who
were part of drafting this bill, as well as our House conferees, led by
Howard Berman of California. I extend a special thank you to all of
them for their leadership.
I also thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, and Senator
McConnell. None of this ever happens without the majority leader of the
Senate taking a leadership role and insisting this matter move forward,
insisting it be addressed before we break for the July 4 recess period
coming up next week and in the midst of all the other things in which
we have been involved. My colleagues know we have been involved in a
very lengthy conference regarding financial reform. I am delighted to
take some time out from that effort to address this particular proposal
and urge our colleagues to be supportive of this proposal.
I also want to support what I mentioned earlier--President Obama's
approach--and I appreciate his team's work in helping us improve this
important legislation. I mentioned earlier our Secretary of State and
former colleague. We had extensive meetings with her, National Security
Adviser, General Jones, Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg, Under
Secretary of the Treasury Levey--I mentioned the tremendous work he has
done, Stuart Levey in the Department of Treasury--Assistant Secretary
of State Verma, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Cohen, and Office
of Foreign Assets Control Director Adam Szubin. All of these people,
and many others, along with our staffs--and I am particularly grateful
to my staff for the work they have done, led by Colin McGinnis of my
office, who did a remarkable job in pulling this together to see to it
that we worked with our counterparts, and there are many others on my
staff as well I should mention.
Neal Orringer from my office deserves great credit for his work as
well. It has been a great pleasure working with Rick Kessler, Shanna
Winters, Alan Makovsky, and Daniel Silverberg.
Additionally, I thank Ranking Member Richard Shelby, along with his
talented counsel, John O'Hara.
I also thank Margaret Roth-Warren, our brilliant, detail-oriented
legislative counsel who spent weeks on end working with my staff and me
and others to make this, hopefully, the most comprehensive and
effective sanctions legislation that we can include.
I have hopefully mentioned all the appropriate members of the staff.
There is always a danger of leaving someone out. I do not want to do
that. They work very hard. These are the unknown people we do not
always get to recognize. They spent countless hours pulling this most
comprehensive sanctions conference report together. We are very
grateful to all of them and the tremendous work they do every single
day.
I know my colleague from Maryland wishes to be heard. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions conference report.
Mr. President, you know me. I am a plain and a straight talker, so I
am not going to use the flowery language of diplomacy or Senate speak
on a lot of the language. I am going to say this in plain English.
Today, if you want to improve the safety and security of the United
States of America, you want to pass this bill. If you want to make sure
we ensure the safety and security of our allies in the Middle East, you
want to pass this bill. If you want to identify who is one of the major
enemies of the United States and our allies, it is Iran.
If one looks at the world, peace in the Middle East lies not through
Jerusalem but lies through Tehran. What does Tehran do? Tehran funds
Hamas, which is causing untold heartbreak and bloodshed in Gaza. No. 2,
it funds Hezbollah, funding untold terrorist activity in the north of
Israel and in Lebanon. No. 3, it is also working to develop nuclear
weapons. We do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
What has Iran been doing over the last several years? They have had a
record of denial and deception in developing nuclear weapons, in
processing weapons-grade uranium. They have also been developing the
method for delivering nuclear weapons, the so-called Shahab-3 ballistic
missile. It is capable of striking Israel, U.S. troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and even parts of Europe. We do not want Iran to continue
to develop nuclear weapons.
We have been down this road before. And people say: Right, let's stop
them, let's go to the U.N., hoo-ha for the U.N. We have done hoo-ha
with the U.N. We have had several sanctions. We had one most recently
passed that our administration worked very hard on, and we thank our
allies for that. But the U.N. sanctions, though a good first step, are
quite tepid. They are tepid because there are other members of the
Security Council who want to keep doing that business with Iran. You
might want to do business with Iran, but Iran has no business
developing nuclear weapons.
The United States, therefore, has to pass these unilateral sanctions.
That is why I support them. It is the United States, the indispensable
Nation, that can come up with the muscle to be able to do this.
This is a very serious matter. If Iran continues to develop these
weapons, it is going to destabilize the world. First of all, it
emboldens the regime that is currently in power. That regime is no
friend to peace, it is no friend to stability, it is no friend to us or
our allies.
Second, a nuclear Iran would destabilize pro-western Arab states.
Those states with strong ties to the United States are apprehensive
about Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Also, nuclear arms and missiles could pose a major threat to the
United States. A nuclear Iran would spur in the region a nuclear arms
race, and it would end a lot of our antiproliferation efforts.
These sanctions are absolutely important. I think they are very
creative, and I think they go right to the heart of the Iranian
leadership's pocketbook.
One of the most creative aspects of this legislation is the sanctions
on Iran's petroleum industry. Iran has oil wells, but it does not have
a major refining capacity. It imports over 40 percent of its gasoline.
This legislation in this bill that targets refined petroleum products
I believe could have a crippling effect. With its importation of 40
percent gasoline and the need for them to have enormous subsidies to
keep gasoline low with their population will be very effective.
[[Page S5398]]
It also targets Iran's banking system. Essentially, it says it
requires foreign financial institutions to choose between doing
business with Iran or doing business with U.S. banks. Make your choice.
If you think the future lies with doing business with Iran, that is one
view. But if you see your future doing business with U.S. banks, I
think the path is clear, and they will choose the safety and security
and reliability of doing business in the United States. I also like the
fact that it strengthens the prohibitions on activities on the nuclear
program.
What was also spoken about--and I salute my colleague from Arizona
for also insisting on this--is the support for human rights in Iran.
We all remember that awful day when this wonderful, heroic young
woman who wanted to engage in the civic activities in her own country--
Neda--was gunned down in her own country by her own people. Recently, I
watched a very telling and poignant documentary about Neda and the
dissidents in Iran. What a wonderful group of young people there is in
that country. Wow, wouldn't we like to see them flourish? Wouldn't we
like to see a modern Iran that joins the community of nations,
promoting peace, stability, increased literacy, and opportunity in that
country?
I am for those human rights' people. I am not only going to mourn
Neda as a symbol, but I think the way we can mourn Neda is to back the
people like her in Iran. And I really do support this human rights
activity by imposing travel restrictions and financial penalties on
those who crack down on human rights in Iran.
Some countries on the Security Council, as I said, are more concerned
about their relationships with Iran for investment purposes. We have to
start thinking about investing in the safety and stability of the
world.
I urge the passage of this Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act, and I
say this is a good and important step. And those who vote for it--and
we are going to do it on a bipartisan basis because when we do that, we
govern the best--are also going to have to stand ready to really have a
very muscular and aggressive approach to the enforcement of these
sanctions.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to minimize the opportunity for Iran to continue to get its
nuclear weapons and to practice its denial and deception, to promote a
free and open Iran, to stand with the dissidents, and to promote human
rights. Let's look for a more modern Iran in the 21st century. They
have a great history. I want them to have a great future and to join
the community of nations in a nonproliferation environment and work for
the good of us all.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maryland
on her good remarks and her continued advocacy for human rights
throughout the world.
I rise to speak on behalf of the legislation before us--the Iran
Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act. It has been a long time in
the works, and a lot of Members and staff have put a tremendous amount
of work into it, and I appreciate that commitment. This is an important
piece of legislation. It comes at a critically important time.
Despite a year and a half of engagement, the Iranian Government
continues to respond to the President's outstretched hand with an
unclenched fist. The regime continues to support terrorism and violent
Islamic extremist groups that are destabilizing governments and
societies in the region. It continues to race toward a nuclear weapons
capability, in full violation of its international agreements and
contrary to the repeated demands of the community of civilized nations.
Beyond all of this, the Iranian regime, now more than ever, continues
to brutalize and oppress its own people, denying them their most basic
human rights.
This bill represents the most powerful sanctions ever imposed by the
Congress on the Government of Iran. It will target industries--
especially Iran's energy sector--that help to sustain the Iranian
regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The bill will create significant
new incentives for multinational companies to divest from the Iranian
economy. Because of this legislation, we will be posing a choice to
companies around the world: Do you want to do business with Iran or do
you want to do business with the United States? We don't think that is
much of a choice, but we will force companies to make it. They can't
have it both ways.
I didn't wish to confine our sanctions efforts only to those persons
in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies. I also wanted
to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against
those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and
democracy advocates. That is why, earlier this year, my good friend
Senator Joe Lieberman and I joined with a broad bipartisan group of
Senators to cosponsor legislation to create a new regime of targeted
sanctions against human rights abusers in Iran. The provisions of our
legislation have been included in this comprehensive sanctions
legislation, and I would like to thank the conferees and the leaders of
both parties for agreeing to include it.
Our part of this comprehensive sanctions bill has two parts:
First, it will require the President to compile a public list of
individuals in Iran who--starting with the fraudulent Presidential
election last June--are responsible for or complicit in human rights
violations against Iranian citizens and their families no matter where
in the world those abuses occur. It doesn't matter whether these
individuals are officials in the Iranian Government or serving as their
agents in paramilitary groups and other bands of thugs; we will find
and uncover them all. I want to stress that this will be a public list,
posted for all the world to see on the Web sites of the State
Department and Treasury Department. We will shine a light on Iran's
human rights abusers. We will publish their names and their faces, and
we will make them famous for their crimes.
Second, this bill will then ban these Iranian human rights abusers
from receiving visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--that means
freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S.
jurisdiction and ending all of their financial transactions with U.S.
banks and other entities. These provisions mark the first time the U.S.
Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran
because of their human rights violations. In short, under this
legislation, Iranian human rights abusers will be completely cut off
from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that will send
a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that
they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the
Iranian people.
It also sends an unequivocal and powerful message to the people in
Iran who are demonstrating and working peacefully for their human
rights that we share their interests and their struggles. We are not
simply focused on the regime's nuclear program, although that remains a
key concern, nor are we solely focused on the regime's support for
terrorism, although that too remains a high priority. We are also
making the human rights of Iran's people an equal priority of our
government.
Now more than ever, it is urgent and essential that we support the
peaceful aspirations of the Iranian people. One year ago, the
conventional wisdom in the West held that the prospect for political
evolution in Iran was dim and distant. But, as it often is, that
conventional wisdom was utterly wrong. After the Iranian people were
denied their right to a free and fair election, the world watched in
awe as a sea of protestors--by some estimates, as many as 3 million
Iranians--swelled in the streets all around the country. Ordinary
Iranians realized they could not remain neutral in the struggle for
human rights in their country, and they became part of it. As a result,
history was made before our very eyes. One year ago, democratic change
in Iran looked rather improbable. Just 1 week later, it looked
virtually inevitable.
Unfortunately, the ensuing crackdown has been and continues to be as
swift as it is brutal. Peaceful protestors have been attacked in the
streets by masked agents of the Iranian regime, then dragged away to
the
[[Page S5399]]
darkest corners of cruelty. Many have been raped and worse. Many of
Iran's best and brightest have been forced to flee in fear from the
land they love and to seek asylum in places such as Iraq and Turkey,
where they remain today as refugees. We have all read the desperate
pleas of terrorized Iranians as they shout for help through whatever
cracks they continue to try to make in Iran's government-censored
Internet. And, of course, on June 20 of last year, the entire world
watched as a young woman named Neda bled to death in the streets of
Tehran. On that day, I believe we witnessed the beginning of the end of
this offensive government in Iran.
The past year's events have demonstrated the true character of Iran's
people: proud, talented, the stewards of a great culture, eager to
engage with the world, and relentless in their quest for justice--and a
nation that should be a natural ally of the United States.
The past year's events have also highlighted the true character of
the Iranian regime: a violent and militarized tyranny, self-serving and
unconcerned with the welfare of Iran's people, with no shred of
legitimacy left to justify its rule.
Anymore, we cannot separate the behavior of Iran's government from
its character. After all, is it any wonder that a regime that has no
regard whatsoever for the rights, the dignity, the very lives of its
own people would also show the same blatant disregard for its own
international agreements, for the sovereignty and security of its
neighbors, and for the responsibilities of all civilized nations? And
is it any wonder that this Iranian regime has been and will always be
uncompromising in its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability--not just
because it would be a source of power in the world but perhaps more
importantly because it would be a source of safety and survival for its
corrupt, unjust system at home.
My friends, I believe that when we consider the many threats and
crimes of Iran's Government, we are led to one inescapable conclusion:
It is the character of this Iranian regime, not just its behavior, that
is the deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world and in Iran.
Furthermore, I believe it will only be a change in the Iranian regime
itself--a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran--
that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran's policy.
Even now, though, we hear it said again that Iran's democratic
opposition has been beaten into submission. And I would not deny that a
regime such as this one, which knows no limits to its ruthlessness,
will achieve many of its goals for now. But when Iran's rulers are too
afraid of their own people to tolerate even routine public
demonstrations on regime holidays, as they recently have been, that is
not a government that is succeeding. It is a cabal of criminals who
understand that their morally bankrupt regime is now on the wrong side
of Iranian history.
The question we must answer is, What side of Iranian history are we
on? We must also ask ourselves another question: Is the goal of our
sanctions and those of our friends and allies to persuade Iran's rulers
to finally sit down and negotiate in good faith, to stop pursuing
nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism, and abusing their own people? I
truly hope this is possible, but that assumption seems totally at odds
with the character of this Iranian regime.
For that reason, I would suggest a different goal: to mobilize our
friends and allies and like-minded countries, both in the public sphere
and the private sector, to challenge the legitimacy of this Iranian
regime and to support Iran's people in changing the character of their
government--peacefully, politically, on their own terms, and in their
own ways.
Of course, the United States should never provide its support where
it is unrequested and unwanted, but when young Iranian demonstrators
write their banners of protest in English, when they chant ``Obama,
Obama, are you with us or are you with them?'' that is a pretty good
indication that we can do more, and should do more, to support their
just cause.
We need to stand up for the Iranian people. We need to make their
goals our goals, their interests our interests, their work our work. We
need a grand national undertaking to broadcast information freely into
Iran and to help Iranians access the tools to evade their government's
censorship of the Internet. We need to name and shame, pressure and
even penalize any company that sells Iran's government the tools it
uses to oppress its people and block their access to information. We
need to let the political prisoners in Iran's gruesome gulags know they
are not alone, that their names and their cases are known to us and
that we will hold their torturers and tormenters accountable for their
crimes.
Finally, we need the administration to use the new authorities this
bill creates to impose crippling sanctions on Iranian human rights
abusers--to go after their assets, their ability to travel, and their
access to the international financial system.
If there were ever any doubt, the birth of the Green Movement over
the past year should convince us that Iran will have a democratic
future. That future may be delayed for a while, but it will not be
denied. Now is the time for the United States to position ourselves
squarely on the right side of Iranian history. The Green Movement lives
on. Its struggle endures, and I am confident that eventually--maybe not
tomorrow or next year or even the year after that--eventually Iranians
will achieve the democratic changes they seek for their country. The
Iranian regime may appear intimidating now, but it is rotting inside.
It has only brute force and fear to sustain it, and Iranians won't be
afraid forever.
I am pleased we have finally finished this important piece of
legislation. I am pleased it contains tough, targeted human rights
sanctions. I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to pass this
bill.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senate has now turned its attention
to the conference report on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions
Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010.
It is a very significant piece of legislation, an excellent
conference report that holds some hope of being effective and as
important as anything. It is totally bipartisan which, as we know, does
not happen here every day. It speaks to the unity of Members of
Congress and the American people on the threat represented by the
nuclear weapons development program of Iran.
More than a year ago, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, Senator Evan Bayh,
and I joined to introduce the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
Over the course of last year, more than three-quarters of the Members
of the Senate decided to cosponsor our bill. The core provisions of
that legislation have now been incorporated into this conference
report. To me that means that today, as a body, we have the opportunity
to reaffirm the overwhelming bipartisan support for Iran sanctions that
exists in Congress and, by doing so, send an unambiguous and united
message of determination and strength to the fanatical anti-American
regime in Tehran.
It was my privilege to serve on the conference committee that
produced the legislation that is before us. This bill, when enacted,
will be the most powerful and comprehensive package of sanctions
against the current regime in Iran that has ever been passed by
Congress. I am tremendously grateful to the leadership of the
conference cochairs, beginning with my senior colleague and dear friend
for so long, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and, on the House
side, a great legislator and leader, Congressman Howard Berman of
California. These two guided this critically important legislation to
the point we are at now, which is the verge of passage by both Houses
of Congress.
I also want to say how grateful I am to the majority and Republican
leaders of the Senate, Senators Reid and McConnell, for their steadfast
bipartisan leadership in ensuring we adopt this time-sensitive
legislation as soon as possible. Particularly, the goal was before July
4. I hope and believe the Senate will pass this legislation today, and
the House of Representatives will do the same shortly thereafter, maybe
even before. I also hope and believe President Obama will then sign the
bill into law.
Just as importantly, it is critical that the Obama administration
forcefully and proactively implement the provisions of this legislation
once it becomes law. The measures imposed by
[[Page S5400]]
this conference report, together with the sanctions adopted at the
United Nations and by like-minded nations, including particularly our
allies in Europe and around the world, offer our last best hope of
peacefully preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability
and thereby making our world much more dangerous than it is today. The
stakes for our security are great, and time is of the essence.
It is also critical that the Obama administration quickly makes use
of these new authorities provided by this legislation, particularly the
new authority to cut off foreign banks from the U.S. financial system,
if they continue doing business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps, its front companies, and designated Iranian banks. We are, in
this legislation, when implemented, giving foreign banks a choice. Do
they want to do business in the United States or do they want to
continue to do business with the fanatical regime in Iran? Our
government must investigate and then impose sanctions--and I will use
Secretary Clinton's words, ``crippling sanctions''--on those foreign
companies that prop up the Iranian regime by continuing to invest in
its energy sector or by exporting refined petroleum products to Iran.
This legislation gives the administration a strong new opportunity to
make clear also that America is on the side of the Iranian people, the
brave Iranian people who are struggling against the repressive regime
in Tehran. What the administration can do is use the new authority it
is given in this legislation to publicly identify those individuals in
the Iranian Government responsible for perpetrating human rights
violations in Iran since the June 12, 2009 election and holding those
people accountable for those abuses through targeted sanctions.
It is always important to remember--and we have seen this throughout
history--that a nation that represses the rights of its own people is
much more likely to be a nation that will be a danger to the people and
countries in its neighborhood and, with modern weapons,
intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, ultimately, the
people of the entire world.
I am pleased that this provision on human rights in Iran is in this
sanctions legislation, because I believe history has shown that
America's foreign policy is always at its best and most effective when
we are true to the fundamental human values that defined our Nation at
its birth and at our best ever since--the self-evident truth that all
people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with those equal
rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The people of
Iran are denied those rights by their own government. We are saying in
this legislation that that ought to be also, as well as the support of
their nuclear weapons program, a sanctionable offense.
I hope and pray the combined sanctions--U.N., EU, and now U.S.--will
change the mindset, the calculations of the Iranian regime. But we must
also recognize that every day that passes brings Iran closer to the
point of nuclear no return and greatly increases the danger and
insecurity throughout the Middle East and throughout the world. With
every day that passes, the Iranians enrich more uranium and their
stockpile of fissile material grows. Ultimately, we must do whatever is
necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
Almost everybody--really everybody I have heard speak on this
subject--regardless of party or position in the American Government,
makes that statement. It is unacceptable to the United States and the
world for Iran--this fanatical state, this rogue state--to acquire
nuclear weapons capability, and we must do whatever is necessary to
prevent this from happening--through peaceful and diplomatic means, if
we possibly can; through military force, if we absolutely must.
Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power. That is the
bottom line. That is precisely why I am so grateful and proud and
hopeful, as we take up and--I am confident--adopt this conference
report and this legislation today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the conference report before us today
attempts to deal with one of the most important and difficult national
security challenges we face: the Islamic Republic of Iran--a country
whose leaders disregard international norms, abuse the rights of their
own people, support terrorist groups, and threaten regional and global
stability.
Iran's continued refusal to be open and transparent about its nuclear
program jeopardizes the security of its neighbors and other countries
in the Middle East. There is a strong, bipartisan determination in this
Congress to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. President Obama
has focused considerable effort towards that goal. He has said ``the
long-term consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable'' and
that he doesn't ``take any options off the table with respect to
Iran.'' I support that view, and if Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, all
options, including military options, should be on the table.
The United States and the international community remain committed to
trying to solve these especially difficult problems peacefully. The
administration has sought through a variety of means to engage the
government of Iran and make clear the benefits to their nation and its
people if Iran complies with international norms. Through six U.N.
Security Council resolutions, the latest passed just this month, along
with numerous U.S. laws and executive orders, the United States has
sought, unilaterally and with our international partners, to persuade
Iran to abide by its international obligations. The goal of all these
actions has been to make Iran understand in practical terms the
consequences of its actions.
So far, Iran has refused to listen. That is why the conference report
we consider today is so important. If we are to resolve our differences
with Iran, hopefully without resorting to military action, we must
exhaust every opportunity to make clear, without any room for doubt,
the price Iran will pay for its continued violations of U.N.
resolutions.
The measure before us will sanction Iran for its willful misbehavior,
and it will penalize multinational firms that support Iran. More
specifically, it will sanction firms that sell Iran refined petroleum
or refining products, or goods, services or information that help it
develop its energy sector; ban U.S. banks from transacting with foreign
financial institutions that do business with Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, an organization that combines a key
component of Iran's military establishment with an extensive business
empire that represses Iran's citizens; broaden sanctions available
under the Iran Sanctions Act by adding to the menu of available
sanctions a ban on access to foreign exchange in the United States, a
ban on access to the U.S. financial sector and a ban on U.S. property
transactions; ban companies that assist Iran in blocking the free flow
of information or restricting its citizens' freedom of speech from
contracting with the U.S. Government, and require that companies
bidding on U.S. Government contracts certify that they and their
subsidiaries do not engage in sanctionable conduct; and strengthen the
U.S. trade embargo against Iran by putting into law longstanding
executive orders and limiting the goods exempted from the embargo.
While passage of this conference report--just like the U.N. Security
Council's passage of Resolution 1929 on Iran--is important, it is
critical that this law be implemented vigorously. It also will be
critical that the U.N. panel created by Security Council Resolution
1929 is active in its efforts to identify non-compliance of any U.N.
member states. Iran's continued unwillingness to disclose fully and
completely information about its nuclear program surely means that Iran
is either pursuing a nuclear weapon or preserving options to develop a
nuclear weapon. It is only from full implementation of this law and
pressure from the international community that Iran may be dissuaded
from this course.
The measures contained in this conference report would exact a real
price from Iran for its continuing threats to international peace and
security. Only by forcing Iran to pay such a price, and by penalizing
the abettors of Iran's actions in violation of U.N. resolutions, can we
bring Iran into compliance with its responsibilities under
international law and human rights standards.
[[Page S5401]]
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, Congress takes an important and
forceful step to address one of our most serious national security
challenges to America and our allies. A nuclear armed Iran would pose
an intolerable threat to our ally Israel, risk igniting an arms race in
what is already one of the world's most dangerous regions, and
undermine our global effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.
These steps to increase pressure are necessary because Iran continues
to defy the international community, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the U.N. Security Council. Iran's publicly disclosed stocks
at its Natanz enrichment facility now include more than 2,400 kilograms
of reactor-grade low enriched uranium. It is especially troubling that
Iran has recently begun enriching small quantities of uranium to a
concentration of around 20 percent, crossing yet another nuclear
threshold.
That is why, as part of a comprehensive and international effort to
persuade Iran to alter its current dangerous course, we in Congress
have worked together to pass tough new sanctions that will increase the
cost that Iran must pay for its continued defiance. In particular, this
legislation targets businesses involved in refined petroleum sales to
Iran, support for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Iran's nuclear
program. It imposes strong penalties on those in the Iranian government
who have abused the rights of their own people. It tightens the
enforcement of those sanctions already on the books. And it takes
important steps to ensure that companies receiving U.S. Government
contracts are not also doing business that enables, directly or
indirectly, Iran's nuclear program.
This cannot be an American effort alone and, thankfully, it isn't.
Our own efforts are now joined by U.N. Security Council Resolution
1929, as well as a range of follow-on efforts from European and other
allies. It is very important that we work to ensure that all of these
efforts are coordinated into a comprehensive strategy--and I am
confident that we have done so.
As we implement these new sanctions, expanding and preserving a
muscular international effort must remain a priority. The joint
explanatory statement accompanying the act suggests that, before
exercising the 4(c)(B) waiver, a determination of sanctionability must
be made. We understand that some may believe that the closely
cooperating waiver may be available without a determination having been
made. While different from the views in the joint explanatory
statement, we accept that this may be a fair reading of the obligations
under section 4(c)(B).
In the face of a serious threat, Congress has put aside bipartisan
divisions to act decisively. Even as we negotiated the details, we were
united by a common goal: to bring maximum leverage to bear on Iran to
change its behavior and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.
It is important to note that the President's willingness to explore a
diplomatic solution is a crucial reason why today it is Iran--not those
who seek to pressure Iran--who is isolated. Recent experience suggests
that neither sanctions nor engagement alone will convince Iran to
abandon its nuclear program. Only by combining both pressure and
diplomacy into a comprehensive and coordinated strategy will we have a
chance at altering Iran's behavior.
Finally, we do not seek to punish the people of Iran, but to persuade
the Iranian regime to do what is in their best interests and the
world's. These sanctions bring us one step closer to peacefully
resolving this grave threat.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference agreement on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.
Through both its actions and statements, the government of Iran has
proved itself to be a destabilizing and dangerous regime in an already
volatile region. The Iranian government's ongoing uranium enrichment
program, its deplorable human rights record, and its material support
of terrorist organizations dictate that we confront the threat it poses
to the world.
Two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council voted to approve a
fourth round of sanctions against Iran, and I commend President Obama
and his Administration for working with our partners at the U.N. to
send a powerful message about the willingness of the global community
to stand firmly in the face of Iranian aggression. However, the specter
of an Iran which has the fissile materials necessary to fuel a nuclear
weapon is too great a threat to leave entirely to multilateral
institutions. The United States and other concerned nations must
buttress the U.N. Security Council's actions individually to ensure
maximum pressure on the Iranian government.
That is why I am proud to vote today in support of the conference
agreement on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act. The bill before us would impose new economic penalties
against foreign companies that sell Iran goods and services that assist
it in developing its energy sector, and it would give the President the
tools to hold accountable those entities linked to Iran's brutal
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its illicit nuclear program, or its
support for terrorism.
By broadening the categories of transactions that trigger sanctions
and increasing the number of sanctions available to the President, this
legislation will bolster our diplomatic efforts by targeting the
Iranian regime at its weakest point: its economy, which is still highly
dependent on its petroleum sector.
Lastly, while this legislation represents a vital step forward in our
efforts to constrain the Iranian government's hostile policies, it is
absolutely crucial that this Congress work closely with the
administration to make certain these new tools are implemented and
applied effectively to achieve our objectives. Many of our global
partners maintain trade and investment ties with the Iranian regime,
and I implore the President and the Secretary of State to utilize this
month's growing momentum to ensure the global community is speaking
with one voice when it comes to preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran.
I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate in passing the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, and I
am hopeful this will send a compelling message to the rest of the world
as the global community works together to halt Iran's uranium
enrichment program.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of
the conference report to accompany the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act. I want to thank my colleagues,
Chairman Dodd, and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman and
Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for working cooperatively to
complete work on this conference report.
There is general agreement that the existing Iran Sanctions Act has
not worked either in practice or in its intent to stop Iran's nuclear
program or its support of terror. Iran, today, is a more dangerous
rogue state than ever before.
Though not a silver bullet, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act is undoubtedly one of the toughest
sanctions measures that Congress has produced and promises to be more
effective than current law.
The act continues to prohibit investments of $20 million in Iran's
energy sector, but now we have closed an earlier investment loophole
that allowed for sales of petroleum-related goods, services, and
technology to Iran.
The act also broadens the categories of transactions that trigger
sanctions to include sales to Iran of refined petroleum products and
prohibits any assistance to Iran to either increase or maintain its
domestic refining capacity.
In addition to the existing menu of six sanctions, we have
established three new sanctions on foreign exchange, access to the U.S.
banking system, and against property transactions. Under current law,
the President must choose two from a menu of six sanctions. He now must
impose at least three of the nine sanctions.
Despite dozens of credible reports of investment violations over
successive administrations, there has been but one Presidential
determination of a violation made 12 years ago. In that particular
instance, the President waived the imposition of sanctions.
[[Page S5402]]
This act will put an end to that practice. The sanctions regime will
now require the President to investigate a report of sanctionable
activity and make a determination whether a violation has occurred.
That determination must be reported to Congress and if a violation has
occurred, the President must impose sanctions or give the specific
reasons why a waiver of the sanctions is necessary. Prior law merely
authorized a President to investigate. It did not require a President
to investigate or make a determination if he chose to investigate.
A brand new mandatory financial sanction imposes severe restrictions
on foreign banks doing business with Iranian banks or the IRGC--Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps--and its affiliates, which are increasingly
seen to command vital sectors of the Iranian economy.
The act also establishes a legal framework for States and local
governments and a safe harbor for fund managers to divest their
portfolios of foreign companies involved in Iran's energy sector. We
have also created a system to address black market diversion of
sensitive technologies to Iran through other countries.
In order to accommodate the President's constitutional authorities in
the conduct of foreign affairs, we have had to preserve the prior
construct of waivers and exceptions to these sanctions throughout the
act. We have tried, however, to give the President as narrow an opening
as possible for diplomatic delays. Even though the window for delay
remains slightly open, this legislation is a vast improvement over
prior law, and ensures that the President must make a determination to
impose sanctions or provide Congress with a timely and written
rationale for any delays or waivers.
During the conference process, the administration insisted that we
include a so-called closely cooperating countries exemption. Such an
exemption would spare a country and its firms from any public risk to
reputation and imposition of sanctions because an exemption, as opposed
to a waiver, allows the country in question to avoid the specter of an
investigation altogether.
Instead, an already existing waiver for countries that cooperate with
the United States in multilateral efforts to prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons technology was modified to give a country and
its firms, on a case-by-case basis, more time to cure their behavior.
This waiver for cooperation can only be used, however, after the
President first initiates an investigation, makes his determination
whether sanctionable activity exists, and then certifies to Congress
who would get the waiver. He must then explain exactly what actions
that particular government is taking to cooperate with multilateral
efforts and why the waiver is ``vital to the national security
interests of the United States.''
Once enacted, this law will allow the Treasury Department to put key
companies and countries on notice that the clock is running,
investigations are to begin immediately, and there is little room to
avoid determinations of potential violations. In other words, there is
no place left to hide.
Once again, nothing that we have done in this conference report will
curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. But, targeting Iran's oil and gas
sectors will certainly raise the stakes for Iran's leaders, perhaps
enough for them to consider confining their nuclear ambitions to
peaceful uses.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the conference report on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
This conference report expands sanctions authorized by the Iranian
Sanctions Act of 1996 to foreign companies who sell Iran refined
petroleum, support Iran's domestic refining capacity or sell Iran
goods, services, or know-how that assist it in developing its energy
sector; bans U.S. banks from engaging in financial transactions with
foreign banks who do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps or facilitate Iran's nuclear program and its support for
terrorism; establishes three new sanctions the President may impose on
violators of the Iranian Sanctions Act and requires the President to
impose at least three of nine possible sanctions authorized by that
act; bans U.S. government procurement contracts to companies that
export technology to Iran that inhibits the free flow of information;
and authorizes States and local governments to divest from companies
involved in Iran's energy sector.
The sanctions will terminate when the President certifies to Congress
that Iran is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism and has ceased
efforts to acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and
ballistic missiles and technology.
Let me be clear: I am deeply concerned about Iran's uranium
enrichment program and its refusal to abide by United Nations Security
Council resolutions calling on Tehran to cease its activities and, once
and for all, come clean about its nuclear program.
A nuclear Iran would represent a serious threat to the security of
the United States, Israel, and the international community.
The question is, What is the best way to convince Iran to abandon its
uranium enrichment program?
During the previous administration, the United States sat on the
sidelines and refused to talk to Iran.
We let the United Kingdom, France, and Germany do the hard work of
negotiating with Tehran as we remained silent.
And it got us nowhere. Iran's uranium enrichment program accelerated
and became more advanced.
We had to try a different approach.
I strongly supported the Obama administration's decision to break
with this past and pursue a robust, diplomatic initiative with Iran.
I am disappointed we have not made more progress. Indeed, Iran has
taken steps in the wrong direction.
A new, secret enrichment facility at Qom was uncovered.
Iran refused to accept a U.S.-Russian proposal to ship its low
enriched uranium to Russia and France for further processing for
medical isotopes.
And it continues to drag its feet on revealing to the International
Atomic Energy Agency the full extent of its nuclear program.
But the commitment this administration made to diplomacy gave us the
leverage we needed to secure the backing for a fourth round of
sanctions at the United Nations Security Council.
There was no question that China and Russia were skeptical about
additional sanctions.
Securing their support and maintaining the support of our allies
required principled, sustained, and deft diplomacy and I congratulate
the administration for its success.
Yet I recognize that the U.N. resolution could have been stronger and
that unilateral action, such as the sanctions included in this
legislation, will complement the U.N. efforts.
And that is why I support passage of this legislation.
Nevertheless, I believe it is critical for the United States to
continue to pursue the diplomacy track.
We must develop a ``Plan B'' to deal with the possibility that Iran's
nuclear ambitions progress.
Iran has been able to withstand previous sanctions initiatives and
there is no guarantee that this latest round will be more effective.
We know that China and Russia are unlikely to support tougher
measures at this time.
Military action is not a ``Plan B''. A strike would likely only
delay, not destroy, Iran's nuclear program and lead to more violence
and instability in the region.
In my view, we must use the passage of the latest U.N. Security
Council resolution and passage of this legislation as an opportunity to
reach out to Tehran again on a fresh diplomatic initiative, not just on
the nuclear program but on other issues where we can find some level of
common ground and avenues of cooperation.
Two months ago I had lunch with Iran's ambassador to the United
Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, and I was struck by the lack of trust and
understanding between our two countries.
If we can find ways to build that trust, we may be able to secure
progress on the most intractable issues.
As chair of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I strongly
suggest that cooperation on counternarcotics efforts is a good place to
start.
For example, Iran has suffered greatly from the influx of Afghan
opium:
[[Page S5403]]
based on U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime annual assessments,
approximately 140 tons of Afghan heroin enter Iran each year from
Afghanistan--105 tons--and from Pakistan--35 tons; the estimated heroin
user population in Iran is around 400,000 individuals, consuming, at a
rate of about 35 grams per year, almost 14 tons of heroin annually;
drug trafficking is considered such a major security threat that the
government has spent over US$600 million to dig ditches, build barriers
and install barbed wire to stop well-armed drug convoys from entering
the country; and more than 3,500 Iranian border guards have been killed
in the past three decades by drug traffickers.
Given that the Iranian drug use epidemic is providing funding for the
insurgency in Afghanistan, it seems logical to begin a cooperative
dialogue with Iran on this area of mutual concern to build trust
between both sides and promote progress on other matters, particularly
Iran's nuclear program.
I am hopeful that the passage of this legislation will not cease
efforts on a diplomatic solution, but open the door to finding new ways
to build trust and understanding between Iran and the international
community.
There is no guarantee that we will be successful in convincing Iran
to suspend its uranium enrichment program but we have to explore every
possible avenue.
I firmly believe that we can still find a solution and work out our
differences.
I am hopeful that this legislation will bring us closer to that goal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this
conference report for robust sanctions against Iran. I was proud to
serve with, among others of my colleagues, Senator Dodd, on the
conference committee. I want to recognize the hard work he has done to
create a strong sanctions bill.
These sanctions, I believe, will deter the threat Iran poses to U.S.
national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program. A
country that has huge oil reserves clearly does not need nuclear power
for nuclear energy. Therefore, the difference between its stated goals
and its actions creates, I believe, a threat to the national security
of the United States.
I have been eager for today's vote. During the process of the
conference committee, I have advocated for the strongest sanctions
possible.
I believe deeply that we must apply maximum pressure to the Iranian
regime, that it is a growing threat to the region, the world, and a
threat to its own people. In my view, tightening the screws on the
Iranian regime genuinely advances the cause of stability and peace in
the Middle East as well as our own national security. These sanctions
are an essential means to that end.
I have seen what the United Nations has done, and I am glad we got
some multilateral response. But, in my view, they are not strong
enough. That is why I think it is essential that we continue to lead
many of our allies, who will be more robust in their actions if we pass
this legislation today.
In my view, it is essential that we freeze the assets of Iranian
officials who have supported terrorism--with this legislation we will
do that--that we impose sanctions against companies that engage in oil-
related business with the Iranian regime--and with this legislation we
will do that--that we monitor Iran's usage of energy-related resources
other than refined petroleum, especially ethanol, to ensure Iran is not
allowed to replace its current petroleum needs with ethanol which
would, in essence, severely undercut the intent behind these sanctions.
So I am glad we have pushed for language that will follow that.
We need the ban on trade with Iran to be strong, to be significant,
and to be airtight. We need to press the Iranian Government to respect
its citizens' human rights and freedoms, to identify Iranian officials
responsible for violating those rights and impose financial penalties
and travel restrictions on these human rights abusers.
We need to prohibit the U.S. Government from contracting with those
companies that export communication-jamming or monitoring technology to
Iran. We simply cannot allow the regime to restrict communications
between Iranians and between Iran and the outside world as happened
during the postelection protests.
We clearly see there is a desire among the average Iranians to be
able to change the nature of their lives. We saw those willing to risk
their freedom, willing to risk their lives. We cannot have the U.S.
Government contracting with those companies that export communication-
jamming or monitoring technology to Iran that in essence allows the
regime to do exactly that.
We need to ban trade with Iran with exceptions for the export of
food, medicines, humanitarian aid, and the exchange of informational
materials.
There is something I included in the Senate bill before it went to
conference, and I am glad to see it is largely still in the legislation
we will vote on today. We needed targeted sanctions against the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, its supporters and affiliates, and any
foreign governments that provide the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
with support.
I am pleased to see this report will ban U.S. banks from engaging in
financial transactions with foreign banks that do business with the
Revolutionary Guard or facilitate Iran's illicit nuclear program. The
Revolutionary Guard has now spread like a cancer throughout Iranian
society, and it is involved in almost everything in Iran. We need to
specifically target the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,
and this legislation does that.
The robust sanctions against the Iranian regime that I will vote for
today, and that I helped fashion, are a positive and necessary step to
increase pressure on Iran so the regime fully understands the world
will not only not tolerate its deceit and deception any longer, but it
cannot tolerate its march to nuclear power and ultimately nuclear
weapons. I will vote for these sanctions because they are robust,
because they are in our national security interests and in the
interests of the region and the world.
I hope my colleagues, on a strong bipartisan basis, will join in
casting similar votes because when we do, we send a message, No. 1, to
the administration that there is, I hope, near unanimous support for
the type of sanctions we are advocating that strengthens the hand of
the President as he deals with other countries in the world, as he
deals in the international forum, and it sends a clear message to
Ahmadinejad that the United States is serious about stopping its march
to nuclear weaponry.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to share my concerns as
well about Iran and to express my support for tough sanctions against
Iran. Iran poses a threat to the United States as well as to the
international community. It continues to support terrorist
organizations around the world, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has
also called for the destruction of the democratic State of Israel.
These actions illustrate Iran's destructive intentions.
Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities. While Iran claims its
nuclear programs are intended for civilian use only, this is very
difficult to believe. In fact, reports from the International Atomic
Energy Agency of February of 2008 and May of 2010 question Iran's claim
of pursuing nuclear capabilities for purely peaceful purposes. Nuclear
capabilities and proper management of these capabilities is a serious
responsibility. Iran has neither earned the right nor the trust for
this nuclear responsibility.
Iran continues to develop its nuclear programs without giving the
International Atomic Energy Agency sufficient access, access to and
information regarding its nuclear program. I understand the need for
energy and the complexities surrounding the dual use nature of nuclear
technology. However, Iran placed itself under obligations to the
international community and agreed to comply with international
safeguards and inspections.
Iran has not fulfilled its commitments. It has not fulfilled its
commitment to be transparent with the International Atomic Energy
Agency or to maintain obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
Iran does not want to join the international community efforts on
curbing
[[Page S5404]]
the development of nuclear weapons. I believe without serious
consequences for the proliferation activities there is little if any
incentive for Iran or any other country considering nuclear weapon-
related activities to refrain from doing so. So I believe it is
imperative that the United States work to increase comprehensive
economic sanctions on Iran.
The United States and the international community continue to
threaten Iran with more sanctions. On June 9, the U.N. Security Council
adopted resolution 1929. This represents the fourth round of sanctions
against Iran from the international community. It is past time that
this Congress act, act to put teeth into our threats of additional
sanctions. I believe it is time today to implement economic sanctions
to the full extent possible.
Iran's leaders must be forced to realize that while they may be able
to survive political isolation, they cannot ignore the adverse
consequences to their ability to function in a global economy.
I believe the status quo is not working in our dealings with Iran. I
do not believe Iran is a country that we can quietly watch and hope
that nothing serious is happening behind closed doors. Terrorism does
not allow anyone to do so. It is time to act, and I call upon this
Congress to support economic sanctions against Iran.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum
call be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think I have 10 minutes. Is that right?
Would the Chair advise me when 10 minutes expires?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. GRAHAM. I take the floor today in support of the conference
report that has been agreed to by the conferees regarding Iran
sanctions. I wish to compliment Senators Dodd, Shelby, Lugar, Kerry,
Lieberman and others who were involved in negotiating this compromise.
The Iranian sanctions bill will give the President tools he does not
have today that will allow us as a nation to be more forceful when it
comes to trying to alter Iranian behavior. I think most people in this
body see the Iranian regime up to no good, that the Iranian regime has
been oppressing its own people, and they present a great threat in
terms of the region and the world at large. They are one of the
greatest sponsors of terrorism of any nation in the world. This
sanctions legislation, which is bipartisan, will allow the President
more tools. It will prevent access to foreign exchange in the United
States. It will prevent access to our banking system by people who do
business with Iran in unhealthy ways, and it will prevent the purchase
of property in the United States in case the Iranians are looking for a
place to put their money. We are going to take our banks and our real
estate off the table so they cannot use us to profit from their brutal
behavior.
It gives the ability to the President to waive these sanctions when
it comes to countries that are cooperating with us. The whole goal of
this legislation is to empower the administration and our Nation with
tools that would create a downside for the Iranian Government to
continue to try to develop a nuclear weapon and support terrorist
organizations.
I am hopeful this will have some deterrent effect. The United Nations
is beginning to act. The European Union, Russia, and China seem to be
more helpful to the Obama administration. Anything we can do to help,
we will. The idea of trying to get Iran to change its behavior through
internal cooperation is a worthy idea to pursue. I hope it works.
Senator Schumer and I offered legislation not long ago that would
prohibit companies that do business with the Iranian regime in the area
empowering the regime in terms of technology to interfere with the
Internet and stop the people of Iran from communicating with each
other. That made it into the bill. I want to thank the conferees. What
Senator Schumer and I came up with months ago, right after the massacre
of the students by the Iranian regime, one of the things that led to
this people's revolt in Iran, was the ability to Tweeter and talk to
each other, use the Internet. The Iranian regime has been trying to
suppress the ability of the Iranian people to talk to each other, and
we created legislation that told the international community: Any
company that empowers this regime to suppress the free flow of
information among the Iranian people would lose business when it came
to American business. That made it in the bill. I hope that will help.
The Iranian people have had a very difficult time. The election, as
seen by the Iranian people and the world at large, of Ahmadinejad has
been, quite frankly, a fraud and a joke. About a year ago, a little
over a year ago, a young lady captured international attention and the
hearts and minds of the world--I think her name was Neda--who was
killed in the streets of Tehran. She was a beautiful young girl who had
taken to the streets to try to defy this regime's oppressive behavior.
So as we look at the world here in the middle of June regarding Iran,
there is a lot of hope I have that the Iranian people have turned the
corner in terms of what they want for their future. We need to be their
partner in a constructive way. It is one thing to empower the people,
it is another thing to empower the regime that oppresses the people.
Some of the sanctions we are proposing would make life difficult for
the every-day Iranian, but I think they would welcome that, if it would
give them the ability to weaken the regime they no longer tolerate or
support.
The sanctions route with Russia and China has potential. If the world
will speak with one voice and support President Obama in terms of
making the consequences that the Iranian nuclear program is a support
of terrorism unacceptable economically, including refined petroleum
products, it would be good for the world at large.
Our friends in Israel are very concerned, as they should be, about
the way Iran is moving toward supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and other
organizations that are bent on the destruction of Israel. A nuclear
weapon in the hands of this regime would be a nightmare for the world
at large, but it would be horrible for the State of Israel. It is my
hope we can avoid that. I hope sanctions work. However, the world must
understand that sanctions is a tool to change behavior. It is worthy of
our time to try to change behavior with these sanctions.
What is unacceptable is to practice a policy of containment, to
accept a nuclear-armed Iran and hope that we contain it. To me that is
a folly. That is a scenario that would lead to the unthinkable. If Iran
ever does acquire a nuclear weapon, you are not going to contain it.
You are going to have a Mideast where other people want a nuclear
weapon to hedge their bets against Iran. You will have a world where a
regime has a nuclear weapon and could be no better friend of the
terrorists than Iran. I think President Clinton, when I was in Israel
with him, spoke well of this.
He talked about his biggest fear if Iran got a nuclear weapon. It
would not be so much an attack against Israel or our allies as would be
it falling into the hands of a terrorist organization that would use it
against Israel or our allies. I think President Clinton is correct in
being worried about that.
So this is a good day. We cannot agree on much here in Congress. We
are in a pretty partisan environment right now. I hope that will pass
one day. But when it comes to Iranian sanctions, we
[[Page S5405]]
came together as a body. We are giving tools to the administration to
hopefully change the behavior of this regime. I am proud of our
colleagues who negotiated this deal with the House. I am hopeful it
will help.
I will conclude with one final thought: Whatever tools it takes to
change the behavior of the Iranian Government we need to keep on the
table, and the best tool is a peaceful tool. But if military force is
ever required to change Iranian behavior, I hope that will be at least
considered as the last option, not the first option. I hope we never go
down that road. But it may be a road you have to explore if all this
fails.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RISCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
calls be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Iran sanctions
conference report which I assume we will be approving in a matter of a
few minutes. This is a very important event in the Congress and could
play a very significant role in the history of our country. I support
the conference report. It is designated as H.R. 2194. I reiterate, I
believe it is crucial that the Senate approve the conference report and
that the President sign it into law as soon as possible. I fully
predict both of those things will occur.
Let me mention three of the most important provisions of the bill so
we know what it does. It deals with sanctions against Iran. There are
two reasons: No. 1, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
capability, and No. 2, to support the aspirations of the people of Iran
for a more representative government.
What the bill does first is to expand the scope of existing sanctions
against companies that invest in Iran's energy sector, and it includes
measures to punish firms that export gasoline to Iran. We would think a
country such as Iran would have plenty of gasoline, but they do not
have refinery capacity to create the finished product which their
people must use. So something on the order of at least 40 percent of
their gasoline has to be imported. Because of this heavy dependence on
imported gasoline, it is vulnerable to outside pressure, and that is
why this particular sanction is an important step. By putting a squeeze
on Iran's gas supplies and dissuading energy firms from investing in
the country, we can hopefully force the Iranian regime to make
difficult decisions about its finances, thereby further increasing its
unpopularity.
Second, the bill limits nuclear cooperation agreements between the
United States and countries which sell illicit materials to Iran. It
also limits licenses under any such current agreements. A country that
allows its citizens or companies to provide equipment or technologies
or materials to Iran that make a material contribution to its nuclear
capabilities should not benefit from nuclear cooperation with the
United States, and we make it clear that won't be permitted under this
provision.
The third thing the bill does is it includes the so-called McCain
language that requires the President to compile a list of Iranian
officials, specific people who have brutalized the Iranian people, and
to impose sanctions against those particular individuals identified as
human rights violators. The administration can use the new authority it
is given in this legislation to publicly identify those people in the
Iranian Government who are actually responsible for perpetrating human
rights violations in Iran since the fraudulent elections in June of
2009. It can hold these people accountable through these targeted
sanctions. The measure also requires that such persons be subject to
restrictions on financial and property transactions. It also makes such
persons ineligible for U.S. visas.
We can see there is a broad array of targeted kinds of sanctions
that, combined, could have a significant impact on our policy with
Iran.
While I am pleased that the conferees concluded their work and the
legislation is here on the floor, I do wish to note in passing that it
is long overdue. At the request of the administration, Congress has
repeatedly delayed action on bilateral sanctions legislation. Because
sanctions take time to work, we have given up some time here.
In some respects, we have wasted too much time waiting for the United
Nations to finally act, as it eventually did earlier this month. The
U.N. Security Council resolution, however, will do very little to slow
down or stop Iran's nuclear weapons program or even prevent its support
for terrorism around the world. Its provisions--the bulk of them--are
voluntary. They don't deal with Iran's energy sector. This is primarily
because of the demand of the Chinese Government. It also excludes
Russia's cooperation with Iran on the Bushehr powerplant as well as the
sale by Russia of the S-300 missile system to Iran, a very modern and
effective anti-aircraft system which could certainly play a role in
defending Iran against an attack on its nuclear facilities.
In addition, the divided vote of the Security Council displays to
Iran that the world is not united in dealing with its illicit conduct.
In fact, I argue that, in a way, we are in a worse position than we
were 18 months ago when the President started his diplomacy in dealing
with Iran. Up to then, all of the resolutions that had been passed
against Iran had been unanimous. This one was not unanimous. In some
respects, we have lost ground.
It is clear that the President's effort to get the Iranian regime to
negotiate for that 18-month period did not achieve anything except
allow the Iranians more time to develop their weaponry. The U.S.
sanctions resolution is not going to be very effective in going any
further than that, in my view, nor will the European Union add much to
the U.N. resolution, although they will add something.
Before I conclude, let me ponder for a second a question others have
asked, which is, How important is it that we do everything we can to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? What would happen if it
did acquire a nuclear weapon? What would be the big deal?
Imagine a world in which Iran does have a nuclear weapon. Lay aside
the fact that we have a picture of the Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad,
with a nuclear weapon and just imagine what he would do with that.
Would it really be possible to contain a nuclear Iran using
conventional deterrence mechanisms?
Some would say: We lived with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union for four
decades. It worked with Moscow; why would it not work with Tehran? To
some extent, it depends on the definition of ``work.'' Will it work?
Remember that while the Soviets never actually used their nuclear
weapons, the fact that they possessed the weapons made a big difference
in political events over those 40 years. It allowed them to subjugate
Eastern Europe, and we had no way of responding. Had we tried to
respond, there was the nuclear threat against us. It allowed them to
foment a Communist revolution around the world and to sponsor a range
of international terrorist groups during this period of time. When the
Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 in order to crush a democratic
uprising, they knew the risk of a nuclear exchange would prevent the
United States from responding with military force. I remember at that
time the disappointment of the Hungarians who thought the United States
had led them to think we would be supportive. In effect, there was
nothing we could do that wouldn't potentially provoke a nuclear attack
by Russia, and nobody wanted that. In other words, Moscow's nuclear
arsenal served as the ultimate deterrent. It allowed the Kremlin to
[[Page S5406]]
undermine U.S. interests across the globe without fear of an American
reprisal. The Soviets didn't need to use their nuclear weapons in order
to achieve results; the mere fact that it had nuclear weapons
dramatically increased both its strategic power and its leverage over
foreign policy and, to some extent, over the United States.
The same would be true if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Even if the
mullahs never actually detonated a nuclear bomb, their acquisition of a
nuclear capability would forever change Iran's regional and global
influence, and it would certainly forever change the Middle East. If
Iran went nuclear, its neighbors--thinking particularly of Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and Turkey--might feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear
arsenals. Tehran could easily trigger a dangerous chain reaction of
nuclear proliferation. Once they had nuclear weapons, the Iranians
would be much more aggressive in supporting terrorist organizations
that are killing even American troops, for example, in Iraq. The
Iranians would also ramp up their support for Hezbollah and Hamas and
possibly provide them with nuclear materials. They would be emboldened
to conduct economic warfare against the West, for example, by
disrupting oil shipments traveling through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran
would also be more confident about expanding its footprint in Latin
America, where it has established a close working relationship with
Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Governments around the world would
lose faith in America's reliability as a strategic partner. U.S.
credibility would be irrevocably weakened.
Remember, this is not the worst-case scenario. We are assuming that a
self-preservation instinct would dissuade the Iranians from ever
launching nuclear weapons against our allies or even the United States.
But then again, is this really a safe assumption? Iranian leader
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed his desire to destroy the State of
Israel, and given his radical, millenarian religious views and the
viciously anti-Semitic ideology espoused by the Iranian theocracy, we
can't simply dismiss the idea that Iran would attack Israel with
nuclear weapons.
Because the United Nations took so long to act and because its
sanctions are relatively weak, there is also the possibility, as the
Jerusalem Post pointed out in an article entitled ``Too Little, Too
Very Late,'' that U.N. sanctions could lull the international community
into a false sense of security. That is where the action we take today
could really help.
Here is what the Post wrote:
Breaking and evading these sanctions--
Talking about the U.S. sanctions--
ought to be a breeze for Ahmadinejad. A full year after
Iran's deceptive elections, which spurred countrywide
demonstrations, he may be less popular but his position is
stable. After the regime brutally quashed his opposition, it
is very doubtful that stunted sanctions will destabilize his
hold on power. . . . [The U.N.] sanctions . . . are not the
antidote to the Iranian nuclear threat that Israel had hoped
for and that the free world so badly needs. In some ways,
they may even exacerbate Israel's predicament. They will lend
the appearance of an international mobilization to curb
Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but in actuality will
achieve nothing--the worst of all worlds.
That is why I think the United States separate sanctions authorized
by the legislation we will vote on shortly are so important to come in
behind the United Nations sanctions and what the European Union might
do to supplement those actions in a way that will truly be meaningful.
Finally, I want to note something that, frankly, is as important as
everything else I have said and should be seen as part and parcel to
our action in adopting this sanctions legislation. It has nothing to do
with nuclear weapons, but it has everything to do with human rights. We
need to make it very clear to the Iranian people that we care about
them, we care about their aspirations for more freedom, for more
representative government, and for the ability to take advantage of the
opportunities their country should be presenting for them.
We can help the people of Iran achieve those aspirations by putting
pressure on the people who prevent that from occurring, the regime in
Tehran, the mullah-led government. These sanctions can have an impact
on those mullahs and, in turn, help the Iranian people achieve their
goals.
We need to be lending moral and rhetorical support to the Iranian
activists. These are the people who poured into the streets last summer
in protest of a fraudulent election. Just as we championed the cause of
Soviet and Eastern European dissidents during the Cold War, I believe
we should promote the efforts of Iranian freedom fighters and, frankly,
shine a spotlight on the regime's brutal repression. That can be done
especially through the McCain provisions that are part of the Iran
sanctions legislation we are considering.
Had the United Nations imposed strong sanctions on Iran a long time
ago when it was first found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, I would be more optimistic about our chances of
success. Iran's economy would have been under severe strain for an
extended period, and the government would have had fewer resources to
fund its nuclear program and less power to repress its people.
As I said, there is still time, and because we are able to approve
this conference report today and send it to the President for his
signature, we are able to add to the sanctions that the rest of the
world is willing to impose in such a way as to not only have an
opportunity to dissuade the Iranian leaders from pursuing their nuclear
program but, as I said, just as importantly, to demonstrate to the
Iranian people we aim to support them in their quest for greater
freedom.
So I hope my colleagues will send a very strong message with a
unanimous vote for the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
and Divestment Act of 2009. I hope the President will sign this
legislation immediately and begin to implement its provisions.
Mr. President, there is a long list of folks to thank:
Representatives Berman and Harman and Cantor in the House of
Representatives are just some who come to mind; Senator Lieberman and
Senator Bayh, colleagues in the Senate; the leaders, Leader Reid and
Leader McConnell, who have worked to bring this report to us for a vote
today in an expedited way. I think this is a very good example of
cooperation both between the House and the Senate and between Democrats
and Republicans to accomplish something that is not just good for the
people of the United States of America but people around the world--in
the Middle East, and in particular the people of Iran.
So I urge my colleagues to unanimously support the conference report
when we have an opportunity to vote on it shortly.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report for the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
First, I would like to commend Senator Dodd for putting forth a
comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools they need
to put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program.
I believe when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military
option off the table. But I have long argued that economic sanctions
are the preferred and probably the most effective way to choke Iran's
nuclear ambitions.
The Obama administration initiated direct diplomatic negotiations
with Iran, but that government, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
stubbornly refused to suspend their nuclear program despite President
Obama's genuine attempts at diplomacy.
Iran's nuclear weapons program represents a severe threat to American
national interests because their acquisition of nuclear weapons could
lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East
and beyond, ending any hopes for a nuclear weapons-free world.
Make no mistake, a nuclear Iran would be destabilizing to its
neighbors, encourage terrorism against the United States and Israel,
and the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in the Middle East
would rise considerably.
[[Page S5407]]
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already threatened to ``wipe Israel
off the map,'' so we know for a fact that a nuclear Iran would pose a
potential threat to our closest ally in the region, the State of
Israel.
These tough new sanctions have such overwhelming support because
Members of the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, are united in
doing what is necessary to stop Iran's drive to obtain a nuclear
weapons capability.
It will also impose sanctions on financial institutions doing
business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or with certain
Iranian banks blacklisted by the Department of Treasury.
The bill sanctions companies that export gasoline to Iran. This is
one of the few pressure points where we can act unilaterally and have a
real effect. The world knows Iran does not currently have the refining
capacity to meet its domestic gasoline needs and is dependent on
imported gasoline. So now is the time to reduce Iran's energy supply if
it fails to suspend its nuclear enrichment program.
I am also glad we will be strengthening export controls to stop the
illegal export of sensitive technology to Iran. During the recent
Iranian elections, we witnessed the Iranian regime go so far as to
block the Internet and mobile phone communications of their own
citizens.
That is why Senator Lindsey Graham and I introduced the Reduce
Iranian Cyber Suppression Act, or RICA, a bipartisan bill that would
bar companies that export sensitive communications technology to Iran
from applying for or renewing procurement contracts with the U.S.
Government. I am pleased these provisions have been preserved in the
conference.
I also applaud the conferees for not carving out companies from
countries that are U.S. allies. There must be one standard when it
comes to punishing companies that continue to invest in Iran.
So, in conclusion, Chairman Dodd has done an excellent job crafting a
comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools it needs to
put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this plan, and I look forward to the President
signing this important legislation. It is a tremendous accomplishment
for Congress, and it is going to go a long way to address the real
security threat that Iran poses to the United States and our world.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010.
I wish to particularly thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee for
working to bring this conference report to the floor.
I have said many times before that we don't have a moment to waste
when it comes to Iran. We must focus like a laser beam on Iran's
dangerous refusal to cease uranium enrichment in defiance of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and multiple United Nations Security
Council resolutions, because we know that Iran could not only use any
weapons it acquires, but it could proliferate nuclear material and
technologies to terrorist groups and rogue regimes around the world. We
must act today. Iran is a threat to the security of the United States,
the Middle East, and the rest of the globe.
Let me list a few of the many important provisions of this bill.
First, it would specifically target companies involved in refined
petroleum sales to Iran and those who are supporting Iran's domestic
refining efforts. This is critical, because countless experts have told
us that the way to pressure Iran is to target its oil and gas sectors.
I have believed this for a long time, and I have been pushing for this
bill for a long time.
According to the Government Accountability Office:
In recent years, oil export revenues have accounted for 24
percent of Iran's gross domestic product and between 50 and
76 percent of the Iranian government's revenues.
So we need to go after their revenues, because they are being used to
push forward their nuclear program, which is so dangerous. We have to
take away those resources, and this sanctions bill is a very good way
to do that.
Second, this bill would also prohibit U.S. banks from engaging in
transactions with foreign financial institutions that continue to do
business with Iranian banks and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps. I think Chairman Dodd and Chairman Berman captured best what
this provision means:
Cease your activities or be denied critical access to
America's financial system.
Third, the bill would also place significant penalties on Iran's
human rights abusers. I don't think I have to explain why this is
essential. Like many of my colleagues, I have watched human rights
violations inside of Iran, including the brutal suppression of the
opposition ``Green Movement'' that has sought to have its voice heard.
Fourth, I am especially pleased that the bill includes a provision
requiring companies bidding on a U.S. Government procurement contract
to certify that they are not engaged in sanctionable conduct. This is
so important, because a recent GAO study found that the U.S. Government
awarded $880 million to seven companies between fiscal years 2005 and
2009 that were also doing business in Iran's energy sector. Taxpayer
dollars from hard-working Americans must never be used to purchase
goods or supplies from companies who are working to develop Iran's
energy sector or who are engaged in any behavior that is prohibited by
sanctions.
Finally, this bill codifies in law longstanding Executive orders that
prohibit American companies from doing business in Iran. American
firms, including through their subsidiaries, must never be allowed to
value a quick profit over the national security of America.
I know we are going to pass this conference report today, and I know
it will have strong support in the Senate. But what we must do next is
be vigilant in ensuring that the new sanctions created by this bill are
enforced to the fullest extent possible. I asked the administration if
they are ready to enforce this law should it pass, and they said
absolutely.
The situation is grave. We must send a clear and resounding message
to Iran that it will pay a very heavy price for its continued defiance
of international law and its reckless behavior which, again, threatens
the Middle East and threatens the entire world.
So I am looking forward to voting for this and making sure as a
member of the Foreign Relations Committee that this sanctions act is
enforced.
Thank you very much.
I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the world has watched as Iran has oppressed
its own people, violated United Nations resolutions, challenged
America, and threatened Israel.
The Senate is taking an important step forward today as we pass the
conference report that will impose tough new sanctions on Iran. We are
passing these sanctions because we believe we must stop Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon--a weapon that would surely threaten the
national security of the United States and Israel. Our goal is to
target Iran where it would hurt the regime the most. These new economic
sanctions are related to Iran's refined petroleum sector and
international financial institutions that do business with Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Iranian banks.
The Senate has worked hard to pass this legislation. I thank Senator
Dodd, who worked tirelessly with Senator Kerry and the other conferees
to get the final version of the bill completed. I also thank a man who
came to the House of Representatives with me years ago, Howard Berman,
chairman
[[Page S5408]]
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who led the effort on the other
side of the Capitol.
Once these sanctions become law, they will expand the multilateral
sanctions passed by the United Nations and the new sanctions the
European Union is discussing.
The Senate has a critical role to play by taking clear and decisive
action to get the Iranian regime to change its behavior, and we have
done that with passage of this conference report. I look forward to its
passing later today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Will my friend withhold for a brief minute?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
remarks of the Republican leader, the Senate vote on adoption of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum
Sanctions Act, with the previous order remaining in effect; provided
further that upon conclusion of the vote, the following Senators be
recognized to speak or engage in colloquies: Senators Cornyn and
Bingaman for a total of 10 minutes, Senator Dorgan for up to 15
minutes, and Senators Murray and Bond for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on the Iran
sanctions conference report, which we will be voting on shortly.
I am pleased with the bill before the Senate, as I have been urging
enactment of this legislation for some time. I brought it up with the
President on numerous occasions over the last 6 to 8 months. I
cosponsored it in the last Congress and in the current one.
Congress has been slow to act as the Iranian program to enrich
uranium has progressed.
Iran has also taken advantage of the delay to blunt the impact of
this measure.
Just today a headline in the Washington Post read that ``Iran is
prepared for fuel sanctions.''
But this legislation should be viewed as only a part of a broader,
comprehensive effort by the U.S. to harness the various means of
national power to ensure that Iran does not secure a nuclear weapon.
As President Obama has stated, Iran's ``development of nuclear
weapons would be unacceptable''.
We must work with our allies in the gulf to make clear to Iran that
the cost of developing a weapon exceed the prestige they think they
would gain from acquiring this capability.
First and foremost, the sanctions in this legislation need to be
implemented and implemented quickly, not waived.
The time for further delay is past.
The collective strength of the recent U.N. Security Council
resolution and this conference report must be combined to strike at
Iranian shadow companies and the regime's leaders.
The need for urgency should be obvious because the threat posed to
the U.S. and its allies by the revolutionary Iranian regime is grave.
Its president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. An Iranian
nuclear weapon threatens to set off an arms race in the Middle East,
and embolden the regime in its support of terrorist groups.
Passage of Iranian sanctions is an important first step, but only a
first step.
I agree with the President that the U.S. and our allies must make
clear to Iran that the development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
That is why I urge passage of this conference report and all other
necessary measures to deter the Iranian regime.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, please report the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2194)
to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United
States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran and by
expanding economic sanctions against Iran, having met, have
agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment, and the Senate agree to the same. Signed by all of
the conferees on the part of both Houses.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, after consultation with the chairman of
the House Budget Committee, and on behalf of both of us, I hereby
submit this Statement of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for the
conference report to H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. This statement has been
prepared pursuant to section 4 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, Public Law 111-139, and is being submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record prior to passage by the Senate of the conference
report to H.R. 2194.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2194:
2010-2015: $0.
2010-2020: $0.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2194 for the 5-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2194 for the 10-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: $0.
Also submitted for the Record as part of this statement is a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional
information on the budgetary effects of this Act. I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 2194, THE COMPREHENSIVE IRAN SANCTIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND DIVESTMENT ACT OF 2010, AS PROVIDED TO CBO ON JUNE 23, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: H.R. 2194 would ban certain imports from Iran and impose sanctions on certain entities that conduct business with Iran. The act would reduce
customs duties and impose civil penalties, but CBO estimates those effects would not be significant in any year.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
[[Page S5409]]
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Byrd
The conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
____________________