[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1811-S1812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN SANCTIONS ACT
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue I feel I have
spent a lot of time talking about in recent years but without much
effect on either of the last two administrations. This is the issue of
the Iran Sanctions Act. Congress has worked in a bipartisan way to
strengthen and expand the Iran Sanctions Act, but in spite of our
repeated efforts, the administration has not been willing to use the
tools the Congress has given them.
In my mind--and I am sure in the minds of a great many of my
colleagues--nothing would be more destabilizing to the Mideast region
and to Middle Eastern regional security or global security than Iran's
development of a nuclear weapon. I will not spend a lot of time talking
about why that is because I doubt there is any Member of this body who
is not aware of how dangerous this situation is or could be, which is
why it is even more frustrating that we have not been able to get the
administration to push a more robust set of sanctions using the
sanctions policy and the sanctions tools we have given them.
During the 15 years between the time the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act
was passed, in 1996, and last year, no meaningful application of these
sanctions was ever adopted. From 1996 until last year, no meaningful
application has ever been adopted.
In 2006, I worked closely with the Bush administration to pass a bill
known as the Iran Freedom Support Act, to improve the menu in the
choices of sanctions available to that administration and future
administrations. Under that bill, Congress codified some of the
executive actions President Clinton and President Bush appropriately
took and ensured that these tools became more permanent.
Last year, alarmed again at the administration's disinterest in using
the sanctions available to it, Congress again acted to tighten our
sanctions policy. The Congress sunsetted the State Department's period
of investigatory review to ensure that once an investigation is
launched, it has to be concluded. It is now up to the Obama
administration to pursue a vigorous sanctions policy that sends the
message to Iran that: You are isolated in the world and the world will
not tolerate this nuclear program.
On March 26, 2009, I sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking for
clarification on why the administration had not fully implemented
sanctions against Iran. I had sent a similar letter to Secretary Rice
in 2007, suggesting--in fact, stating--that the Bush administration was
similarly delinquent in its enforcement efforts. We have given them the
tools, but, simply, these administrations, in both cases, have not used
those tools.
Fortunately, we now see the first indications that we are beginning
to head in the right direction. Last fall, the State Department
announced sanctions against Naftiran, a Swiss subsidiary of the
National Iranian Oil Company. In an appearance before the Senate I was
at with Secretary Clinton a few days ago, I was positive about my sense
that this was a big step in the right direction but really only one
step. Since the Iran Sanctions Act, this is the first time ever the act
has been used. I am pleased it has been used, but, remember, it is the
first time ever it has been used.
This action--to make it even more important that it is being used and
frustrating that it hasn't been used--by the State Department had an
immediate effect, as I and many others have been suggesting it would
since the passage of these tools to the administration. Within days of
the State Department's actions against Naftiran, and according to news
reports at the time, European firms such as Royal Dutch Shell, Total,
Statoil, and Italy ENI announced they would pull operations out of
Iran's energy sector--exactly the kind of impact the Congress had hoped
this would have.
On September 29, 2010, Deputy Secretary Steinberg announced the State
Department's initiation of investigations into international firms that
had not yet committed to exit Iran's petroleum sector. While the full
list of these firms remains classified, publicly available reports
suggest that list includes at least a dozen firms, many of which are
Chinese, including the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company, Chinese
National Petroleum Company, and Unipec. Other firms come from Germany,
from Turkey, and from Venezuela. The list also includes the Industrial
Bank of China, the China Construction Bank, the Agricultural Bank of
China, and the Bank of China, which are reportedly providing financial
services to Iranian interests in violation of the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions Act.
Under the law that now governs our sanctions policy, the State
Department has 6 months to complete these investigations before
announcing whether these entities will face sanctions. These
notifications are due by March 29 of this year. I am very hopeful the
State Department report sends the right message on March 29. It has
been a long time for those of us who have advocated that this kind of
action would produce the right kind of results.
U.S. sanctions policy should complement the international sanctions
effort underway at the U.N. and other international venues. There is no
reason we can't pursue a strategic sanctions policy that ensures
companies operating in the United States or affiliated with U.S.
entities don't invest in Iran's energy sector. It is time we
demonstrated that we are serious about this before it is too late.
We have now taken the first step in the right direction. It has
produced exactly the results we had hoped those steps would take. I and
others anxiously await the report that will come out between now and
March 29 to see what the next steps are, and then we will be looking
carefully to see what
[[Page S1812]]
the reaction to those actions is. I hope we continue to show we are
serious, that sanctions will only work if the nations involved--and
particularly the United States--follow their own policies and use their
own tools.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________