[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4292-4293]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4293]]

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 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.

                          ____________________