Midnight Hour Sanctions Politics

On October 2, majority leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) attempted to amend and pass the House version of the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," H.R. 7112. A transcript of the attempt is below and partial video is available on C-Span here.

Senator Wayne Allard objected to the bill, but he was simply the Republican senator on the floor at the time and was objecting on behalf of other Republicans. There has been significant pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to pass legislation expanding sanctions against Iran before Congress adjourns to campaign for the elections.

In the last few months, Senator Reid has been very reluctant to bring up an Iran sanctions bill on which the members of the Senate, particularly the Democrats, are not united. There were divisions among the Democrats over whether and which Iran sanctions legislation should be voted. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced his “Iran Sanctions Act of 2008” on July 7, 2008 to thwart a legislative victory for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), the original sponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, who is facing a tough re-election race against Democrat Jeff Merkley in Oregon.

However, Senator Baucus’ bill faced opposition because it contained controversial provisions and did not grant jurisdiction to other key Senate committees, namely Foreign Affairs and Banking. Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) then introduced their "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," a version of which was introduced by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) and passed by the House last Saturday.

Given Senator Reid’s previous reluctance to bring up a sanctions bill on which there has not been party unification, his attempt today was likely meant to alleviate pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to pass legislation prior to the elections while putting the blame squarely on Republicans. However, the Senate may reconvene the week of November 17, but the House of Representatives is not likely to go back into session. Any bills the Senate debates during the November session will need to have already been passed by the House. There is still then a possibility that the Senate could pass the House version of the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" before the end of the year, but then the Bush administration could also veto it.

Transcript

MR. REID: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7112, WHICH IS AT THE DESK, THE DODD-SHELBY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ALSO AT THE DESK BE AGREED TO, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE READ A THIRD TIME, PASSED, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE, WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE, AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THIS MATTER APPEAR AS PRINTED IN THE RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?

MR. ALLARD: MR. PRESIDENT, I OBJECT. THE BANKING COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON NEW LANGUAGE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHICH IS NOT YET COMPLETED.

MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT –

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION IS HEARD.

MR. REID: I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THIS VERY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION OPPOSES SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE DIVERSEMENT OF ASSETS IN IRAN BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO TRANSSHIPMENT, OR DIVERSION OF CERTAIN SENSITIVE ITEMS TO IRAN IS A VERY IMPORTANT. WE'VE TRIED TO GET THIS DONE IN THIS BODY. THERE'S BEEN OBJECTION BY THE REPUBLICANS. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

Berman on Passage of Iran Sanctions

After passing H.R. 7112, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" on September 26, 2008, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman and the bill's sponsor, released the following remarks:

"Mr. Speaker, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power to me is one of the great national security challenges of our age. A nuclear-armed, fundamentalist Iran would become the dominant power in its region. The global nonproliferation regime would crumble; already today we know that many of Iran's neighbors are contemplating their own nuclear programs - and can anyone be sure that Iran, with a leader who speaks like he speaks now, would not resort to either the use of nuclear weapons or to the hand-off of those weapons to terrorist organizations?

"The sanctions that the United States and the international community thus far have placed on Iran have squeezed Iran's economy somewhat perhaps, but clearly not enough significantly to slow down its nuclear program. The present strategy is not working. I'm disappointed, and I
believe that the Iranian regime is surely heartened -- by the failure of urgency the Administration's to produce the kind of results we need regarding Iran's nuclear program. We need to make our foreign-policy priorities clear, and Iran must be at the very top of the agenda in our dealings with other countries. Sanctions will never work unless we have buy-in and support from other key countries. And if the process of achieving that buy-in requires us to engage directly with Iran, that is certainly something we should do.

"Two months ago, the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and Germany offered Iran all kinds of generous incentives to persuade it to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Just for the sake of initiating further talks on this package, they offered what they called a "freeze-for-freeze" -we will agree not to pursue further sanctions for six weeks, Iran agrees not to increase the number of its centrifuges for six weeks. But these offers weren't good enough for Iran, which responded only with a non-committal letter.

"If Iran won't change its behavior as a result of the sanctions the international community has already imposed, and if it won't change its behavior as a result of the generous incentives package offered in Geneva, we should be pursuing tougher and more meaningful sanctions.

"The legislation before us won't put an end to Iran's nuclear program, but it may help to slow it down. Moreover, it will send a strong signal to Tehran that the U.S. Congress views this matter with urgency. And it will send a message to companies and countries that invest or consider
investing in Iran's energy sector.

"This bill before us contains somewhat a diluted version of two measures put together in the other body that had previously passed by the House by votes of 397 to 16 and 408 to 6.

"This legislation would codify and expand export and import bans on goods to and from Iran. It would freeze assets in the U.S. held by Iranians closely tied to the regime.

"It would render sanctionable a U.S. parent company if that parent company uses a foreign subsidiary to circumvent sanctions. It expands the Iran Sanctions Act to cover not only oil and all natural gas but related industries. It authorizes state and local governments in the United States to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. It increases U.S. export controls on countries that are directly involved in trans-shipment or illegal
diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran. And it requires the Administration to report all foreign investments of $20 million or more made in Iran's energy sector - action which they have not done, notwithstanding the existing law -- and to determine whether each such investment qualifies as sanctionable.

"Since 1996, the Executive Branch has never implemented the sanctions in the Iran Sanctions Act, even though well over a dozen sanctionable investment deals have since been concluded with Iran by international companies. The Administration hasn't even made a determination as to whether any of the investors are sanctionable. This bill will close that loophole.

"The legislation before us also reaffirms our nation's commitment to multilateral diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it explicitly states that nothing in this Act authorizes the use of force.

"Based on previous votes, this body is committed to ending Iran's illicit nuclear program by taking measures that are peaceful but meaningful. I believe this legislation is a useful step toward that end."

House Passes Sanctions Bill

Just before the Presidential debate last night, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7112, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008" by voice vote on motion to suspend the rules. The bill will "impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, and to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran." H.R. 7112 is the House version of S. 3445, the Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill, and was introduced into the House by Representative Howard Berman, along with 11 other co-sponsors. As I predicted over two weeks ago, H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580 became a mute issue this Congressional session and the Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill came to the forefront with ease and little opposition in the House.

It remains to be seen what will happen in the Senate. According to CQ Today, it is not expected to see floor action in the Senate. The Bush administration has opposed the bill, as have foreign countries (primarily European allies) who see the bill as extraterritorial application of U.S. law. A group of business coalitions - including, Business Roundtable, Coalition for Employment Through Exports, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Association of Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade Council, National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, Organization for International Investment, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and USA*Engage - and Americans for Peace Now also oppose the bill.

Berman Sanctions Legislation

Here is Representative Howard Berman's (D-CA) sanctions legislation listed as item five on the House Suspension Calendar for September 26, 2008. The bill is the House version of the Dodd-Shelby "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2008."

Berman Dear Colleague on Iran Sanctions Bill

Support the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008
From: The Committee on Foreign Affairs
Date: 9/26/2008
September 26, 2008

Support the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008

Dear Colleague:

Later today, the House will consider the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 under suspension of the rules. I urge you to join me in supporting this important measure.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act will significantly strengthen our nation's peaceful efforts to counter Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. The legislation contains versions of two measures that have previously passed the House: HR 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was approved by the House on September 25, 2007, by a vote of 397-16, and H.R. 2347, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which was passed on July 31, 2007, by a vote of 408-6. This bill will help strengthen the hands of the United States by leading efforts to ensure that if Iran does not end its quest to obtain nuclear weapons and its support for international terrorism, Iran will face meaningful economic measures.

The legislation will undercut Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorism by:
-Codifying and expanding export and import bans on goods to and from Iran;
Freezing assets in the U.S. held by Iranians closely tied to the regime;
-Making a U.S. parent company liable for the violation of U.S. Iran sanctions if the parent company uses a foreign subsidiary to circumvent sanctions;
- Increasing the ability of the Treasury Department to combat terrorist financing;
- Authorizing state and local governments to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector or extending this amount of credit; and
- Increasing U.S. export controls on countries that are directly involved in trans-shipment or illegal diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran.
- Requiring the Administration to report all foreign investments of $20 million or more made in Iran's energy sector and to determine whether each such investment qualifies as sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act.

The legislation reaffirms our nation's commitment to multilateral diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, and explicitly states that nothing in the Act authorizes the use of force against Iran. I have attached a summary of the bill.

Please contact David Beraka at david.beraka@mail.house.gov to cosponsor this legislation.

I urge you to support this important measure.


Sincerely,
/s
HOWARD L. BERMAN
Chairman

Sanctions Suspense

The Dodd-Shelby Iran Sanctions bill is on the House Suspension Calendar as item number five for today, Friday, September 26, 2008. The bill was initially put on the Calendar yesterday, but the House did not have time to debate it. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and other supporters of the nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and India, added a version of the Dodd-Shelby Iran sanctions and divestment bill (House bill text still not available) in order to garner more support to pass the India nuclear cooperation agreement approval. Hill sources initially said that Representative Berman planned to combine the Iran sanctions and India nuclear cooperation approval bills, but according to CQ Today, he will no longer do so after being pressed by the Bush administration to keep the issues separate.

The move is largely reminiscent of Santorum’s Last Stand. Some INW readers may recall a similar midnight hour effort (literally) to pass an Iran sanctions bill on September 30, 2006 before the mid-term elections. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) was able to spearhead a movement to pass the Iran Sanctions Act to give him one last legislative victory before facing off in a tough race against now Senator Bob Casey (D-PA). The difference between then and now is that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) was about to expire and Congress had to do something to renew sanctions against Iran before they legally lapsed. The sanctions bill then was largely an extension of the 1996 ILSA, however, it appropriately dropped Libya sanctions.

Today’s story has a somewhat different twist. Instead of simply renewing, the bill that will likely be voted on Suspension today would impose much broader sanctions against Iran include enabling legislation for divestment efforts across the U.S. Unlike 2006, Iran sanctions are not pending lapse, yet Democrats and Republicans alike are using the Iran sanctions bill for their electioneering purposes yet again in the midnight hour before recessing to campaign. If the sanctions bill is voted on, Members of Congress will surely point to their co-sponsorship and vote as proof of being tough on Iran and tough on national security. And, Congress may be under even more pressure to do something given that the controversial H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580 are not likely to be taken up today or before the end of the legislative session.

What will happen remains to be seen. In order to become law, the Senate will also need to pass the bill and the President would then need to sign it. However, it would take just one Senator to block a unanimous consent agreement, which would be required to bring the bill up for a free-standing vote. The Dodd-Shelby sanctions bill was excluded from the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill, but it did have significant support in the Senate even from those like Senator John Warner (R-VA) who simply objected to its inclusion based on principle. With little time remaining, it is possible that the bill could be held up in the Senate. Hill sources said yesterday that it was conceivable that Finance Committee Chair Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) could add the combined India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement-Iran Sanctions bill to the $700 billion bailout package. However, that may be less likely now since Representative Berman has agreed to keep the measures separate and the House will vote on an India nuclear cooperation approval bill that is identical to the version already passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Stay tuned…

Senator Dodd Pushes Iran Sanctions Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

On September 15, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) went on the record to push for his bipartisan sanctions bill, the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3001). Hat tip to Lara Friedman for sending along. Below are some the most relevant excerpts.

"We are considering, of course, the Defense authorization bill. This proposal, adopted and developed by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in conjunction with my Republican colleague and friend, RICHARD SHELBY of Alabama, former chairman of the committee, would impose tough new sanctions on the Government of Iran, to authorize investors to divest from companies active in Iran's energy sector and to combat the proliferation of black market weapons networks overseas...

"Let me be clear. Sanctions against the Government of Iran are not an end unto themselves but, rather, one means of driving a resolution of the problem of Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions. The Europeans' recent decision to impose additional financial sanctions on Iran is a very positive development that exerts further pressure to that end. The approach embodied in the bill I am talking about this afternoon is targeted and strategic, maximizing the economic leverage of the United States, our partners and allies in Europe and elsewhere, and international investors, while avoiding the risk of a more indiscriminate approach...

"Last year, the committee conducted a hearing on the effectiveness of Iran sanctions. Working with the administration, the Banking Committee acted swiftly to strengthen the U.S. trade/investment ban, and ultimately we saw enactment in October of the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act. This new law holds violators of U.S. sanctions law accountable, adding, I might add, jail time and severe fines against those investing in Iran or other state sponsors of terror...

"The Government Accountability Office then issued a report last December raising questions about whether our current sanctions regime against Iran furthers U.S. policy objectives and how they might be made more effective. Among other things, that report concluded that the ongoing illegal transshipment of sensitive dual-use technologies from often unwitting U.S. and other Western suppliers to countries such as Iran--sometimes through three or four levels of suppliers--is one very effective way around current U.S. sanctions...

"The missile tests that Iran conducted in July were provocative, and its persistent refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council demands--despite a host of sanctions already in place--is very troubling. Iran's behavior with respect to weapons proliferation, support for terrorism, destabilization of its neighbors, and threats against our allies and interests demands a very serious response...

"We only have a few weeks remaining in this legislative session. We will not return to actually legislate until late January of next year. I would hope we would find time, whether on this bill or some other vehicle, to enact, as I am confident we can, with a strong bipartisan vote, this Iran sanctions idea. This bill is one very important part of that response...

"First, the bill expands the definition of 'person' under the Iran Sanctions Act to include financial institutions, underwriters, guarantors, and other business entities and extends the applicability of sanctions to oil and gas pipelines and tankers. It imposes a broad ban on imports directly from Iran to the United States and exports from the United States to Iran of those few items still able to be shipped while exempting food and medicines to Iran, certain informational materials, and aids to navigation designed for safe operation of commercial aircraft.

"The bill also provides for a freezing of assets of those members of the diplomatic community or Iranian military who have been identified by the President of the United States as active in weapons proliferation or terrorist activity. The bill clarifies that U.S. entities that establish a subsidiary for the purpose of getting around U.S. sanctions laws can be held liable for the activities of their subsidiaries. The bill also increases funding to the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence of the Treasury Department to ensure that the international financial system is not used by those who support terrorism or engage in proliferation-sensitive activities.

"Finally, this bill imposes new requirements that the President actually make a determination and report every 6 months to Congress regarding the sanctionability of certain eligible investments in Iran's energy sector. This is designed to address the problem of billions of dollars in oil and gas investment projects being subject to sanctions--over $27 billion in eligible oil and gas investments since 1999, according to the Congressional Research Service--but successive administrations refusing to make final determinations required by law, much less impose appropriate sanctions on entities involved in such projects, I might add, have raised some certain issues...

"In addition to expanding U.S. sanctions on the Government of Iran, this bill would also provide a simple formula for divestment from firms which invest significant amounts in Iran's energy sector with provisions patterned after the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act that we all voted for earlier this year...

"The rationale for this is straightforward. Many of us believe Americans should be able to divest from energy firms doing business with the Iranian regime whose policies they abhor and which by their presence indirectly help to prop up that regime. They should be given the tools they need to make socially responsible decisions, and investors who choose to divest--States, large pension and mutual funds, and others--should be held harmless for these decisions. Likewise, firms which continue to do business in the energy sector in Iran should recognize the substantial risks involved in this decision and adjust their strategies accordingly...

"This bill is as much about enabling investors to manage risk as about having Congress set foreign policy. Make no mistake. Investing in Iran these days is risky business, and investors should be fully informed of those risks going in. This bill does not require divestment, it simply permits it, as with the Sudan legislation--if the investments in Iran's energy sector are substantial and if the divestment process is crafted consistent with the provisions of this bill...

"How would it work? First, the amendment authorizes States and localities to divest from companies involved in the energy sector in Iran and sets universal divestment standards. Secondly, the bill allows mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with companies involved in these key sectors and offers limited protection from lawsuits for those choosing to divest or not to invest in the first place, while preserving their normal fiduciary duties. Third, this bill allows State and local governments to divest their public pension funds from businesses invested in Iran's energy sector. Fourth, it establishes a new mechanism for disclosure for firms divesting their holdings in such entities and sunsets, I might add, the divestment mechanism when the President of the United States certifies that Iran has ceased its support for international terrorism and its support of weapons of mass destruction...

"Let's be very clear about what this amendment achieves in terms of divestment--and what it does not do. It does not outsource foreign policy to State and local governments or run afoul of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, as some have claimed. Rather, it protects the rights of investors to make socially responsible decisions--to refrain from holding assets that may serve to bolster the Government of Iran. It allows States and other investors to divest in a relatively uniform way, if they so choose, so they may avoid the complications of diverging approaches...

"Under this bill, States can act out of concern for the long-term financial and reputational risks posed by an affiliation with certain investments in the nation of Iran. Once identifying these specific risks, States are to inform the companies with a notice detailing such issues--not merely based on a foreign policy concern but on the State's assessment of the economic risks posed by investments in firms involved in certain energy-related business in Iran. It thus outlines a Federal divestment policy--a complicated and yet very clear path consistent with U.S. unilateral and multilateral sanctions already imposed, I might add--and authorizes investors to act consistently with that policy, again, if they so choose...

"Finally, and very importantly--unlike other legislation acted upon by Congress--the amendment I am offering provides new incentives for countries to strengthen their export control systems to stop the illegal diversion of sensitive and dual-use technology to countries such as Iran and imposes additional licensing requirements on those who refuse to cooperate..."

Rep. Hank Johnson on H.Con.Res. 362

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) responded to a constituent regarding concerns that provisions in H.Con.Res. 362 might be misconstrued as calling for a blockade against Iran. Rep. Johnson said he will work to amend or delete the provision. Below is the text of his letter.

September 8, 2008

Dear XXX:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H.Con.Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace and stability in the Middle East.

As you know, H.Con.Res. 362 pushes for an international diplomatic response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is currently before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has 220 bipartisan cosponsors.

I chose to cosponsor this bill in response to reports about possible covert military operations in Iran. It appears that the Bush administration is already moving in the direction of war against Iran and we now know that the President does not feel he needs authorization from Congress. As a result, I felt it was important to push for what is essentially a non-binding statement from Congress that stresses the need to focus on diplomacy and working with other nations to lessen the threat from Iran.

H.Con.Res. 362 admittedly has some strong language. The strongest language requests internationally backed inspections of items departing or entering Iran. It is important to note that such functions have been conducted by the United Nations and called for in numerous UN resolutions. However, I certainly understand this part of the resolution could be misconstrued and I will push for an amendment that either deletes this statement or clarifies it further.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I share it and believe that if Congress acts appropriately, we can successfully constrain any additional actions the Bush administration may look to take in Iran.

I am eager to hear your concerns and look forward to working with you. For more information, please visit my office online at www.hankjohnson.house.gov. Thank you again for contacting me.

/s
Hank Johnson

Treasury Designates Quds Force Deputy Commander

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Treasury designated five individuals and two entities under Executive Order 13438 for threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and the Government of Iraq. The Treasury Department's action freezes any bank accounts or other financial assets found in the United States belonging to those listed and prohibits Americans from doing business with them.

Abdul al-Reza Shahlai, deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' al Qods (Jerusalem) Force, was among those designated. According to Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, "These individuals are targeting and planning attacks against innocent Iraqis, the Government of Iraq, Coalition Forces, and U.S. troops. Their lethal and destabilizing tactics, especially by Iran's Qods Force, are intended to undermine Iraq as it strives for peace and prosperity."

Other Amendments Related to Iran in the Defense Authorization Bill

In her weekly Legislative Round-up, Lara Friedman points out four more amendments to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, in addition to the two already posted on INW (Dodd-Shelby Sanctions Legislation and the Brownback annual report on Iran's military power and strategy).

As I have said repeatedly and consistently throughout the year, the most likely vehicle for passing legislation on Iran this year is amendments to must-pass legislation. It is very clear that both Democrats and Republicans are using the Defense Authorization bill as means for politicking and proving their toughness for dealing with Iran, which is proving an important issue in this election cycle. I will not be surprised if all of the amendments on Iran are considered germane and voted on during the debate of the FY'09 Defense Authorizaton bill next week. In my humble opinion, the debate on the non-binding H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580 is basically a distraction at this point as the Senate prepares to debate and pass binding legislation on Iran, though still possibly subject to a veto, that will include more of the same wrong-headed approach for dealing with Iran, i.e. more punitive measures (e.g. sanctions, divestment, more money for missile defense, etc.) without any meaningful change in U.S. policy that includes incentives (e.g. a real credible offer for sustained, direct diplomacy without preconditions).

Here are the other four Iran amendments submitted, as included by Lara in her ever-fabulous Weekly Legislative Round-up:

SA 5359: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), SA 5358 would amend language in the bill related to the authorization of funds for the Airborne Laser System program. The original bill states that funds may not be obligated or expended for the program until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable." The amendment would change this to a certification that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable relative to the ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs."

SA 5360: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), this amendment is similar to SA 5488, requiring an annual (rather than biannual, as stipulated in SA 5488) report on military power of Iran. The report would be required to address: "(1) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy of Iran during the 20-year period beginning on the date of such report, and the relationship between such strategies and the current security situation in the Middle East and Central and South Asia. (2) The size, location, and capabilities of the land, sea, air, and irregular forces of Iran, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lebanese Hezbollah, and any other force controlled by the Iran or receiving funds or training from the Iran. (3) Developments in and the capabilities of the ballistic missile, nuclear, and chemical and biological weapons programs of Iran. (4) The degree to which Iran depends on unconventional, irregular, or asymmetric capabilities to achieve its strategic goals. (5) The irregular warfare capabilities of Iran, including the exploitation of asymmetric strategies and related weapons and technology, the use of covert forces, the use of proxy forces, support for terrorist organizations, and strategic communications efforts. (6) Efforts by Iran to develop, acquire, or gain access to information, communication, nuclear, and other advanced technologies that would enhance its military capabilities. (7) The nature and significance of any arms, munitions, military equipment, or military or dual-use technology acquired by Iran from outside Iran, including from a foreign government or terrorist organization, or provided by Iran to any foreign government or terrorist organization. (8) The nature and significance of any bilateral or multilateral security or defense-related cooperation agreements, whether formal or informal, between Iran and any foreign government or terrorist organization. (9) Expenditures by Iran on each of the following: (A) The security forces of Iran, whether regular and irregular, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (B) The programs of Iran relating to weapons of mass destruction. (C) Support provided to terrorist groups, insurgent groups, irregular proxy forces, and related activities. (D) Bilateral military aid."

SA 5362: Offered by Sen. Coleman (R-MN), this amendment would bar the U.S. from entering into an agreement for nuclear cooperation with Russia, bar the export and transfer/re-transfer of nuclear material, facilities, or components to Russia, until the President certifies that "Russia has suspended all nuclear assistance to Iran and all transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran, including the SA-20 system" or " Iran has completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs" and "all Russian forces have been withdrawn from the undisputed territory of the sovereign state of Georgia and Russia has complied with its obligations under the cease-fire agreement signed on August 15, 2008."

SA 5425: Offered by Sen Kyl (R-AZ), to amend a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States mandated in the bill to include a review of, among other things, "The ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs, including the following: (A) The existing inventories of short-range, medium-range, long-range, and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles of each such country, and the ranges of such missiles based on possible launch points. (B) The ballistic missile programs currently under development by each such country, including, for each such program, an assessment of-- (i) the ranges of the ballistic missiles under such program; (ii) the fuel propulsion systems for such missiles; (iii) the booster and warhead characteristics of such missiles; and (iv) the capacity of such missiles to employ countermeasures, decoys, or multiple re-entry vehicles. (C) The ballistic missile tests and exercises of each such country since 2005. (D) The proliferation of ballistic missile hardware, technology and expertise of each such country. (E) The ballistic missile launch facilities of each such country, whether existing or under construction."

Rep. Speier on H.Con.Res. 362

Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA), who took former Representative Tom Lantos’ congressional seat, responded this week to a concerned constituent that she is seeking an amendment with other co-sponsors to H.Con.Res. 362. According to Rep. Speier, “...upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade. Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil.”

As I have said repeatedly, amending the resolution misses the point. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives.

Those Members of Congress working to amend the resolution are simply offering a bandaid for a resolution that should be scrapped altogether. These Members of Congress are misplacing their efforts in a game of appeasement between constituents and a very powerful lobby who is advocating its passage so they can score members of Congress in this election cycle.

Below is the full text of Rep. Speier’s response to her constituent.

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your letter in opposition to H. Con. Res. 362, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY). As you know, I am a cosponsor of this bill and while our opinion differs on the bill, I am certain we share similar views on Iran.

I do want to make one thing very clear: under no circumstances do I support military action against Iran. In fact, both the Ackerman resolution and another resolution I cosponsored, H. Con. Res. 33 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR), specifically state that the President cannot engage in military action without Congressional authorization. This authorization for war is something that neither I, nor the majority of my colleagues, have any intention of providing. What I do support is using a carrot and stick to encourage Iranian leaders to abandon their nuclear weapons program. The threat of economic isolation is the stick, while full diplomatic relations and the economic benefits that come with it is the carrot.

We need to redouble diplomatic efforts and prevent further bloodshed in the Middle East. This includes encouraging Iran to stop any pursuit of nuclear weapons. That said, you do make some very valid points, and upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade.

Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil. I promise to listen and to make a serious effort to continue listening even when we happen to disagree.

Hearing from my constituents helps me to stay on top of a subject and really figure out what is in the public's interest. Thank you, again, for your comments.

All the best,

Jackie Speier
Member of Congress

Dodd-Shelby Sanctions Bill Submitted as Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill

On September 11, 2008, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) submitted their “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008” as an amendment (S.AMDT.5485) to the Fiscal Year 2009 Nation Defense Authorization Act (S. 3001).

It is unclear whether the Senate will consider the amendment. According to an article in CongressNow, “Democrats may delay consideration of the Defense authorization bill until next week after gridlock on amendments stalled progress on the legislation” on September 11. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had hoped to finish the bill by yesterday, disagreements over what amendments will be offered to the bill have slowed it down.

H.Con.Res. 362 Gets Eight New Co-Sponsors; One Withdraws

Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter on September 8, 2008 once again urging members of Congress to sign onto H.Con.Res. 362. The controversial resolution currently has 270 co-sponsors, with eight new representatives who added their name on September 8, 2008 – Representatives John Hall (D-NY), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Medeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) and Laura Richardson (D-CA). Representative George Lewis (D-GA) also withdrew his co-sponsorship on September 8. Below is the full text of the most recent Ackerman-Pence “Dear Colleague” letter.


Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying:
Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362

September 8, 2008

Dear Colleague:

We write to encourage you to join us as sponsors of H.Con.Res.362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

Iran is backing and arming militias and terrorists fighting the United States and our allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; it is the proud patron of both the Hamas take-over in Gaza and the Hezbollah insurrection against the Lebanese government; it is the major funding source for numerous terrorist groups and, increasingly, Syria its fellow state-sponsor of terrorism, and it is radically reorienting regional security calculations. Meeting the threat posed by Iran is an urgent challenge that will require America to work closely with the international community, and especially with partners in the Middle East.

Though the stakes are high and time is short, the resolution is explicit in stating that meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic and economic levers. To our surprise and dismay, however, some have mistakenly suggested the resolution calls for a "naval blockade" or even amounts to "a declaration of war."

These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense. The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders.

The threat from Iran is real and growing, and must be addressed so that today's efforts by Iran at subversion and proliferation do not, tomorrow, become the seeds of new and more terrible conflict in the Middle East. Please contact Dalis Blumenfeld (dalis.blumenfeld@mail.house.gov) at the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia at 202-225-3345 if you'd like to be added as a sponsor.

Sincerely,

s/ Gary L. Ackerman
Chairman

s/ Mike Pence
Ranking Minority Member

House Subcommittee on the
Middle East & South Asia

Update to Posting on Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

I want to draw INW readers' attention to an update today to the posting entitled "Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580," published on August 12. I received additional information from a brilliant source that I thought would be relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the resolutions. Below is the new information added into the posting. My deepest gratitude to Lara Friedman for all her work on this issue!

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.
These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

U.S. Announces New Sanctions Against Iranian Companies with Ties to Nuclear and Missile Programs

On August 12, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department designated five entities for their ties to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. According to the Treasury Department press release, the designations were made pursuant to Executive Order 13382, “which is aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters, and at isolating them from the U.S. financial and commercial systems. Designations under E.O. 13382 are implemented by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, and they prohibit all transactions between the designees and any U.S. person, and freeze any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction.”

The entities designated are the Nuclear Research Center for Agriculture and Medicine (a/k/a Karaj Nuclear Research Center), the Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center, Jabber Ibn Hayan, Safety Equipment Procurement Company and Joza Industrial Company. All five of the entities designated have also been previously designated under United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran for its nuclear program.

According to Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey, “These five nuclear and missile entities have been used by Iran to hide its illicit conduct and further its dangerous nuclear ambitions.”

Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

Across the country, organizations and community groups have mobilized opposition to H.Con.Res. 362, a controversial non-binding resolution calling for more punitive measures against Iran. The combined efforts of all of the organizations and individuals have successfully put speed bumps on the road for a resolution that staff from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office initially said would “pass like a hot knife through butter” before the 4th of July recess. So far, four Representatives – Tom Allen, Steve Cohen, Danny K. Davis and William Lacy Clay – have withdrawn support. Several others, including Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Mike McNulty (D-NY), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) have expressed that they may do so if language is not changed.

It is no small feat getting Members of Congress to change their co-sponsorship on an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) supported resolution, particularly in an election year. Perhaps most importantly though, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has refused so far to markup the resolution in his committee because of the controversy that has been raised regarding Clause 3, which “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.” Critics have argued that depending on interpretation and implementation, this paragraph could be considered as calling for a blockade against Iran, which would be considered an act of war under international law.

While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, even if this clause is changed or removed, the remainder of the resolution is still provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Meanwhile, Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), the original co-sponsors of H.Con.Res. 362, continue to defend the resolution. The number of Members co-sponsoring the resolution has crept up to the current total of 261. If it reaches 290 (or 2/3 of the total number of Members of Congress), Rep. Ackerman can request that the resolution be brought up for a vote on the Suspension Calendar. If this were to happen, no amendments could be offered to the resolution. However, Rep. Ackerman has backed himself into a corner by refusing so far to make changes to the language in the resolution and as a result H.Con.Res. 362 will likely remain held-up for the foreseeable future.

The most realistic scenario for breaking the stand-off in the House would be for the Senate to take up the companion resolution to H.Con.Res. 362. Although just as provocative, the Senate version, S.Res. 580, is worded in a slightly different way and does not contain the clause that most critics of H.Con.Res. 362 have gone after which could be interpreted as calling for a blockade against Iran. The third paragraph in S.Res. 580 does not demand a "stringent inspections regime," but "demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran.”

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.

"These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

"We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

If S.Res. 580 is either attached as an amendment to must-pass legislation (more likely) or brought to the Senate floor as a stand-alone measure (less likely), and it passes, the House could then take up the Senate version. The reality, however, is that Congress has an extremely full plate in September leading up to the elections and this is not a guaranteed scenario. Nonetheless, it is still urgent for organizations and individuals remain vigilant on both resolutions and to continue to weigh in with their Senators and Representatives.

New Senate Sanctions Bill Introduced

On August 1, 2008, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) introduced S. 3445, a “bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran, and for other purposes.” On the same day, S. 3445 was reported to the Senate from the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with written report Number 110-443 and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 939. According to the Summary on THOMAS, Senator Dodd is currently the only co-sponsor of the legislation, even though it was announced on July 15, 2008 that Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) would join Senator Dodd in introducing the legislation.

Title I of the legislation would prohibit the importation, directly or indirectly, of all Iranian products into the U.S., with the exception of information and informational materials. It would also prohibit the export of all American products, directly or indirectly, to Iran, with the exception of agricultural commodities; medicine; information and informational materials; articles to provide humanitarian assistance; and goods, services or technologies necessary for the safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft manufactured in the U.S. In addition, the bill would freeze the assets of people that have engaged in activities such as terrorism or weapons proliferation. It also extends the assets freeze to assets that sanctioned persons transfer to family members or associates. S. 3445 would also prohibit U.S. and foreign companies that meet sanctions criteria from entering into procurement contracts with the federal government. All of these provisions are subject to a waiver, however, if deemed by the President to be in the national interest.

S. 3445 would also hold parent companies liable for violations of sanctions by foreign subsidiaries, though the President may waive the sanctions if it is in the national interest and if he submits a report describing the reasons for such a determination to appropriate Congressional committees. S. 3445 would also require the President, within 180 days of enactment of the bill and every 180 days thereafter, to report to the appropriate Congressional Committees on eligible foreign investments made in Iran's energy sector since January 1, 2008 and the determination of the President on whether such investments qualify as sanctionable offenses.

Section 107 of the bill expresses the Sense of Congress that the President immediately impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.

Title II of S. 3445 also enable States, local governments and institutions of higher education to divest public assets from certain companies doing business in Iran. The bill requires any of these entities to provide notice to the Department of Justice when they enact an Iran-related divestment law. It also requires these entities to inform companies before divestment and give the companies at least 90 days to comment on the decision. Section 203 of Title II provides a “safe harbor” for Asset Managers for divestment decisions made in accordance with the bill.

Title III of S. 3445 requires the Director of National Intelligence to identify countries where sensitive U.S. technology is being illegally transshipped to Iran via other countries, and to report annually to the Secretaries of Commerce, State and the Treasury, as well as to Congress. Section 303 would require the Administration to initiate contact with countries of “possible diversion concern” and offer incentives to them to strengthen their export control regimes, improve information sharing and support legitimate trade in high-technology goods. According to the bill “If countries fail to cooperate with such initiatives, then, under subsection (b), the Administration would be required to designate a country as a ‘Destination of Diversion Concern.’ … Exports to a country designated as a `Destination of Diversion Concern' would be subject to additional licensure requirements; more stringent license review, which could result in fewer approvals or more conditions on licenses; delayed authorizations due to increased end-user checks; and finally, a decrease in authorizations due to diversion risks for such countries.” Section 304 would require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on whether or not to extend the “Destination of Diversion Concern” system to countries other than Iran.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill would cost $121 million in 2009 and $496 million over the 2009-2013. In addition, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce revenues by about $6 million over the 2009-2018 period. The costs of S. 3445 fall within budget functions 150 (international affairs), 370 (commerce and housing credit), and 800 (general government).

The bill would impose private-sector mandates by prohibiting imports from and exports to Iran, as well as by freezing assets of certain individuals. it could also impose a mandate on exporters by specifying additional license requirements on exports to certain countries that are designated “Destinations of Possible Diversion Concern.” According to the CBO, the cost of complying with the mandates in the bill are uncertain and it cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of complying with the mandates would exceed the annual threshold for private-sector mandates established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).

Representative Schakowsky on H.Con.Res. 362

Below is a letter from Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) responding to concerns expressed by a constituent regarding H.Con.Res. 362. Though many of her constituents have urged her to withdraw her co-sponsorship of the resolution, Rep. Schakowsky continues to defend her support for it and she claims that it is not a declaration of war against Iran. Rep. Schakowsky claims that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a "peaceful option" for dealing with Iran, but she has also urged Representatives Ackerman and Pence, as well as the democratic leadership, to delay action on the resolution.

Representative Schakowsky's position on H.Con.Res. 362 highlights an important point that is really missing from the discourse on this resolution. While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, demanding that the President impose harsh sanctions that would be difficult if not impossible to implement outside the context of using force, the resolution has broader implications. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Below is the full text of the letter.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H. Con. Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the international threat posed by Iran. I appreciate hearing from you, and I strongly share your concern about the importance of avoiding military conflict with Iran.

I have consistently and vehemently opposed any move toward armed conflict with Iran, and I have cosponsored legislation favoring diplomatic and political solutions to address ongoing U.S.-Iranian tensions. Among the bills that I have cosponsored are: H. Con. Res. 33, expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress; H.J.Res. 14, stating that no previous provision of law authorizes use of military force against Iran; H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which emphasizes that U.S. should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem; and H.R. 3119, to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

H. Con. Res. 362 is not a declaration of war against Iran. Instead of advocating military pressure, this resolution calls on the President to use economic, political, and diplomatic pressure to avoid further confrontation with Iran. One reason that I support this legislation is that it brings together 220 cosponsors, representing a wide cross-section of political views, in emphasizing that U.S. policy should focus on economic and diplomatic solutions, not military action.

In addition, this resolution emphasizes the importance of an international effort to address the Iranian issue. I am a strong proponent of diplomatic engagement and this legislation specially "demands that the President initiate an international effort" - not take unilateral action. The United States is not the only nation that would face a threat if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, and it is vital that we work in cooperation with other members of the international community to address the crisis.

While I believe that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a peaceful option to resolve a growing international crisis, I respect your concerns regarding a provision that has been read by some as allowing a military blockade to be initiated. I have contacted the original sponsors of this resolution, Congressmen Ackerman and Pence, and they have made it clear that a naval blockade or any other use of military force was not their intent in writing this resolution. I have urged them and the House leadership to delay any action on this bill. It is important that no action occur that can be interpreted by the Bush Administration as a signal for military action, even if that is not the intent of the provision.

I am extremely concerned by the threat Iran continues to pose to the Middle East region. However, I am also worried by the escalating rhetoric and saber-rattling by the Bush Administration and the ever-growing indications that the President is looking to begin yet another war in the Persian Gulf region.

As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I will continue to work to bring our troops home from Iraq and to avoid military confrontation with Iran. While Iran must be held accountable for its threatening behavior, there is no military solution to resolving this conflict. The only solution is to use diplomacy, working with the international community.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this critical subject. Please feel free to be in touch whenever I can provide assistance.

Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky,
Member of Congress

Two More Representatives Withdraw from H.Con.Res. 362

On July 22, 2008, Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Thomas Allen (D-ME) joined Representative William Lacy Clay in withdrawing there names as co-sponsors of the controversial resolution H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the statement from Rep. Allen on his withdrawal. Alternet published an article on July 23, 2008 on efforts to oppose the resolution entitled “Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran.”

Rep. Tom Allen’s Statement on H. Con. Res. 362

Washington, D.C. (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)---U.S. Representative Tom Allen issues the following statement today regarding his decision to remove his name as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 362:

"I cosponsored H. Con. Res. 362 because I believe that the Iranian regime poses very real threats to stability in the region and that it is in our national security interest to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, there is language in this resolution that may imply Congressional approval of a blockade of Iran. I want to be perfectly clear about where I stand: I believe our nation should be engaging in tough diplomatic talks with Iran that will permanently dismantle that country's nuclear weapons program, and that sanctions should be part of that strategy. However, I do not support the idea of a blockade. Since the resolution has not been amended to address these concerns, yesterday, I removed my name as a cosponsor."

Undersecretary of Commerce Addresses WINEP on Iran

On July 22, U.S. undersecretary of commerce Mario Mancuso, who leads the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mancuso said, “While Iran is not ten feet tall -- much less ascendant -- it nonetheless represents a challenge that is as comprehensive as it is grave.”

Mancuso told the audience that BIS is responding to the Iranian threat in the following ways:

“First, we are refining the list of items that we control to ensure that we are focused on sensitive items. Because very little can be traded today with Iran, this initiative operates indirectly, but powerfully, by focusing attention and resources to our global non-proliferation efforts.

“Second, to enhance the export control system's overall effectiveness, we are providing more information to our private sector stakeholders -- our front-line partners in the enforcement of our regulations-- about customers around the world that raise concerns for us.

“Currently, we maintain three separate lists: the Denied Parties List, the Unverified List, and the Entity List. The Denied Parties List is a list of individuals and entities that have been denied export privileges. The Unverified List is a list of parties where BIS has been unable to verify end use in the past. The Entity List is a list of parties whose participation in a given transaction triggers license requirements. All of these lists are available on our website, www.bis.doc.gov.

“Third, we are sharpening our enforcement efforts to focus on those areas of greatest concern to us: proliferators, terrorists, and nations of illicit transshipment concern. Every day, our BIS special agents work closely with other federal law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, to conduct investigations and punish violations of our export control regulations. Our agents also work with our colleagues in the national security and intelligence community to provide expert analytic support to broader national security efforts.

“This past May, with critical BIS support, DOJ successfully prosecuted two separate cases of a U.S. exporter attempting to ship radiographic and computer equipment to Iran. In another recent case, BIS special agents provided crucial support to indict two munitions dealers for conspiring to transfer military aircraft parts to Iran. Some of the particular charges in this latter case carry up to a twenty-year prison sentence, and fines of up to $1 million.

“When foreign companies take controlled U.S. technology and illegally transfer it, they also face serious repercussions. In the past few weeks alone, we have issued several Temporary Denial Orders suspending the export privileges of multiple non-U.S. companies and individuals for knowingly re-exporting U.S. origin aircraft to Iran. These are just a few of the Iran-related cases our team is actively working on. There have been others in the past, and we suspect that there will be significant other cases in the future.

“Finally, we are also working with our partners and allies around the world to enhance their system of export controls in order to eliminate gaps in the system and to maximize the effective impact of our efforts."

Mancuso called for the reauthorization of the Export Administration Act (EAA), which has been in lapse since 2001, and applauded Senator Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) for introducing legislation to reauthorize it. Mancuso said the administration strongly supports this legislation, and urged Congress to move quickly to pass it.

Read the full text of Mancuso’s prepared remarks here.