...for the week ending March 6, 2009

 
****FURTHER UPDATE ON OMNIBUS*****
1.  Bills and Resolutions
2.  Omnibus Update: in the Senate
3.  Congress on $900 million aid for Palestinians
4. Chairman Kerry on the Kyl Amendment

 

*****FURTHER UPDATE ON OMNIBUS*****

In a surprise turn of events, Senate leadership has agreed to permit consideration of at least 13 additional amendments to the HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act.  These amendments will be considered some time on Monday.  Three of these amendments are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All three of these are largely exercises in grandstanding, and all three are introduced by Sen. Kyl (R-AZ).  Another amendment is related to Iran .

 

Many Hill observers are questioning why Senate leadership agreed to allow these amendments, in effect risking the entire Omnibus bill on amendments that will cost Senate members a great deal of political capital to oppose.  Some see this as part of the bargaining necessary in order to get final passage of the bill, with leadership expecting to be able to muster enough votes to defeat each of the amendments.  Others speculate that this development makes it all the more likely that the Omnibus bill will indeed be scuttled (bearing in mind that House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) has made clear that the House will not take up an amended Omnibus returned to them by the Senate) and instead FY09 will continue to be funded through continuing resolutions. 

 

The Middle East-related amendments that Senate leadership has agreed to allow, and analysis of them, follow:

 

SA 629(this amendment was mistakenly left out of today's Round-Up) would add binding law to the bill to the effect that "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States ."

 

This amendment is clearly discriminatory and it is highly questionable whether this amendment is, at the most basic level, consistent with U.S. law.  It appears to reflect conspiracy theory stories circulating online to the effect that the Obama Administration is planning to resettle large numbers of Gazans inside the US .

 

SA 630would insert the following report requirement into the bill:  "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to Congress a report on whether additional funds from Foreign Military Financing assistance provided annually to the Government of Egypt could be expended-- (1) to improve efforts by the Government of Egypt to counter illicit smuggling, including arms smuggling, across the Egypt-Gaza border; and  (2) to intercept weapons originating in other countries in the region and smuggled into Gaza through Egypt."

 

This amendment is a clear shot at Egypt 's FMF program, probably to counter-act the fact that the "fencing off" provisions on Egypt 's FMF were removed in this bill.  The report would lay the groundwork for efforts in the next appropriations cycle to earmark a portion or portions of Egypt 's FMF for specific purposes defined by the US - something that would be a radical change in the US-Egypt relationship and that would represent a major Congressional attack on that relationship.

 

SA 631would insert the following certification requirement into the bill:  "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to aid reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that none of such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas."

 

This amendment is redundant and irrational.  Redundant, because US law is absolutely clear that no funds can go to Hamas.  Redundant, too, because the existing ForOps language in this bill (General Provisions #7039 and #7040) include extensive oversight, vetting, reporting, and conditioning on any aid to the Palestinians or the Palestinian Authority.  Irrational, because the amendment requires the Secretary to certify something that cannot be certified - i.e., that something will NOT happen.  While it is reasonable to demand certification that all reasonable steps are being taken to make sure that something will not happen (as is already the case in US law with respect to aid to the Palestinians), it is not rational to demand certification that something categorically will not happen - unless the goal of the amendment is to come up with a certification requirement that simply cannot ever be met. 

 

SA 665(this amendment was left out of today's Round-Up, as no text was available in the Congressional Record, so its content was unknown) would add the following prohibition to the bill:  "(a) none of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the Department of State until the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, submits to Congress a report on investments by foreign companies in the energy sector of Iran since the date of the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) including information compiled from credible media reports.  The report shall include the status of any United States investigations of companies that may have violated the Iran Sanctions Act, including explanations of why the Department of State has not made a determination of whether any such investment constitutes a violation of such Act.  (b) In this section, the term `investment' has the meaning given the term in section 14 of the Iran Sanctions Act (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

 

This amendment would in effect shut down the State Department in order to force Secretary of State to produce a report on Iran .

 

------

 

In further grandstanding, today a gathering of House Republicans lead by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), along with Reps. Boehner (R-OH), Cantor (R-VA), Pence (R-IN), McCotter (R-MI), are calling on Senate colleagues to amend the HR 1105 to bar funding for UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority.  They made the call with the knowledge that doing so would kill the bill, and despite the fact that the breakdown of the proposed $900 million in funds for the Palestinians is still unknown.

 

The press release issued by Ros-Lehtinen stated:  "The Administration should withdraw its pledge to provide $900 million in bonus funding to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza reconstruction.  These funds are proposed in addition to what is already included in the Omnibus appropriations bill pending in the Senate.  And some of the funds will be going through UNRWA at a time when this UN agency is partnering with banks targeted by the U.S. for their roles in financing violent Islamist militants. We need to protect taxpayer funds from finding their way to the Commercial Bank of Syria , an UNRWA partner subject to U.S. sanctions and run by the Syrian regime.  Another UNRWA partner is the Arab Bank, which is under investigation for financing Palestinian militants and suicide bombers responsible for the deaths of Israelis and Americans in Israel .  Yet, the Senate is poised to allow millions of taxpayer dollars to go to UNRWA, which also fails to vet its own staff and aid recipients for ties to violent Islamist groups.  The bailouts and spending sprees have become so vast that even violent extremists and their enabling UN agencies are getting a `piece of the pie.'"

 

1.  BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

( Saudi Arabia ) HR 1288:  Introduced 3/3/08 by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) and 4 cosponsors, "To halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, to halt the issuance of visas to citizens of Saudi Arabia until the President certifies that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not discriminate in the issuance of visas on the basis of religious affiliation or heritage, and for other purposes."  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary.

 

( Iran )  HR 1327:  Introduced 3/5/09 by Rep. Frank (D-MA) and 3 cosponsors, "To authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran 's energy sector, and for other purposes."  Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

(Iran et al) HR 1367: Introduced 3/5/09 by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) and no cosponsors, "To strengthen the liability of parent companies for violations of sanctions by foreign entities, and for other purposes." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

 

(MITCHELL- Update)  H. Res. 130:  This resolution, introduced 2/4/09 by Rep. Delahunt (D-MA) and strongly supported by Americans for Peace Now, has now attracted 79 cosponsors.  The week's new cosponsors are:  Eshoo (D-CA), Clay (D-MO), Tonko (D-NY), DeFazio (D-OR), Rothman (D-NJ), Doggett (D-TX), Towns (D-NY), Platts (D-PA), and Welch (D-VT).

 

( Iran - Update) HR 1208: This bill, introduced 2/26/09 by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) "To strengthen existing legislation sanctioning persons aiding and facilitating nonproliferation activities by the Government of Iran, and for other purposes" was referred this week to the Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Space and aeronautics. 

2.  OMNIBUS UPDATE: IN THE SENATE

 

As discussed in last week's Round-Up, Congress is working to pass HR 1105, the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which includes FY09 appropriations for the State Department and Foreign Operations.  The bill, which passed the House last week with little controversy (on basically a party-line vote), has for several days been under consideration in the Senate, where a number of Middle East-related amendments have been introduced and one important Iran-related amendment was actually voted on. 

 

S. Amdt. 634 - Kyl Amendment on Iran ,
Introduced 3/3/09 by Sens. Kyl (R-AZ) and Vitter (R-LA), "To prohibit the expenditure of amounts made available under this Act in a contract with any company that has a business presence in Iran 's energy sector."  The amendment was brought up for a vote late in the afternoon on 3/5/09, where it was defeated by a vote of 41-53, with 5 members not voting (3 Republicans voted against the measure, while 4 Democrats, along with Sen. Leiberman, voted in favor - a rather close vote given that if the amendment had passed it would have scuttled the entire Omnibus, forcing it back to the House for reconsideration and opening the door for further amendments. 

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) made a powerful floor statement opposing the amendment for its timing and substance (see Sec. 4, below, for full text).  Other senators speaking out against the amendment were Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dodd (D-CT), Mikulski (D-MD), and Menendez (D-NJ), all of whom spoke more about the timing and politicization of the amendment, rather than the substance.

 

Text of the amendment is as follows:

 

Sec. __. (a) Except as provided under subsection (b), none of the funds made available under this Act may be spent by a Federal agency in a new contract or other expenditure of Federal funds with a company identified by the Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as having a business presence in Iran's energy sector, including Iran's refineries, refined petroleum products, and oil and natural gas fields.

 

(b) The President may waive the application of subsection (a), on a case-by-case basis, if the President--
(1) determines that such waiver is necessary for the national security interests of the United States ; and
(2) submits an unclassified report to Congress, with a classified annex if necessary, that describes the reasons such waiver is necessary.
 
S. Amdt. 627: Ensign amendment on Hamas/Gaza
Introduced 3/3/09 by Sen. Ensign (R-NV), to require "a United Nations investigation of Hamas activities during January 2009 Israeli operations in Gaza ."  The amendment has not been considered as of this writing.  The text of the amendment is as follows:

Sec. 7093. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) During the January 2009 operations conducted by the Government of Israel in Gaza , a United Nations building in Gaza suffered damage.
(2) According to a February 10, 2009, statement from United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, the United Nations has dispatched a team to Gaza to investigate damage done to ``United Nations premises''.
(3) No similar investigation has been initiated by the United Nations Secretariat with respect to Hamas activities during the Gaza operations.
(b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title I under the heading ``CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS'' and available for contributions to the United Nations, $382,350,000 may not be made available until the Secretary of State certifies that--
 (1) the United Nations has dispatched a team to Gaza to investigate attacks on the people and territory of Israel since Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza ; and
(2) the United Nations investigation of damage done to United Nations premises in Gaza includes an inquiry into allegations that Hamas was using territory near such premises to take actions hostile to the Israeli Defense Forces or the people or territory of Israel.

 

S. Amdt. 630: Kyl Amendment on Egypt Counter-Smuggling Efforts
Introduced 3/3/09 and not considered yet as of this writing. The text of the amendment is as follows:

 

Sec. 7093. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to Congress a report on whether additional funds from Foreign Military Financing assistance provided annually to the Government of Egypt could be expended--
 (1) to improve efforts by the Government of Egypt to counter illicit smuggling, including arms smuggling, across the Egypt-Gaza border; and
(2) to intercept weapons originating in other countries in the region and smuggled into Gaza through Egypt .

 

S. Amdt. 631: Kyl Amendment on Gaza Reconstruction
Introduced 3/3/09 and not considered yet as of this writing. The text of the amendment is as follows:

 

Sec. 7093. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to aid reconstruction efforts in Gaza until the Secretary of State certifies that none of such funds will be diverted to Hamas or entities controlled by Hamas.

 

3.  CONGRESS ON $900 MILLION AID FOR PALESTINIANS

 

At the 3/2/09 donors conference for Gaza recovery in Sharm el Sheikh, the U.S. announced plans to provide $900 million in assistance to the Palestinian Authority and for Gaza (the $900 million number was actually reported in the press days earlier, but not confirmed by the State Department until 3/2).  Only $300 million of the funding is intended for Gaza, where it will be used "to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including those identified under the UN appeal and to support the PA's plan for Gaza" and provided "through USAID in coordination with UN agencies, international organizations and USAID grantees, and through the Department of State for UN agencies, ICRC, and other humanitarian organizations."  The State Department's 3/2/09 press release can be viewed at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/03/119925.htm

 

The announcement of the planned US aid met with varying responses from the Hill.  Chairman Ackerman (D-NY), praised the Obama Administration and the planned aid, while placing full responsibility for the current humanitarian crisis on Hamas.  Rep. Ros-Lehtinen blasted the aid as a waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit terrorists, and both she and Rep. Kirk (R-IL) seized the aid announcement as an opportunity to once again attack UNRWA.  And Rep. Berkley (D-NV), arguably the farther right-wing member of Congress when it comes to Israel, has reported launched an effort to make all aid for Gazans, including humanitarian assistance, conditional on the release of Gilad Shalit and an end to rocket fire.

 

Excerpts:

 

> Rep. Ackerman (D-NY, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia )

 

3/2/09 press release: "I have said for many years, that the United States has a clear stake in the survival and the success of those in the moderate Palestinian leadership camp, and that we need to apply the resources at our disposal to ensure their success.While I am proud that the United States has today taken the lead in responding to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people, there should be no doubt that these needs are the direct result of the terrorism, brutality and lawlessness which has characterized the policies and leadership of Hamas. The real responsibility for all the tragedy, wreckage and bloodshed which the United States and other nations now will try to alleviate lies with this Iran-sponsored terrorist group, Hamas. And I fear their recklessness may yet impose further tragedy on both the people of Israel and the innocent civilian population in Gaza.the time for action by America is now, and I strongly endorse the Obama Administration's readiness to put America's money where our mouth is. For too many years, American rhetoric has far outpaced American action, and I am very pleased that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have taken such a clear step in supporting those who resist the camp of terror and reestablishing our credibility.  I would add, however, that it is not just the United States that has to match actions to words. Professed friends of the Palestinian people in the Middle East , in Europe and in Asia need to pitch in as well. The challenge of bringing peace to this already badly scarred region is not the work of one nation, but of the entire international community. Even in the current financial crisis, I believe there is strong public support for providing real assistance to the Palestinian people through their legitimate political institutions and through agencies of the United Nations.   For my part, I am committed to working with the Obama Administration and colleagues in the House to ensure that America again leads the effort to achieve a just and lasting peace built upon the idea of two states for two peoples, a democratic Jewish State of Israel living in peace and security alongside an independent, sovereign and peaceful Palestinian state."
(full statement:  http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny05_ackerman/PR_030209.html)

 

>Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs)

 

3/2/09 press release:  "I am deeply concerned about the Administration's plan to take $900 million from U.S. taxpayers to fund Gaza reconstruction and a bailout of the Palestinian Authority at a time when our nation is grappling with serious economic challenges.  The plan specifies that $300 million will help re-build the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, when it was Hamas's incessant attacks against Israel which caused the recent crisis. Not only is the Administration asking U.S. taxpayers to help rebuild Hamas's infrastructure in Gaza, but it is also asking struggling Americans to help prop up a Palestinian Authority that has proven unable and unwilling to combat Islamist militants in its midst.  Despite the Administration's claim that the aid would not reach Hamas, its assessment ignores that there is only one ultimate distributor and guarantor of aid in Gaza - Hamas.  Dumping American taxpayer money into Gaza reconstruction enables Hamas to reconsolidate their political standing without cost.  This could free up their funds to buy rockets, munitions, and other arms.  Disturbingly, the U.S. has also pledged tens of millions more to the tainted United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).  UNRWA refuses to vet its staff or aid recipients for ties to Hamas and other violent Palestinian extremist groups, and has compromised its strictly humanitarian mission by spreading pro-Hamas, anti-Israel propaganda.  Hamas guards UNRWA warehouses and has stolen or diverted UNRWA aid shipments on several occasions.  How is this good for our nation?  How does this advance our security interests?  We must commit to protecting taxpayer dollars from benefiting violent Islamist militants in any way."
 
>Rep. Kirk (R-IL)

 

3/3/09 press release:  "In the midst of the worst economic recession since World War II, the Administration plans to borrow another billion dollars for the West Bank and Gaza .  Most members of Congress would rather see this money used to provide a $50 million science and technology grant to each state university.  But, if the Administration insists on borrowing this money for Gaza and the West Bank, the Congress should establish a Special Inspector General for Palestinian Assistance with independent oversight for all direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, all assistance to NGOs in West Bank/Gaza and all contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.American assistance to the West Bank and Gaza has created a culture of welfare terrorism. The Special Inspector General was instrumental in stopping waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq - we need that kind of sunshine brought to Ramallah and Gaza City."   [the press release then goes on to re-hash well-rehearsed and generally thoroughly de-bunked accusations against UNRWA].

 

 >Rep. Berkley (D-NV)

 

According to press reports, this week Rep. Shelley Berkley and un-identified colleagues have drafted a "petition" to send to Secretary Clinton urging that US aid for Gaza be conditioned on the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and an end to all rocket fire from Gaza into Israel .  Nothing about the "petition" has showed up in the Congressional Record as of this writing or could be found on Rep. Berkley's website.  For the original press report, see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068953.html.

 

4.  Chairman Kerry on Kyl Amendment

 

Chairman Kerry (D-MA) floor statement, 3/5/09

 

Madam President, I wish to talk about the amendment of the Senator from Arizona , Senator Kyl, amendment No. 634, which is a well-intentioned amendment fundamentally but I think a misdirected amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to prohibit the expenditure of amounts of money made available under this act in a contract with any company that has a business presence in Iran 's energy sector.

 

Effectively, what Senator Kyl is seeking to do on this appropriations bill--on the fly, without hearings within the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, and without any appropriate input by the administration--a new administration, 1 month into office, and an administration that already has announced it has a new policy with respect to Iran--is to walk in here and apply a unilateral sanction by the United States.

 

Now, all of us share a very deep and real concern about the course Iran is on. We have just concluded 3 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on this very subject in order to get a better understanding of exactly what is happening in Iran, exactly what the possibilities may be, how we might avoid making the mistakes that were made in the last administration by rushing to judgment, and how we can proceed in a deliberative, thoughtful way. To simply attach to this appropriations bill this amendment in this way would be to contradict every single one of those legitimate interests of trying to approach a policy with regard to Iran in a thoughtful way.

 

First, let us make it very clear. We all know the effect of adopting this amendment, because of the procedural situation we are in, is very simple. It keeps us from enacting this bill before the current continuing resolution expires. And given what we have heard from the House of Representatives, that means a vote for this amendment is effectively a vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill and it is a vote for a year-long continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. Given the state of our economy, given all of the initiatives contained in bills we should have passed last year and that we are only now getting to, it would be irresponsible in the context of the current economic situation of this country to deny some of these funds to flow and to put people back to work and to help create the future jobs for this country that we need.

 

On another level--and this is important--this amendment, if it passed, would actually have a very negative impact on the very office the Treasury Department--the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence--would require to enforce the amendment. Why is that? Because in this omnibus bill that we want to pass is over $5 million, or about 10 percent over last year's budget, to help them be able to do the very job this amendment seeks to have them do. So the result of passing the amendment would be to take away the needed resources from the very people at the Treasury Department who right now are trying to track down and root out the Iranian banking and financial transactions that contribute directly to Iran's nuclear missile programs.

 

I think for the first reason alone you should not vote for this amendment, but the second reason not to vote for it is that it doesn't make sense to take money away from the people who are already doing the job we want them to do. That doesn't make sense. But more broadly--and I hope colleagues will think about this--this is not the time for this kind of an amendment.

 

We had a secret briefing yesterday afternoon with all of the DNI and CIA and other folks who are doing a lot of hard work with respect to Iran , and we spent a number of hours analyzing this. We are trying to come up with a multilateral approach that reaches out to the Europeans, to the Russians, to the Chinese and others, and we are trying to put together an Iran policy that makes sense. Developing a more effective Iran strategy is one of President Obama's top priorities, and getting it right is challenging. That is why the administration is undertaking the comprehensive review of its policy options even as it works to get its team in place. It doesn't make sense to come careening in here in the course of an afternoon, without hearings, without melding it into that larger strategy, to think about putting in place something that not only works against your interests but actually may wind up making it more difficult for our allies to be able to work with us, and without understanding how it fits into a broader strategy.

 

The President is right to open the door to direct engagement with Iran . And a lot of us are hoping--all of us hope, I think--that a more productive relationship is going to emerge, whereby we can explore areas of mutual interest. Believe it or not--a lot of people don't realize it at first blush--when you begin to look at the region and understand the dynamics of what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan and even Iraq , the fact is that Iran has the potential to be a constructive partner with respect to a number of different mutual interests. They do not like the Taliban, they have an interest in not having drugs come from Afghanistan across the border, they have other interests with respect to the stability of Afghanistan and other parts of that world.

 

The fact is they helped us--a lot of people don't realize this--recently, in 2001 and 2002, when the Senate made almost a unanimous decision that we needed to respond to the 9/11 attacks by dealing with Afghanistan and a safe haven. Iran was enormously helpful to us in that effort. And in fact much of what we were able to accomplish with the northern alliance, with the placement of our personnel on the ground, and other things through other components of that relationship wound up being very constructive in helping us to achieve what we did. So there are possibilities of a different relationship.

 

Nobody is believing that mere talking is going to produce them, but you don't know until you talk what the possibilities are. And you certainly, if you ultimately are going to wind up going down a much tougher road, want to build your bona fides with other countries to show that you have made every effort to be able to find out whether there are alternatives. So I have long advocated that we take a different approach with respect to Iran , and I think this kind of measure gets flat bang immediately plunked down right in the way of being able to take those kinds of additional new initiatives.

 

The challenge for the Obama administration now is going to be to choose a series of red lines with respect to Iran 's potential nuclear program. And to do that, everybody has learned we need to build coalitions with the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and nations within the Middle East in order to be able to pull the full weight of the international community against Iran , should they defy common sense and the requirements of the nonproliferation treaty and the United Nations and the IAEA. So I think for diplomacy to proceed, we don't want to engage in un-thought-out, ad hoc efforts such as this particular amendment, which can get in the way of our ability to put together a strong multilateral coalition.

 

Here is another reality. This amendment would wind up actually making it more difficult to achieve that coalition, because it would indirectly sanction companies in some of the very countries we hope to enlist. That is going to be made more difficult if this amendment were to pass. So again, it is unwise to target unilateral sanctions at allies and other influential countries we need in order to help appropriately build a coalition to deal with Iran .

 

I mentioned earlier that the Foreign Relations Committee has been doing 3 days of hearings on this very topic. Today, we heard from two of the most distinguished and thoughtful individuals in America with respect to national security issues. They have both served as national security advisers to Presidents of the United States --Democratic and Republican. I am talking about Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Gen Brent Scowcroft. Both of them made perfectly clear that this kind of approach--the kind of approach in this amendment--is counterproductive to our overall strategy of bringing tough pressure to bear on Iran in order to change its direction.

 

So I say to my colleagues, going it alone on Iran may make you feel good, but it ain't smart, it is not playing to our strengths, and it is not permitting the current President of the United States , as Commander in Chief and as the initiator of our foreign policy, to be able to take the initiatives he wants. What is more, it is not even clear how the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control would even be able to implement this amendment, and we haven't had any hearings to determine how they would implement this amendment.

 

This amendment would bar any funds provided by the bill for any new Federal contract with any company that has a ``business practice'' in Iran 's energy sector. Well, nobody here even knows fully what the definition of a business practice is. Does that mean CIA ? What does that mean in terms of anybody's understanding of what in fact is going to be banned? Moreover, the Office of Foreign Asset Control doesn't even catalogue those kinds of companies right now. So all of a sudden you pass the money and you are going to ask them to start tracking, no matter how small that company. It is going to distract them, frankly, from the serious work they are doing now to root out and shut down Iran 's nuclear missile-related procurement transactions around the world. That is more important than diverting to this sub-effort.

 

The bottom line is our challenges with Iran are plain too serious to be making foreign policy on the fly in an amendment to an appropriations bill without hearing and without even adequately understanding fully the terms within it. The committees of jurisdiction have not debated this approach. They haven't had any votes on this approach. There may well be a time and place for this kind of a provision. Maybe this provision will fit into a series of escalating sanctions which we have already been talking about within the Foreign Relations Committee. But we ought to do that not in this ad hoc way but in a thoughtful and disciplined way, and I think we will have a much stronger policy if we do that.

 

[additional Kerry comment during the debate]

 

I wish to point out a couple things to the audience. First of all, we have had 3 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on Iran . Today, Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski made it clear this is the not an advisable way to approach the current situation in Iran; that we need to think carefully about the overall record of the type of sanctions we develop or that will be interpreted, as a result, as taking an effort unilaterally by the Senate outside the administration's review process and outside its foreign policy.   Moreover, the Foreign Assets Control Office, which is responsible now for rooting out Iran 's program, actually loses money under this amendment and would, therefore, not be able to do the job it is doing today with respect to it.   Thirdly, there is no definition here of what a business presence is. The fact is, the administration right now is working with a bunch of moderate Arab countries, as well as some of our allies in Europe , in order to put together a sanctions regime that has bite, if we need it. This, in fact, could prevent some of those countries from feeling good about joining in that effort or ultimately joining in it.

 

I would ask my colleague if he would be willing to come together with us. There isn't anybody in this body who doesn't understand the seriousness of what Iran is doing. We had classified briefings on it yesterday. But we owe the administration the opportunity to decide what it believes is the proper regime for sanctions, and so I ask my colleague if he would consider that it might be better, rather than even having a vote, to give us the opportunity to do that, and we will work together and see if we can't come up with a sensible, unified bipartisan approach to Iran.

 

---

For more information, contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.