Legislative Update, July 24, 2013: Concerning Legislation Underway in Congress

Several bills are under consideration in Congress which seek to increase pressure on Iran. All would punish the Iranian people and risk undercutting the incoming Iranian President who has pledged “constructive interaction with the outside world.”

Washington, DC – Four bills are currently under
consideration in Congress – and one is set to be voted on in the House – which
seek to increase pressure on Iran through a variety of means. If these bills
are enacted, the measures they implement will be harmful to ordinary Iranians
as well as to U.S. interests.

In addition to several negative features of each
bill in particular, which are outlined in more detail below, imposing
additional sanctions on Iran or passing otherwise provocative measures at this
time is a poor idea in general. For one thing, it would send precisely the
wrong message to Iranian citizens, punishing them after electing the most
moderate of the candidates running in their recent presidential election.
Furthermore, passing confrontational measures before president-elect
Hassan Rouhani – who has pledged to pursue “constructive interaction with
the outside world” – even has a chance to enter into office threatens to squander
an important potential opportunity for diplomacy, which is particularly
unfortunate considering such opportunities have been few and far between.

However, as Congress considers additional punitive
measures, last week Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Rep. David Price (D-NC) sent
an unprecedented,
bipartisan letter to President Obama, signed by 131 representatives,
urging him to take advantage of the potential opportunity of Rouhani’s election
by reinvigorating diplomacy.  Further,
the letter recommends avoiding provocative actions that could undermine Rouhani
in relation to hardliners and to ease sanctions in exchange for Iranian nuclear
concessions. The letter is by far the loudest call for diplomacy to ever come
from Congress.

Further, as CQ‘s Emily Cadei reports, Congress usually has a sanctions bill ready for the President by the summer.  While the House still could pass H.R.850 in August, many believe that a comprehensive Senate bill will not be ready until the fall.  Thus, it could be until the end of the year or later before the President considers new Congressional sanctions.

1) Nuclear Iran Prevention Act (H.R. 850)

Led
by Representatives Ed Royce (CA) and Eliot Engel (NY).

View the full text and cosponsors. 

Why NIAC Opposes: 

• Adds hurdles to negotiations by limiting the
  President’s authority to lift sanctions & waivers in return for Iranian
  concessions
• Imposes oil and commercial embargoes that could break
  up international coalition against Iran by directly targeting U.S. allies for
  their ongoing trade with Iran
• Expands medicine shortages inside of Iran by failing
  to exempt food, medicine, and other licensed trade from the criteria used to
  determine which countries qualify for sanctions waivers
• Disproportionately hurts ordinary Iranians and thereby
  empowers hardliners in Iran’s government who are advancing anti-West and
  anti-U.S. narratives

Status:

This bill was passed by
the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has over 350 cosponsors. A final vote could take place the last week of July 2013, before Rouhani even enters office.  

Further Analysis of this Bill:  
NIAC: LobeLog, Huffington Post
Friends Committee on National
Legislation (FCNL): Huffington Post, Politix
New York Times Editorial
Board
Washington Post 
Congressional Quarterly (paid subscription required)
Americans for Peace Now
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Roll Call
Reuters 

2)
Iran Loophole Elimination Act (S. 892)

Led by Senators Mark Kirk (IL) and Joe Manchin (WV).

View
the full text and cosponsors.
 

Why NIAC Opposes:

• Further restricts Iranian patients’ access to life-saving
  medicines by blocking Iran from accessing its foreign currency reserves in
  Euros, having a particularly significant impact
  on Iranians’ access to patented medicines produced only in Western countries
  that Iran and its remaining trading partners cannot produce

Status:

This bill was assigned
to a congressional committee on May 8, 2013, which will consider it before
possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Further Analysis of this Bill:  
New York Times

3)
Iran Export Embargo Act (S. 1001)

Led by Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Mark Kirk (IL).

View the full text and cosponsors.

Why NIAC Opposes:

• Makes lifting sanctions nearly impossible by
  removing all waivers and failing to provide sunset criteria, thereby elminating
  the incentive for Iran to continue negotiating with the international community
  and pushing the U.S. and Iran further down the path toward war
• Removes the existing “Cooperating
  Country Waiver,” thereby risking angering U.S. allies and fracturing
  international coalition against Iran
• Eliminates the President’s ability to waive
  sanctions if doing so is in the best interest of the national security, or based
  on considerations of the global petroleum price and supply
• Makes humanitarian trade with Iran impossible by
  blocking all property that might be of interest to the Iranian government,
  without including humanitarian exemptions, and by prohibiting transactions with
  Iran’s Ministry of Health & Medical Education

Status:

This bill was assigned
to a congressional committee on May 21, 2013, which will consider it before
possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. The bill currently
has 19 cosponsors, all Republican.

Further
Analysis of this Bill:  

NIAC Policy Memo: The Iran Export
Embargo Act

4)
Iran Regime Change Act (Draft Bill)

Led by Senator Mark Kirk (IL).

View leaked bill summary obtained by
the FCNL.

Why NIAC Opposes:

• Expands sanctions against Iran’s financial sector,
  making it more difficult for Iranians to access food, medicine, and other
  humanitarian goods
• Repeats the mistakes of the Iraq Liberation Act by
  calling for regime change, which would derail ongoing diplomatic negotiations
  that represent the best chance to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, avoid war,
  and seriously address human rights issues in Iran
• Strengthens hardliners in the Iranian government by
  confirming their suspicions that U.S.-led economic pressure is not part of a
  diplomatic effort to convince Iran to curb its nuclear program, but rather an
  attempt to overthrow the Islamic Republic itself

Status:

This
bill is currently being drafted and has yet to be introduced.

Further Analysis of this Bill:
National Iranian
American Council: The Huffington Post
FCNL: The Huffington Post Blog and quoted in a Huffington
Post article
Bloomberg 
Colin H. Kahl and Alireza Nader in Al Monitor

5) Iran Sanctions Implementation Act (S. 965)

Led by Senator Jim Inhofe (OK).

View the full text and cosponsors.

Why NIAC Opposes:

• Attempts to use sanctions as a politically popular
  cover for expanding U.S. oil drilling, while containing a number of falsities
  regarding Iran’s nuclear program, such as the assertion that Iran has a nuclear
  weapons program, which goes against U.S. national intelligence analysis affirming
  that Iran’s weaponization program was discontinued in 2003 and has remained so
  ever since
• The President has no authority to remove this
  sanction, thereby adding hurdles to negotiations by limiting his ability to
  offer sanctions relief in return for Iranian concessions

Status:

This
bill was referred to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on May 15, 2013, which will consider it before possibly
sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Further Analysis of this Bill:  
Long Island Press