Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4691.

As I have explained during committee consideration, I have serious concerns about what this bill means to the overall practice of American foreign policy and, therefore, must oppose it.

Some think that diplomacy is weak and that the only way you show strength is to go to war. We have heard from generals that if war was the only option that we had on the table, it would cost us much more in bullets and armor, and that diplomacy helps deter military.

In fact, I would say it is strength. Anybody can say I am going to fight. It is strength in trying to negotiate, in dealing with diplomacy. If that should fail, going to war should be your last alternative.

Diplomacy and people in the State Department who exercise it are absolutely essential. It brings others with us so we are not out there by ourselves but working in a multilateral way.

It is hard for any Member, particularly me as a ranking member, to be opposed to a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight of sensitive foreign policy issues. However, in the specific case of this bill as drafted, were it to be signed into law, I believe it would damage America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy.

Here is why. When dealing with our enemies, a strong diplomatic corps and a strong military are both necessary to achieve our goals. In the specific case of Iran, they can clearly see from our consistent joint military exercises, regional deployments, and last weekend's missile defense that we mean business.

Our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. Case in point was the successful implementation of the JCPOA, which verifiably cut off all pathways to an Iranian bomb. The dangerous nuclear moment we now find ourselves in, where Iran has stockpiled highly enriched uranium and is limiting the access of inspectors is the direct result of the shortsighted cancellation of that diplomatic agreement. The Iranian nuclear threat has never been more dangerous than it is right now.

Again, when we had the JCPOA, working in a multilateral way with our other allies, and even at that point, two who are not allies, and when you speak to most individuals, IAEA included, who had eyes on what was taking place in Iran, once we pulled out and stopped using diplomacy, they have no eyes now, which is why Iran is more dangerous today than it was when they were in this agreement.

The United States must keep diplomacy on the table as a tool to address the Iranian threat. If this proposed bill is set into law, Iranian negotiators will know and allied negotiators will know that the executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot independently make decisions. Our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. Other parties, friend or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions implementation would become subject to a joint motion of disapproval. Carefully negotiated multilateral agreements risk becoming subject to partisanship right here in the United States House of Representatives, in Congress. Such an action is worrisome and also without precedent.

I also believe that this bill directly interferes with the INARA process, the bipartisan agreement currently in statute to provide Congress the ability to approve or disapprove a negotiated nuclear agreement.

Diplomatic agreements with Iran are already subject to congressional review as a whole. This bill goes far beyond that statute. Even if the United States Congress cleared an Iran deal through a comprehensive INARA process, sanctions implementation would once again become subject to binding congressional review, risking the agreement itself.

This legislation could also harm efforts to deescalate tensions with Iran shy of a comprehensive agreement. If this or a future administration tried to negotiate a short-term diplomatic agreement on nuclear or other issues, such as regional troop protection, this legislation would interfere with that process.

I would also like to make a more general point about sanctions that I believe this Congress sometimes forgets--one I feel that I have to make over and over and over again nowadays in this Congress. Sanctions are meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. You don't keep a sanction if the goal has been achieved. Our nuclear sanctions were not passed to foment regime change in Iran, no matter how much we hoped they were. They were designed to drive Iran to the table to negotiate an end to their nuclear weapons program. If we reach an agreement that clears INARA, one that verifiably cuts off pathways to a nuclear weapon, we have to live up to our end of the agreement.

Legislation like this one is designed to thwart our obligations, damaging our diplomatic flexibility and trustworthiness if we care about diplomacy. Now maybe we don't care about diplomacy; I think that is the wrong way to go. I think that we should very much care about diplomacy.

Finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a policy vis-a-vis Russia. That is inaccurate. The scope of Russian sanctions in CAATSA is much smaller. For instance, national emergencies past and present are included in this proposed bill but not in CAATSA. The new Russia sanctions EOs aren't covered in CAATSA, and any new Iran EO would be. There are also many sanctions in CAATSA where there is no congressional review. This bill, however, would apply to the entire universe of Iran sanctions. Finally, CAATSA mechanisms were established specifically to deal with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. It wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate diplomacy, as this bill will do.

My friends and colleagues, we must look beyond Iran before going down this road. I have been around here 26 years, and I know that if passed into law, this type of policy will not stop with Iran. If this were to become law, it would only be a matter of time before the lifting of any sanction, no matter how small, would be subject to a congressional vote. It is our duty to provide the authority and the appropriations for effective foreign policy, not to undermine diplomacy in this manner.

We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State in a negotiating room. It never happens that way. You do not negotiate that way. Diplomacy does not work that way. I say: Please think. Think carefully before steering us down this road. Think what it means if you think diplomacy is important. If you don't think diplomacy is important and the only thing that is important is going to war, then we have a difference of opinion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I think everyone has heard by now how important diplomacy is. I think that we should show it in our budget. I am a firm believer in diplomacy. The fact of the matter, the direct quote from General Mattis was: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.''

I guess my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle just want to buy ammunition, and that is why the State Department is continually being cut, because they don't really focus on or put diplomacy on the same level, and that is what is happening here with this bill.

This bill would significantly impede America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy with Iran. By requiring that any adjustment in sanctions implementation be subject to a joint motion of disapproval, the bill would undermine diplomacy and U.S. negotiators, and makes that clear to anyone sitting across from them at the table. That is the negotiating table, not the battlefield, where we hope we don't have to go, but we are prepared and have shown that we are ready to do it if we must, and that is discussed first at a negotiating table.

This would also let them know when we are at the table--those that are sitting across that table--that they have no authority to relax or adjust sanctions. It would subject any negotiations to undue congressional partisanship.

Can anyone deny that what we see happening on this floor--and what is happening in this 118th Congress--partisanship plays a huge role? In fact, we can't get anything done because of partisanship. Iran would know this. In fact, our allies would know this.

We are tied up in partisanship. This would only weaken our position. This only compromises the agility required to address urgent international threats and opportunities.

Moreover, the stipulations of this bill undermine the very purpose of sanctions which are intended as tools to bring nations like Iran to the negotiating table--not as a permanent punitive measure. But if they do something where they are disregarding, and we are not working together and are aggressive at that negotiating table, we also are letting them know that we are ready or what we have the capability of doing.

This bill hurts diplomacy. It hurts trying to make sure that we are driving others to the negotiating table. As General Mattis said, he doesn't have to buy more bullets. Let's fund the State Department. Let's promote and speak good will of diplomacy. It is the best way to move forward in a multilateral way with our allies.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source