Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
73–265PS
2001
IRAN/LIBYA SANCTIONS EXTENSION ACT;
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TROPICAL FOREST CONSERVATION ACT OF 1998 THROUGH FY 2004;
CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA TO RELEASE ALL AMERICAN SCHOLARS OF
CHINESE ANCESTRY BEING HELD IN DETENTION;
EXPRESSING THAT LEBANON, SYRIA, AND IRAN SHOULD
CALL UPON HEZBOLLAH TO ALLOW REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS TO VISIT FOUR ABDUCTED ISRAELIS HELD IN LEBANON
MARKUPS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1954, H.R. 2131, H. Res. 160 and H. Res. 99
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
JUNE 13 AND JUNE 20, 2001
Serial No. 107–31
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
JIM DAVIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
STEPHEN G. RADEMAKER, Deputy Staff Director/General Counsel
DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian
MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
C O N T E N T S
DATES
June 13, 2001
June 20, 2001
H.R. 1954
The ILSA (Iran/Libya Sanctions Act) Extension Act of 2001
H.R. 1954
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York: Prepared statement
The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement
Public Law 104–172
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Mr. Lantos
Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Mr. Paul
H.R. 2131
To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
of 1998 through fiscal year 2004
H.R. 2131
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement
Amendment to H.R. 2131 offered by Mr. Lantos
H. Res. 160
Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China
to immediately and unconditionally release Li Shaomin and all other
American scholars of Chinese ancestry being held in detention,
calling on the President of the United States to continue working
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
on behalf of Li Shaomin and the other detained scholars for
their release, and for other purposes
H. Res. 160
Amendments to H. Res. 160 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement
H. Res. 99
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
Lebanon, Syria, and Iran should call upon Hezbollah to allow
representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to
visit four abducted Israelis, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, Omar
Souad, and Elchanan Tannenbaum, presently held by Hezbollah
forces in Lebanon
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
H. Res. 99
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York: Prepared statement regarding H.R. 1954
The Honorable Tom Lantos: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 160
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 160
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 160
The Honorable Tom Lantos: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 99
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 99
The Honorable Joseph Crowley: Prepared statement regarding H. Res. 99
THE ILSA (IRAN/LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT) EXTENSION ACT OF 2001
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:53 a.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman HYDE. The meeting will come to order. Pursuant to notice I now call up the bill H.R. 1954 for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 1954, follows:]
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of presenting a statement.
I would like to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1954, the ILSA Extension Act of 2001, that would extend the authorities of the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act for an additional 5 years through 2006. Enacted in 1996, this act has helped to discourage foreign energy firms from investing in Iran's and Libya's energy sectors out of ongoing concerns that both countries support international terrorism and are developing weapons of mass destruction.
While the recent reelection of President Khatami does give some encouragement to the voices of reform inside Iran, there is little evidence that he has control over his country's foreign and security policy, or for that matter that he would make any changes in these policies, including sponsorship of terrorism. Iran remains on the State Department's state sponsors of terrorism list.
Notwithstanding his liberalization efforts, Iran has recently stepped up its support to Islamic radical movements that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel and has made every effort to disrupt efforts to promote the peace process in the Middle East. In its most recent report in April of this year, the State Department stated that, and I quote, Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the year 2000, unquote.
Libya's past involvement in the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was highlighted by the finding of a Scottish tribunal this January that a Libyan intelligence agent was guilty of the crime, and that the plot to destroy the aircraft was, quote, of Libyan origin, unquote.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In my view, the Libyan government must now publicly acknowledge its involvement in this terrorist attack and pay full and adequate compensation to the families of all the victims. Unless and until Mr. Qaddafi undertakes these actions, ILSA should remain in place. This policy is consistent with the United Nations sanctions now in place on Libya as well.
While it is my understanding that the Administration will not oppose this measure, it has asked for a shorter reauthorization period. These concerns can, I believe, be addressed later in the legislative process.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
ILSA EXTENSION ACT OF 2001
I would like to proceed to the consideration of H. R. 1954, ''The ILSA Extension Act of 2001,'' that would extend the authorities of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act for an additional five years through 2006. Enacted in 1996, this Act has helped to discourage foreign energy firms from investing in Iran's and Libya's energy sectors out of ongoing concerns that both countries support international terrorism and are developing weapons of mass destruction.
While the recent reelection of President Khatami does give some encouragement to the voices of reform inside Iran, there is little evidence that he has control over his country's foreign and security policy—or, for that matter, that he would make any changes in these policies, including sponsorship of terrorism. Iran remains on the State Department's ''state sponsors of terrorism'' list.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Notwithstanding his liberalization efforts, Iran has recently stepped up its support to Islamic radical movements that carry out terrorist attacks against Israel and has made every effort to disrupt efforts to promote the peace process in the Middle East. In its most recent report in April of this year, the State Department stated that, ''Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000.''
Libya's past involvement in the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was highlighted by the finding of a Scottish tribunal this January that a Libyan intelligence agent was guilty of the crime and that the plot to destroy the aircraft was, ''of Libyan origin.''
In my view, the Libyan government must now publicly acknowledge its involvement in this terrorist attack and pay full and adequate compensation to the families of all the victims. Unless and until Mr. Qaddafi undertakes these actions, ILSA should remain in place. This policy is consistent with the United Nations sanctions now in place on Libya, as well.
While it is my understanding that the Administration will not oppose this measure, it has asked for a shorter reauthorization period. These concerns can, I believe, be addressed later in the legislative process.
Chairman HYDE. And I am pleased to yield to Mr. Lantos for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to identify myself with your comments. I strongly support the legislation to renew ILSA for 5 more years, and I think it is sort of intriguing to speculate on the range of criticism President Bush is receiving as we meet today from our various European friends and allies. Without commenting on the validity of those criticisms, let me say that many of them pale in comparison with the hypocrisy of our European allies in failing to stand with us in our condemnation of Iran and Libya in their headlong pursuit of the almighty profits that the various European countries are seeking in these despicable nations.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
ILSA imposes sanctions on foreign companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector and more than $40 million in Libya's energy sector. It does limit those two nations' oil profits, which each country uses to bankroll weapons of mass destruction programs and various terrorist activities.
Initial reasons, Mr. Chairman, for applying sanctions on Iran are as compelling today as when ILSA was enacted 5 years ago. Iran continues to support terrorism. It continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and it fanatically opposes not only the peace process in the Middle East, but the very existence of our allies as well. The State Department calls Iran, and I quote, the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Since ILSA took effect, Iran has continued to assist terrorists in the murder of Americans, and there is mounting evidence that Iranian security officials were behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 American servicemen. FBI Director Freeh has indicated that the last unfinished business of his tenure is to deal with the Khobar terrorism.
Iran also provides aid and training to such despicable groups as the Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whose goals and visions Iran shares.
In its most recent ILSA-mandated report to the Congress, the State Department accuses Iran of making a continuing effort to acquire the technology, the expertise and the materials required to develop and maintain an active weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile capability. Last year, Mr. Chairman, Iran successfully tested an 800-mile-range missile capable of delivering this catastrophic weapon against its neighbors ranging from Turkey to Egypt.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Last week Iran held an election for President. The overwhelming winner was the incumbent Mr. Khatami, the most reform-oriented of the candidates that the clerical establishment allowed to run. This is a hopeful sign, showing that ordinary Iranians are yearning for openness, democracy, and they are singularly unhappy with their current benighted system. But in Iran, as we all know, the President is infinitely less powerful than the chief clerical authorities, the supreme leader. The real control of Iran's levers of power, the security organization, the judiciary, the media and the military establishment, remain in the hands of the ayatollahs.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, Libya refuses to accept any responsibility for the downing of Pan Am 103 or to compensate the families of victims even though a top Libyan intelligence operative was convicted of the bombing. The sanctions on Libya must continue.
Some may argue that ILSA hasn't had an impact on the Iranian economy. That is demonstrably false. Even Iranian officials, including Khatami, have acknowledged that ILSA's economic impact had been extremely significant. We urge the Administration to implement ILSA's sanctions vigorously when foreign firms invest in Iran or Libya's energy sector. At the same time we must intensify our efforts to persuade our allies to join us in seeking to curtail Iranian and Libyan destructive policies. If we don't try to deter foreign investment in Iran and Libya, we are simply supporting and sustaining ruthless regimes in their evil designs to murder Americans and others and to wreak havoc in the Middle East and in other regions. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your bringing this measure, H.R. 1954, the ILSA Extension Act, before our Committee today.
The Iran/Libya Sanctions Act mandates sanctions against foreign firms that invest in energy sectors of Iran and Libya. Its aim is to deprive those countries of revenues that they can use to foment terrorism against the U.S. and its allies and develop weapons of mass destruction.
The act, of which I was an original sponsor, was initially passed in 1996 and by its terms is going to expire after 5 years, in August of this year. Earlier this year, in May, we held hearings on this bill in draft form, and on May 23rd I introduced the bill, the ILSA Extension Act, together with my colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, that renews this act for an additional 5 years.
Bipartisan support for renewing ILSA is strong. At the present time we have some 236 cosponsors in the House and 74 Senators, and more coming. Support for extension remains strong because Iran continues to threaten the national security of our nation, as President Bush certified to the Congress in March. However, I do not believe that Iranian people, if given a choice, would want their country to persist in threatening our nation or in engaging in terrorism as it is now doing. To do so estranges them from the United States and prevents their nation from developing to its fullest potential.
Although a form of democracy does exist in Iran, it is controlled by security apparatus that makes many crucial decisions without any popular consent. Thus, it is left to us to do what the Iranian people cannot do for themselves, which is to contain the Iranian apparatus as best we can.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As for Libya, although Libyans stand convicted of killing Americans, Britons and others in bringing down Pan Am flight 103, the Libyan government has yet to take on the responsibility for its actions in this matter as required by the U.N. Security Council or to pay compensation to the victims.
There is ample evidence that ILSA has delayed the exploitation of Iran's and Libya's energy resources and has made the development even more difficult and more expensive. Few major energy companies are willing to jeopardize their ties to our nation or to our huge U.S. market, in exchange for the difficult investment conditions that now prevail in both Iran and Libya.
My colleagues should bear in mind that ILSA does not affect any of our American companies. It is aimed solely at foreign companies which take advantage of our Executive order ban on U.S. investments in both Iran and Libya. It even provides that it would not have any further effect if Iran and Libya conform to acceptable standards of behavior for members of the world community, but to date they have not done so.
To prevent Libya and Iran from doing further harm, I would respectfully urge our colleagues to renew ILSA for another 5-year period. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
''Mr. Chairman, I much appreciate your bringing HR 1954, the ILSA Extension Act, before the Committee today. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act mandates sanctions against foreign firms that invest in the energy sectors of Iran and Libya. Its aim is to deprive those countries of revenues that they can use to foment terrorism against the U.S. and its allies or to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The Act was initially passed in 1996 and by its terms will expire after five years, this August. On May 9, I held hearings on this bill in draft form. On May 23, I introduced a bill, the ILSA Extension Act, together with my colleague, Congressman Howard Berman of California, that would renew the Act for another five years.
Bipartisan support for renewing ILSA is strong. At the present time, we have 236 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 74 Senators and counting. Support for extension remains strong because Iran continues to threaten the national security of the United States, as President Bush certified to Congress in March.
I do not believe, however, that the Iranian people, if given a choice, would want their country to persist in threatening the United States and in engaging in terrorism. Doing so estranges them from the United States and prevents their country from developing to it fullest potential. Although a form of democracy exists in Iran, it is controlled by a security apparatus that makes many crucial decisions without popular consent. Thus, it is left to us to do what the Iranian people cannot do for themselves, which is to contain the Iranian security apparatus as best we can.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As for Libya, although Libyans stand convicted of killing Americans, Britons, and others by bringing down Pan Am Flight 103, the Libyan government has failed to take responsibility for its actions in this matter, as required by the U.N. Security Council, and to pay compensation.
There is ample evidence that ILSA has delayed exploitation of Iran's and Libya's energy resources and made their development more difficult and more expensive. Few major energy companies want to jeopardize their ties to the huge U.S. market in exchange for the difficult investment conditions that prevail in Iran and Libya.
ILSA does not affect any of our American companies. It is aimed solely at foreign companies which take advantage of our executive-order ban on U.S. investment in Iran or Libya. It even provides that it would not have any further effect if Iran and Libya conform to acceptable standards of behavior for members of the world community. But they have not done so thus far.
To prevent Iran and Libya from doing further harm, I respectfully ask my colleagues to renew ILSA for another five years.''
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. I have got a list here. You are on the list.
Mr. Ackerman.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to extend legislation that is an integral component of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Five years ago this Committee believed that the imposition of sanctions was required to prevent Iran and Libya from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and from supporting terrorism. Five years later both countries continue to pose a significant threat to U.S. interests and allies across the region.
Notwithstanding the recent elections in Iran, that nation has done nothing to merit the lifting of sanctions, and in some key ways its international behavior has gotten worse. Appeasement won't change that. No matter how hard some in Washington look for Iranian government moderates, they just aren't there. President Khatami shares the foreign policy of the Ayatollahs who actively support terrorism and continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
For these that argue that ILSA has not deterred investment, the World Bank has reported that in 1999, Iran attracted less foreign direct investment than resourceful poor Lebanon, Syria or Jordan. By comparison, since ILSA's adoption, Qatar just across the Persian Gulf has attracted $18 billion in foreign direct investment. Clearly ILSA has denied Iran investment in its oil and gas sector, thereby limiting the money available for the support of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.
Mr. Chairman, there is overwhelming support in both the House and Senate for extending ILSA, and the White House has agreed to an extension. We have an opportunity to move forward on an important foreign policy initiative in a bipartisan way. Let's seize it. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like unanimous consent to submit a written statement.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you. I did want to inform the Chair that I do have one amendment that I would like to offer at the proper time, but I just want to make mention of the reason why I oppose this legislation.
It was said that our allies showed hypocrisy by not supporting us, but I think there are some of our allies that might think that we are showing some hypocrisy as well, because we talk a lot about free trade and the benefits of free trade in dealing with people, even the less perfect countries in the world like China. Not only do we trade with China, we subsidize China. They are the biggest recipient of export/import funds of any country in the world, and we are always hoping that trade will help our relations, and I believe that. I don't believe in the subsidies, but I believe in the trade, and we should pursue that.
For us to pursue these sanctions when there are signs that there are some changes in the government of Iran I think is not a wise move. Our allies are not supportive of this position. In particular Turkey finds this is rather offensive because they suffer from these sanctions.
Just recently the Atlantic Council in May of this year issued a report thinking beyond the stalemate in U.S.-Iranian relations, and they came down on the side of saying that we should end the sanctions against Iran, and that is hardly a right-wing group. That is very establishment, and they have taken the position that is consistent with the pronouncement so often, on our side at least, of believers in free trade. It certainly is closer to the President's position not to extend the sanctions. We may go along with this, but he has not asked for it. He certainly hasn't asked for 5 years.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So I would say that we should consider what we preach, and we preach free trade and working with people. That does not mean they should qualify for subsidies. I don't think that is a real free trade. A real free-trader believes that we should be trading with people and talking with people and working with them, and that we will have less hostilities, and we are less likely to fight with them under those conditions. So I am going to ask, later on, to reduce the extension to only 2 years, and I yield back.
Mr. LANTOS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend for yielding.
A little over a year ago, our then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a major policy speech in which she called for a new relationship with Iran. It was followed up by easing up on import restrictions on products from Iran. As you know, a variety of Iranian products can now be imported into the United States, ranging from carpets to caviar, and several of us both preceded and followed up Madeleine Albright's initiative, requesting visas to visit Iran to begin a meaningful dialogue with our counterparts in the Iranian Government.
Iran rebuffed all of these approaches. It rebuffed the approach of our Secretary of State and of our Administration, and it rebuffed the approach of those Members of Congress such as myself who attempted to begin a dialogue.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PAUL. If I could reclaim my time, you have a reasonable point, but it doesn't jibe with our position with other countries such as China. They have been involved in many infractions of civil liberties that we tolerate and we pursue because there is a lot more money, and there is a lot more big business involved, and we are a lot more tolerant of the infractions with China. I am not trying to take the position that I am going to defend Iran. That is not the point. It is how do you deal with difficult nations. Do you try to isolate them? Usually it doesn't work. We have isolated Cuba now for 40 years, and it hasn't done much good.
So I think the principle of sanctions really isn't a very good position, and we should reassess it, which is exactly what the Atlantic Council did under the leadership of Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft. So these are reasonable people saying we are not going in the right way.
Mr. GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I will yield.
Mr. GILMAN. Congressman Paul mentioned that we are dealing with China in comparison to our willingness to try to sanction Iran, but bear in mind China is not on a terrorism list whereas Iran is, and they have been training terrorists, exporting terrorism and creating an unstable situation.
Mr. PAUL. If I could reclaim my time, I would suggest that maybe the terrorism that the Chinese are involved in is mainly domestic. To argue that they are a much more refined nation than Libya, I don't think holds up.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paul follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this move to extend the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act.
First, the underlying Act places way too much authority both to make determinations and to grant waivers, in the hands of the President and the Executive Branch. As such, it is yet another unconstitutional delegation of authority which we ought not extend.
Moreover, as the Act applies to Libya, the authority upon which the bill depends is a resolution of the United Nations. So, any member who is concerned with UN power should vote against this extension.
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at ''persons'' engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I support those portions of this bill designed to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.
The Bush Administration would prefer this legislation to expire and, failing that, they prefer taking a first step by making the extension last for a shorter period. In this I believe the Administration has taken the correct position. For one thing, there have been moves, particularly in Iran, to liberalize. We harm these attempts by maintaining a sanctions regime.
I also have to point out the inconsistency in our policy. Why would we sanction Iran but not Sudan, and why would we sanction Libya but not Syria? I hear claims related to our national security but surely these are made in jest. We subsidize business with the People's Republic of China but sanction Europeans from helping to build oil refineries in Iran.
In case anybody on this committee has not heard, there is a real concern in our country regarding the price of gasoline. Since these sanctions are directly aimed at preventing the development of petroleum resources in these countries, this bill will DIRECTLY RESULT IN AMERICANS HAVING TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE AT THE GASOLINE PUMP. These sanctions HURT AMERICANS. British Petroleum and others have refused to provide significant investment for petroleum extraction in Iran because of the uncertainty this legislation helps to produce. The tiny nation of Qatar has as much petroleum related investment as does Iran since this legislation went into effect. Again, this reduces supply and raises prices at the gas pump. Will the members of this committee return to their districts and tell voters ''I just voted to further restrict petroleum supply and keep gas prices high?'' I doubt that.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the legislative realities as regards this legislation and the powerful interests that want it extended. However, it is not just myself and the Bush Administration suggesting this policy is flawed. The Atlantic Council is a prestigious group co-chaired by Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft that has suggested in a resent study that we ought to end sanctions upon Iran.
Mr. Chairman I believe the time has come for us to consider the U.S. interest and the benefits of friendly commerce with all nations. We are particularly ill advised in passing this legislation and hamstringing the new Administration at this time. I must oppose any attempt to extend this Act and support any amendment that would reduce the sanction period it contemplates.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support and am proud to cosponsor this legislation. I have supported the sanctions for 5 years. I think that when we look at the national interests and national security interests of the United States, which I think should be guiding principles on both grounds, it is in the interest of the United States to pursue the reauthorization of this legislation and the sanctions policy in this regard.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I find it incredibly difficult that there are advocates of helping Iran in such a way that fuels their weaponry development, that fuels their weapons of mass destruction, that fuels their terrorism, and that in essence is what we would do. In national interests, I don't think you can simply be blinded by the color of money, and to those who I respect, those who have different views of sanctions policy, it is not a perfect tool. The suggestion that all sanctions policies should be swept aside is in essence debilitating the United States of a handful of peaceful diplomacy tools that this country or any other country has.
There are only a handful of peaceful diplomacy tools: the use of your aid and trade as inducements to get countries to act certain ways; international opinion, to the extent that a country is susceptible to being moved by international opinion, and most rogue regimes or countries on terrorist lists are not moved by international opinion; and then the final aspect of peaceful diplomacy, which is the denial of your aid or your trade, which we generally consider sanctions. If you sever those unilaterally, you, in essence, deny yourself opportunities for peaceful diplomacy pursuits.
Now, the election of President Khatami may be the hope, but the power remains in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei, and the reality is that power is used in pursuit of a policy that is against the interests of the United States, against the national security of the United States and the security of our allies in that part of the world.
I do not believe that we should help others help Iran. I do not believe that we should assist those who might invest in a country that continues to bankroll a weapons-of-mass-destruction program and terrorist activities. I do not believe that we should be part of assisting those who are willing to give a significant amount of money and rewards to the families of suicide bombers.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I do not believe that, in fact, we should be assisting, and that is why I am glad that, in the State Department reauthorization bill, my amendment was adopted in the House so that we are not giving voluntary contributions to the international Atomic Energy Administration to help Iran develop the operational capacity to have a nuclear power plant in one of those countries in the world that has among the largest oil and natural gas reserves to develop nuclear energy.
You cannot tell me for those purposes a country that has vast resources needs to develop nuclear energy for its domestic production. It does so as a guise to develop nuclear weaponry. Knowing that Iran has already tested missiles with 800-mile range capacity, able to deliver catastrophic weaponry against its neighbors, including, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, I do not see how it is in the national interests of the United States or the national security interests of the United States to facilitate those possibilities.
So I think we have national interests. We have national security interests. Sanctions policies aren't perfect, but in this regard we can send a very clear and unequivocal message. Even the Iranians have acknowledged the degree to which, in fact, these sanctions policies have caused them harm. If we back away and we say to the rest of the world, trade on, let's trade on to our strategic detriment and demise, then I think we will have a rude awakening.
So I strongly urge my colleagues not to water down this legislation, stand for the national interests and security interests of this country, and support the legislation.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some concern about the timing of this legislation, coming 5 days after the election of Khatami, which would indicate a continuation of, if you will, moderation with a win over the hard-liners. This legislation, using the same language as the original law, does not help us move forward with encouraging moderation and better relationships that I think have great potential. At the very least I hope we will seriously consider not a 5-year extension, but a shorter extension of 2 years. Mr. Paul has indicated he has an amendment to do such, and I think part of a successful policy ultimately is going to be some moderation on the part of this Congress that hopefully encourages some moderation in Iran.
I yield back.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Certainly I will yield.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments. Some of us who have been watching this for quite some time, recognize the fact that nobody is allowed to run for President in Iran from all the candidates that apply except those who are approved by the mullahs, who actually allowed Mr. Khatami to run for President, understanding that he is basically a safety steam valve. Despite all of his words of moderation during all of the years that he has been President, he has talked the talk, but has actually done nothing—no activity that has been measurable, recognized or known, unless the gentleman has additional information, that would indicate moderation. Even if he would want to, he controls not the Army, he controls not the judiciary, he controls not the Legislature. Everything is controlled by the mullahs. They are really the government.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Reclaiming my time, I think the points are well taken, certainly well informed. My understanding is that in this election he took 70 plus percent of the vote compared to a 60 plus percent last time. I would hope at least that this has some indication of popular support to move in the direction of moderation, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for holding this markup of what is an extremely important piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe ILSA has been an effective tool in dissuading foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. Iran remains one of the leading state sponsors of international terrorism, continues to undermine efforts of the Middle East peace, and is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Now is not the time to reward Iran by removing sanctions or allowing the sanctions provisions to sunset.
It is widely known that Iran continues to be the main benefactor to numerous radical Islamic organizations, including Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and Hezbollah. These organizations continue to carry out terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and in some instances have been responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the murder of American citizens.
Iran is reportedly spending somewhere near $100 million annually on funding these terrorist groups, and the latest State Department report on patterns of global terrorism noted that Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the year 2000.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Also of grave importance is the Iranian support of a full range of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has already tested the Shahab-3, a missile that can reach virtually any point within Israel and endangers American lives throughout the region. And just a few days ago the Iranian Government reported that they had successfully tested a solid fuel surface-to-surface missile, the Fattah-110. Although this missile does not travel as far as the Shahab-3, it is more accurate and a significant upgrade over the Katyusha rockets that Iran has been supplying to Hezbollah for a very long time now.
I am also extremely concerned about Iran's abysmal human rights record. People of the Baha'i faith are continually subjected to discrimination, and I don't think I have to tell anybody about the fact that the Jewish population is always at risk in Iran. If ILSA is allowed to expire, we would be saying to the Iranians and the world that our resolve in opposing Iran's behavior is weakening. Nothing could be and should be further from the truth. The opposition to this legislation likes to suggest that moderate forces within Iran are promoting change within Iran, and we should encourage this by removing sanctions. But let me quote Senator D'Amato's statements, when he pointed out in his testimony on this topic that Khatami has called Israel an illegal state, told Yasser Arafat that all of Palestine must be liberated, and most recently called Israel a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world. These do not sound like statements of a moderate to me.
ILSA works. Even the Iranians, say so. In 1998, in a report to the U.N., Iran claimed that ILSA led to the disruption of the country's economic system.
Mr. Chairman, Iran has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve a reward like removing sanctions. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you very much.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I voted for this thing 5 years ago because I thought it was a good concept, worth testing, was a waiver given to the President. But, you know, it hasn't worked. It just doesn't work, doesn't affect any American companies. It just affects foreign companies investing there. So it is not a question of helping others to help Iran, it is a question of hurting others who are helping Iran, and really it is a little bit arrogant for us to take that position, and I just think it is wrong. I don't think it helps us at all. It doesn't encourage certainly any of the reformist people in Iran to try to have a better life because they know we are solidly against them, and I just think it is a mistake.
But what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is ask, because I think the representatives of the Administration and the State Department are here, is what they think about this. Could I ask that?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I would like to ask members of the State Department to give us their feelings.
Ms. BORG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure. My name is Anna Maria Borg, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Sanctions and Commodities in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs of the State Department. Thank you.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would like to pick up from our statement of Administration position, which was coordinated among the government agencies by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Administration supports the renewal of ILSA in its present form for 2 years; that is, through 2003. We share the concerns of Congress about the objectionable policies and behaviors of Iran and Libya. With respect to Iran, we have repeatedly condemned its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and its support for terrorism, including groups using violence to oppose Middle East peace. We also are very concerned about Libya not yet complying with its U.N. Security Council resolutions, and we are focused on securing their compliance, including payment of appropriate compensation and acceptance of responsibility for the action of Libyan officials.
Our proposal, our support for 2 years, is in no way a diminution of our concern about Iran and Libya behavior. In fact, we have many other tools which we are actively pursuing to do, to pursue those objectives, including our work on last year's Non-Iran Proliferation Act; our follow-up, as many people have noted, on all the activities that follow from the state sponsorship of terrorism designation. We also play a leadership role in multilateral nonproliferation regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement, where we and our EU or European allies work together to restrict the access of countries such as Iran and Libya to equipment, technology and materials necessary to develop weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs.
Support for a 2-year term also reflects this Administration's view that sanctions should be reviewed frequently. The Administration plans, as many of you know, an overall review of sanctions policy, and a 5-year renewal would prevent that from going forward in a thorough way.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In addition, we feel a 5-year renewal could set off further transatlantic tensions and detract from our ongoing efforts to work in concert with European and other allies to address Iranian and Libyan objectionable behavior. As we sit here today, we note that the team is in Europe working on those issues, among other issues.
We have reviewed all of this, and we look forward to working with Congress as we move forward on an overall sanctions review.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much.
Yes, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I would like to ask some questions of the State Department representative.
Chairman HYDE. I guess we have gone this far. Go ahead, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I don't want to have you go any farther than you would like to go, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. We are just in markup, but that is all right. Go ahead.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. We will have an amendment that will be proposed to cut the term of the sanctions to 2 years, and we will have an opportunity to discuss it at that time. But there is one question I want to pose to the Department of State in terms of the logic of your position.
The current legislation automatically terminates the sanctions if the reasons for the imposition of the sanctions no longer prevail. I shall quote: Section 8, Termination of Sanctions, Iran. The requirement under section 5(a) to impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect to Iran if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Iran, one, has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, acquire a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology and, two, has been removed from the list of countries the governments of which have been determined for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.
Now the current legislation automatically terminates the sanctions if Iran ceases its current headlong pursuit to develop weapons of mass destruction and ceases its support of international terrorism. I would hope that Iran would do that in 3 months, in which case the sanctions vanish in 3 months.
Is the Administration aware of this automatic termination of sanctions in the present legislation?
Ms. BORG. Yes, thank you very much. We are aware of that.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A key part of our thinking as we reviewed many of the different operations and reviewed the effectiveness of ILSA to date and reviewed, in fact, how all of our policies are working with respect to Iran and Libya was a full belief that it is extremely useful for the Administration to go through, as it has promised, with an overall sanctions review of which a key premise would be the usefulness of reviewing sanctions on a regular, periodic basis. To have ILSA go into effect for 5 years would mean that it is out there for much longer, whereas our hope is to——
Mr. LANTOS. You are not addressing the substantive issue I am raising.
I raised two points. If Iran stops developing weapons of mass destruction and if Iran stops supporting international terrorism, the sanctions cease. These arbitrary time periods are very secondary to the underlying issue. Sanctions have been imposed because Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and Iran is supporting, according to the State Department's own report, international terrorism. Those are the issues we should focus on, not whether it is 1 year, 2 years, 8 years or 10 years. Because if Iran stops doing these things, the sanctions vanish.
Ms. BORG. Yes. That is absolutely correct. I think, though, that perhaps an overall review of sanctions and a look at effectiveness might give us ways in which we could add to different ways to address Iran and Libya.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LANTOS. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BERMAN. I thought the thrust of Mr. Houghton's question was, has this worked? I never heard an answer to that.
Let me try it a different way. Can you name one major energy company that has significant involvement in the United States with U.S. companies as a joint venture, as a partner, as a coinvestor in terms of retail or energy production that has made a significant $20 million in the Iranian energy sector in the past 5 years ?
Ms. BORG. Shell is the first company that comes to mind.
Mr. BERMAN. Shell received a waiver? What project is that?
Ms. BORG. Yes, the case is still under review pending——
Mr. BERMAN. What investment has Shell made?
Ms. BORG. A reported investment in the Soroosh and Nowrooz fields for which we have talked to Shell and talked to other companies but which we don't have complete, full details on yet.
Mr. BERMAN. Has the investment been made?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. BORG. The agreement that was reported was for about $800 million, but it is very unclear if any investment has been made yet.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired, and I thank the gentlelady for her contribution.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say that I am a cosponsor of this legislation, but there is some elements of the debate today that I find disturbing.
First of all, let me just say that I think Mr. Ron Paul's criticism of Mr. Lantos is not well-founded. Because Mr. Lantos opposes most favored nation status for China and is most consistent in human rights in regard to both China and this legislation, that kind of supposed contradiction does not exist.
Let me just say for the record, this Member finds it a bit disturbing that we hear the arguments that we have to support opposed legislation like this because it has some relationship to Israel. The fact is that this is not a debate about Israeli security. This is a debate about American security. I will be supporting this legislation based on American security needs.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The fact is that we have a conflict going on in Israel. And, yes, there are noncombatants who are being targeted, and I don't care if it is an F–16 or a terrorist suicide bomber, I am opposed to that type of targeting of noncombatants. I think it is a tragedy that we had so many people, women and children and people who are teenagers, who are not involved in these things on both sides who end up being killed by fanatics on both sides. That is a tragedy; and I hope and I would wish the United States would be, frankly, a little bit more consistent in its opposition to attacks on noncombatants that are carried on by both sides in that conflict.
In terms of what is going on here today in this bill, Iran has just had an election. And I would agree with Mr. Smith, that here we are. The Iranians seem to be going in the right direction, and all of a sudden we are condemning them in a way that is the same way we condemned them 5 years ago.
I want to make sure that the Iranian people who are listening understand that this vote is a vote on the side of moderation, and we are actually supporting the Iranian people and the Iranian moderates by not modifying our position until we see changes in Iranian behavior. The Iranians are involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction that threaten not only their neighbors but threaten every country in the world. We should not be putting up with that.
I will be voting for Mr. Paul's amendment, because I do believe that we can send the message to both sides by tapering back instead of making this a 5-year policy, making this a 2-year policy. Thus, we will have achieved in sending the message to the Iranian people that their government is still involved with unacceptable activities involving the development of weapons of mass destruction and other unacceptable activities, but at the same time we recognize that they are going in the right direction where 75 percent of their people are voting to oppose the mullahs that control those policies of their government.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In terms of Libya, the Libyan government as well as the Iranian government has horrendous human rights policies in play in its own country. They are in fact terrorizing their own populations. For that alone we should be engaged, as in China, with trying to put economic pressure on those who are committing that type of totally unacceptable policy act and advocating those policies and pursuing those policies in their country, and we should send them the message that there will be problems with the United States, economic problems in particular, if they are involved with this type of repression.
So I will be supporting the efforts by Mr. Paul to bring the sanctions down to 2 years, and let's look at this again in 2 years. But at the same time let me just say that this should be looked at as an issue for security for the United States and not simply the fact that these countries oppose Israel.
Chairman HYDE. Gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for bringing this before us today.
I would like to begin by expressing my firm support for the extension of the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act. I recognize that some of my colleagues may say that the sanctions program has outlived its usefulness, and I would suggest otherwise. If we are to assess whether or not we should renew the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act, I believe it is essential to lay out why it was necessary to impose them in the first place.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Both Iran and Libya have always possessed extensive oil and natural gas reserves that have the potential to yield tremendous wealth for both nations. This potential revenue led to a concern over how this considerable wealth would be spent.
The desire to produce weapons of mass destruction and to abet, train and fund terrorist organizations was a serious threat when these sanctions were implemented in 1995. Therefore, a policy of punishing foreign companies wishing to invest in these nations seemed to be a reasonable one at the time. Though there have been some breaches of the sanctions by several companies during the past 5 years, I would suggest on the whole these sanctions have been fairly successful in deterring Asian and European investment in Libya and Iran's energy sector. So the question now becomes, does the situation in Iran and Libya in 2001 warrant the extension of ILSA? Unfortunately, the answer is still a resounding yes.
According to the 2000 State Department Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iran, Libya and several other countries continue to be nations that the Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. In fact, Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the year 2000. Iran provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which seek to undermine the Middle East peace process through the use of terrorism.
Though Libya has taken some steps to improve its international image, these steps in my opinion are merely cosmetic. According to the same State Department report, Libya continues to have contact with groups that employ violence and terror as a tool to oppose the Middle East peace process, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine General Command. Five years after the enactment of this legislation, these nations remain a threat to their neighbors and to regional stability.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
During the hearing held before this Committee on the extension of ILSA, one of the distinguished panelists suggested that we delay the extension to see if President Khatami wins reelection and brings Iran back into the global community as a nation that respects international treaties and denounces terror. Well, as we all know, Mr. Khatami secured reelection by an overwhelming landslide. He has had 4 years to make substantial changes to Iranian policy in this area and has failed to do so. We should not be rewarding President Khatami and the Iranian government simply because he is the lesser of two evils.
There is a reason that these sanctions were imposed in 1995. Those reasons continue to plague these countries today. A rejection of the ILSA extension would destroy all credibility of a U.S. decision to enforce sanctions against nations who violate international law and engage in acts of terror. It sends a signal that it is permissible to break the law as long as you have the ability to endure the consequences for a limited time until the policy unravels.
I believe that we need to send a totally different message, and therefore I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank the Chairman for the time and yield back my balance.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are going, I think, to approve the legislation today, which I intend to support, but I have appreciated the conversation we have had about the duration and the direction of what we are doing. Many nations engage in behavior that we find distressing and hateful, and that is going to continue, and the urge for us to speak out is understandable. It is powerful, and we will continue to do so. But the problem is that, as it works its will through the People's House, we have a great difficulty over time of giving voice in a way that is complementary to the exercise of American foreign policy.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am personally distressed that we don't have a good mechanism for dealing with the wide range of sanctions that this Chamber in its wisdom has enacted over time. I think the last estimate was that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 percent of the world's population under sanction by the United States or threat of sanction in some form. We have the problem that there is no good mechanism for us to be able to view whether or not these on a systematic basis have achieved their objectives, whether they have outlived their usefulness.
We are involved in an odd discussion here today about extending sanctions for 2 years or 5 years and the impact that has on the Iranian people, who I am sure are watching in great numbers our discussion here today, to be able to discern the nuance of American foreign policy. They can't. They won't.
We are in a position where we have the potential of sanctions being enshrined in national policy, being hijacked by well-organized and motivated interest groups in this country. And oftentimes I have seen it just in my short tenure in this body, where events overtake us and then we are backpeddling, as when we had an example of nuclear proliferation on the Indian subcontinent, and then we were backpeddling to be able to repeal the sanctions that we had in place because it would have hampered already beleaguered agricultural interests.
I am hopeful that we will have the discussion about the duration of the sanction today. I appreciate the Administration coming forward and talking in a well-rounded fashion about the other tools that are available but, most important, that they are involved in a review of the United States sanction policy. And I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee could be in the leadership in Congress in reviewing the United States sanctions policy so that we have a broad framework, that we are not looking in an odd situation in China versus what goes on in Cuba versus what goes on in the Middle East.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So I am willing to move forward today. I will support the extension, but I hope we don't use lose the opportunity for us to have the discussion that this body should have, which is what does a rational policy look like enacted, so that we have got the framework and we can minimize the confusion.
I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to respond quickly to the comments of my colleague Mr. Dana Rohrabacher, also from California, by pointing out—and I realize this is a diversion—that in what is going on with Israel and the Palestinians, only one side is targeting noncombatants. Now in a guerrilla war, even with the best rules of engagement, civilians are tragically killed, but in that conflict only one side is trying to kill noncombatants. The other side, when confronted with a guerrilla war, just as when we are confronted with a guerrilla war, cannot always make sure that every bullet and every bomb goes exactly where they want it to go.
But I do want to agree with Mr. Rohrabacher. That is, what is at stake here, is American national security. The government of Iran is not just despicable on human rights. It is dangerous to us, particularly those of us in southern California. Because once that nuclear bomb is developed by Tehran you can bet that the first place they smuggle it into is the closest American megalopolis to a foreign border, and that happens to be where Mr. Rohrabacher and I live.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We have got a choice really here between 2 years and 5 years, and this bill provides that sanctions are lifted when Iran changes its behavior. I would like to make it permanent. I don't think we should change these sanctions without a thorough review. I don't think we should do it automatically just by the passage of time. We should do it only as part of a very sophisticated review of our foreign policy, which would mean that this Administration or others could come to this Committee with new ideas or we should do it when Iran changes its behavior.
The question is, what message do we send? Two years is a message of weakness. Two years is a message to Tehran: Stay the course. Develop those nuclear weapons. You are 2 years away from foreign investment. Your cost of continuing to develop nuclear weapons is trivial. You will have bids on projects in a year. Is that the message we want to send? Or do we want Tehran to understand that we are going to do everything possible to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, that we are going to try to deny them resources until such time as they change their policy? If we don't get their policy to change, at least we will be denying them the resources.
A 5-year extension does not preclude a review of our policy. We ought to review our policy. The Middle East Subcommittee probably ought to be reviewing this bill every year. I think it can be made better, I think it can be made stronger, but this year we have got to extend it so that the message is clear that developing nuclear weapons by Iran is not something that we are just going to wait out a little while and then ignore.
My colleague from Oregon—and this is a sidelight—argues that 40 percent of the world is subject to U.S. sanctions. I might add the vast majority of those, quote, sanctions are when we deny American foreign aid or concessionary financing to a country for this or that reason. I don't think the word ''sanction'' is really applicable. Sanctions are the policies that we impose upon truly rogue states, roughly eight in the world, only three or four with which our businesses really want to do business.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Top on that list is Iran. I think that this bill will be successful—has been moderately successful because Iran will need foreign investment and foreign technology to revitalize and expand its oil fields or it will become a net energy importer, a net energy importer in 10 years.
Let us stay the course until we have a more sophisticated course to go down. The vast majority of energy projects which the Iranian government put up for bid 2 years ago remain unbid or with no acceptable bids. There is one reason, and that is because the United States has mobilized most of the world to try to deny investment to Iran. We need to continue that, and there is nothing we can do that would look weaker, nothing we can do that would invite Tehran to stay the course more than to adopt an amendment that extends this for only 2 years and shows them a light at the end of the tunnel.
Thank you.
Chairman HYDE. The Chair would like to state that we expect a vote on the floor at one o'clock on the Salmon bill. I have four more requests to speak and counting. I would like to, at 20 minutes after 12, foreclose this debate that we are having and go to amendments in the naive hope that we might finish this bill. Otherwise, we have to put it over till next Wednesday, and that is not a happy prospect.
So, Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use all of my time.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I feel compelled, however, to respond to the explanation provided by the Bush Administration as to their approach with respect to a 2-year rather than a 5-year sanction period and also, with due respect to the State Department, their responses to Mr. Lantos' inquiry with respect to the manner in which the sanctions either expire or don't.
With all due respect, the explanation that one of the concerns of the Bush Administration with respect to ILSA is the heightening of tensions in the transatlantic relationship, the relationship between the United States and Europe, runs a built hollow, particularly this week as the President is in Europe pushing his plans for a missile defense system and reiterating his opposition to American participation in the global warming treaty. If the Administration has made the determination that on missile defense and global warming we are going to irritate the Europeans but on sanctions against Iran we are going to somehow kowtow to the European influence, I would respectfully suggest that the Administration has placed its priorities in a very poor situation.
The State Department seems to be giving contradictory messages. On the one hand, reduce the ILSA time period to 2 years but, on the other, as in the 1998, 1999 and year 2000 State Department Report on Global Terrorism, and I quote, the State Department concludes Iran is the most active and increasingly active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran continues to be deeply involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts by its own agents and surrogate groups.
That is our State Department. So the State Department, it seems to me, on the one hand in their objective reports tells us that Iran is deeply involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts, and yet here at this Committee tells us that the manner in which the Bush Administration seeks to respond to that threat is to reduce the sanction period from 5 years to 2 years.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This explanation, with all due respect again, is even more troubling when coupled with the reports that came from Vice President Cheney's energy task force early in the year, which seemed to suggest that ILSA should be eliminated in an effort to increase our access to oil.
To infuse the question of America's reliance on foreign oil with the question of sanctions against Iran again, I think, is a misapplication of American security interests. If what we are suggesting is that in order to relieve America's dependence on foreign oil that we are better off to not be so dependent on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and extend that dependency to Iran and Libya, again with all due respect to the Vice President and his energy task force, I think he is greatly mistaken. An American counterterrorism policy that prioritizes access to Iranian oil over national security is clearly not in the best interest of the American people or our allies.
I am deeply concerned also about President Bush's personal commitment to ILSA. In April he stated that he has, and I quote, as reported, no intention as of this moment of taking sanctions off countries like Iran and Libya, end quote. In essence, he left the door open for changing ILSA's sanctions regime or a decision to overturn the two Executive orders imposed in 1995 that block most American companies from doing business in Iran and Libya. Coupled now with the Administration's approach today, it is deeply concerning.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by just urging all the people on this Committee, all of our colleagues, to reject provisions that either weaken or eliminate ILSA.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I very strongly support this legislation. I want to congratulate Mr. Gilman and others who have sponsored this legislation. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the legislation.
Many of our colleagues have stated reasons for this very important piece of legislation. Iran is still the leading state responsible for terrorism. Iran is growing in military capability. Iran threatens the U.S. regional interest. It threatens Israel. Iran rejects Israel's right to exist, opposes the peace process, encourages Palestinian violence. Libyan involvement in the downing of PanAm flight 103 is acknowledged.
And ILSA is working. It has deterred foreign investment in the petroleum sector. It is balanced legislation, and not renewing ILSA would send the wrong signal and provide a potential windfall to Iran.
I think it is ridiculous to talk about lessening ILSA to 2 years rather than 5. We need to show we are serious. Shortening the time period will be seen as a victory by the Iranian and Libyan governments. We do not want to give the Iranians the impression they can wait us out. We want them to change their behavior. We do not want the foreign oil companies to maneuver in the expectation that they will be able to get involved with Iran free of the risk of any sanctions.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The President has enormous flexibility in enforcing this law. As circumstances change, he can fine tune his waiver policy. We do not want to have to take the time of the Administration and the Congress and cause needless friction for those who are offended in principle by this law by renewing it constantly. Let's have our policy out on the table. Five years is very, very appropriate.
I want to also add my comments to some of the things that have been said here. Many of us have been consistent in our policies in wanting sanctions for countries that have human rights violations, in not supporting free trade with countries who do not treat their own citizens right or act that way toward other countries; and I think this is consistent with our human rights policy.
I want to comment on some of the comments that have been made here about somehow equating both sides in the conflict in the Middle East. You know, yes, I think that, obviously, U.S. security should be paramount; and that is what we are doing. We are doing this because it protects U.S. security. But there is nothing wrong and I make no apologies for being concerned about the security of allies of the United States, in particular the state of Israel.
During the Persian Gulf War which I supported, crossed party lines and supported then President Bush, we were very concerned about security for our allies, all in the region, not only Israel but Saudi Arabia and Egypt and other countries as well. In fact, one of reasons we did not finish the Persian Gulf War the way we should have and gone into Bagdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all is because Saudi Arabia and Egypt opposed it behind the scenes, and so we responded to our allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt at the time because we were concerned with their security needs and what was right.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So I make no apologies to be concerned with Israel's security needs; and the fact of the matter is, as Mr. Sherman and others have pointed out, the targeting against civilians in the Middle East has been done by the Palestinian side. You do not have Israelis sending suicide bombers into the Palestinian territory to blow up innocent civilians. You have quite the opposite. I think it is proven time and time again that countries like Iran and other countries promote terrorism and, therefore, we need to have this kind of legislation.
Now I would expand this legislation and add Syria, if I had my druthers, because Syria also is a country that has not gotten out of Lebanon. They allow Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to attack Israel from the north, and I believe we should add Syria. But I am going to later on talk a little bit about that when we have the amendment point of view and ultimately withdraw my amendment.
But I want to make the point that this Committee ought to be doing something about Syria as well. We ought to be resolute, despite who is President, despite who is in Congress, against terrorism. And here we are doing ILSA because it is Libya and Iran. We should also be resolute in terms of Sudan and Syria. I think we should be consistent.
I support this legislation. I think it is very, very important. And again I make no apologies for being concerned with the legitimate security needs of Israel and our other allies in the Middle East because as our allies' security goes, so goes our security.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
The Chair recognizes himself for a brief statement. Then, since there is a pending vote on the floor, Mr. Lantos will be recognized to offer his amendment, but we will not be voting on it until later.
Let me say very briefly that sometimes in my view the systematic behavior of a dictatorship is so barbaric, so egregious and so cruel that sanctions are warranted. And I think this is the very clear consensus of Congress, it is a bipartisan consensus, it is shared by the American people, and I do believe that a 2-year extension, as opposed to a 5, unwittingly conveys that somehow reform will break out. It is a nice hope, but it is not rooted in reality. At least I don't believe it is rooted in reality.
However, let me remind Members that should there be changes, should there be reform that occurs in either Libya or Iran or both, section 8 of Public Law 104–172 clearly prescribes those benchmarks that need to be achieved in order to lift those sanctions. There is a termination of sanctions provision in the law that we do not have to touch and in the duration of sanctions, a Presidential waiver. So there are two areas of potential change if there is this amelioration of their behavior. So I think we would send the wrong message by going with a 2 year as opposed to a 5.
I would ask unanimous consent that those for the record, the section 8 and section 9, be included. Because they couldn't be more clear. They are everything we care about—weapons of mass destruction, terrorism. If there is change, there is reform, the law already prescribes the anecdote to the sanctions.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The information referred to follows:]
Public Law 104–172
104th Congress
AN ACT
To impose sanctions on persons making certain investments directly and significantly contributing to the enhancement of the ability of Iran or Libya to develop its petroleum resources, and on persons exporting certain items that enhance Libya's weapons or aviation capabilities or enhance Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996''.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) IRAN.—The requirement under section 5(a) to impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect to Iran if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Iran—
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(1) has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, or acquire—
(A) a nuclear explosive device or related materials and technology;
(B) chemical and biological weapons; and
(C) ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology; and
(2) has been removed from the list of countries the governments of which have been determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.
(b) LIBYA.—The requirement under section 5(b) to impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect to Libya if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Libya has fulfilled the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 731, adopted January 21, 1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 748, adopted March 31, 1992, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 883, adopted November 11, 1993.
SEC. 9. DURATION OF SANCTIONS; PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
(a) DELAY OF SANCTIONS.—
(1) CONSULTATIONS.—If the President makes a determination described in section 5(a) or 5(b) with respect to a foreign person, the Congress urges the President to initiate consultations immediately with the government with primary jurisdiction over that foreign person with respect to the imposition of sanctions under this Act.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(2) ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT OF JURISDICTION.—In order to pursue consultations under paragraph (1) with the government concerned, the President may delay imposition of sanctions under this Act for up to 90 days. Following such consultations, the President shall immediately impose sanctions unless the President determines and certifies to the Congress that the government has taken specific and effective actions, including, as appropriate, the imposition of appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement of the foreign person in the activities that resulted in the determination by the President under section 5(a) or 5(b) concerning such person.
(3) ADDITIONAL DELAY IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.—The President may delay the imposition of sanctions for up to an additional 90 days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress that the government with primary jurisdiction over the person concerned is in the process of taking the actions described in paragraph (2).
(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after making a determination under section 5(a) or 5(b), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of consultations with the appropriate foreign government under this subsection, and the basis for any determination under paragraph (3).
(b) DURATION OF SANCTIONS.—A sanction imposed under section 5 shall remain in effect—
(1) for a period of not less than 2 years from the date on which it is imposed; or
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(2) until such time as the President determines and certifies to the Congress that the person whose activities were the basis for imposing the sanction is no longer engaging in such activities and that the President has received reliable assurances that such person will not knowingly engage in such activities in the future, except that such sanction shall remain in effect for a period of at least 1 year.
(c) PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.—
(1) AUTHORITY.—The President may waive the requirement in section 5 to impose a sanction or sanctions on a person described in section 5(c), and may waive the continued imposition of a sanction or sanctions under subsection (b) of this section, 30 days or more after the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national interest of the United States to exercise such waiver authority.
(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—Any report under paragraph (1) shall provide a specific and detailed rationale for the determination under paragraph (1), including—
(A) a description of the conduct that resulted in the determination under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may be;
(B) in the case of a foreign person, an explanation of the efforts to secure the cooperation of the government with primary jurisdiction over the sanctioned person to terminate or, as appropriate, penalize the activities that resulted in the determination under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may be;
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(C) an estimate as to the significance—
(i) of the provision of the items described in section 5(a) to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources, or
(ii) of the provision of the items described in section 5(b)(1) to the abilities of Libya described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 5(b)(1), or of the investment described in section 5(b)(2) on Libya's ability to develop its petroleum resources,
as the case may be; and
(D) a statement as to the response of the United States in the event that the person concerned engages in other activities that would be subject to section 5(a) or (b).
(3) EFFECT OF REPORT ON WAIVER.—If the President makes a report under paragraph (1) with respect to a waiver of sanctions on a person described in section 5(c), sanctions need not be imposed under section 5(a) or (b) on that person during the 30- day period referred to in paragraph (1).
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Chair recognize Mr. Lantos for the purposes of offering an amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have what is essentially a conforming amendment.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos.
Page 2, after line 5, add the following:
Section 2. Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to Libya.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Lantos follows:]
061301.AAB
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment has two features. Number one, it makes investments in both Libya and Iran subject to the $20 million limit. Secondly, when we initially passed this legislation we accepted the fact that some companies had contracts with these countries. They are now attempting by subterfuge to revise these contracts which, for all practical purposes, means that they are writing new contracts in violation of the act; and my amendment closes that loophole. I do not believe that there is opposition to my amendment, and I will request that a vote be held when we resume our session.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of this legislation I accept the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Because this is a noncontroversial amendment offered by the gentleman from California, the question occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The Committee stands in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to reconvene on Wednesday, June 20, 2001.]
Next Hearing Segment(2)