Senate Holds Hearing on Iran Sanctions, but Dems Vow to Oppose Bill Until March
Senate Banking Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., applauded the introduction of new Iran sanctions legislation during a Jan. 29 hearing, but ten Senate Democrats, including key co-sponsors of the bill, told President Barack Obama they would hold off on passing the legislation until late March. Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., led the campaign to introduce the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, S-269 (here), on Jan. 27. President Barack Obama continues to pledge a veto (see 1501200072).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The legislation would implement a rollout of sanctions if the U.S. doesn’t strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program, or if the Obama administration fails to report to Congress on the details of such a deal. Shelby said the threat of sanctions has, and will continue to be, the motivation for Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment program. “I believe that the repercussions of Iran’s failure to reach an agreement by mid-year should be clearly defined in statute,” said Shelby, according to prepared remarks (here). “It has been my experience that if a party is negotiating in good faith and with the intent to reach an agreement, they will seek common ground, not an excuse to walk away.
Obama says the legislation may jeopardize ongoing negotiations between Iran, the U.S. and other countries. Senate Banking ranking member Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, echoed that argument in his opening statement at the hearing. “It looks like this sanctions bill will be hustled through our committee with no actual legislative hearings, even though members likely have questions about its provisions, and uncertainty about what congressional action might mean for the negotiations,” said Brown (here). “If Congress acts to force the president’s hand in the next few months by overriding his veto, and if doing so contributes to the collapse of negotiations and our heading down the path toward a military confrontation, Congress – beginning with each of us -- will be held responsible.”
On Jan. 27, Menendez and the group of 10 Democrats sent a letter to Obama, signaling their intent to oppose a vote on the bill for two months. “We remain deeply skeptical that Iran is committed to making the concessions required to demonstrate to the world that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful by March 24 – the deadline agreed upon for a political framework agreement,” said the letter (here). “After March 24, we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement. This deadline is the critical test of Iranian intentions.”
Many trade and business advocates oppose the legislation (see 1412090026). The Obama administration extended through June 2015 partial relief of the sanctions regime against Iran, but all sides are also targeting the March deadline for a tentative deal (see 1411280032).