On the recordSeptember 22, 2016
I do appreciate the sentiment behind what the gentleman is seeking to do. Of course we want to punish anyone who is unjustly holding American citizens behind bars, but there are so many potential unintended consequences in this amendment, I simply don't know where to start. First, the amendment requires sanctions against any Iranian who unjustly detains a U.S. citizen. But the term ``unjustly detained'' is not defined. So who defines it? Does the White House? The Congress? Iran? It is very difficult. Secondly, as anyone who has worked on sanctions policy knows--and we work on sanctions a lot on the Foreign Affairs Committee--it is typically not the use of sanctions that encourages the change in behavior; it is the threat of sanctions that encourages the change in behavior. That means that the Iranians have to believe that we will implement sanctions against them, but the President has to be given flexibility to use it or suspend it if they do change their behavior. This is impossible under this amendment. The President has no flexibility, no waiver, no termination authority, none of the typical details that compels regimes to change their behavior. So let me say, because of that, I encourage all Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), our colleague and the ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.
