STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 5711 - To
Prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from Authorizing Certain
Transactions by a U.S. Financial Institution in Connection with the
Export or Re-Export of a Commercial Passenger Aircraft to the Islamic
Republic of Iran
(Rep. Huizenga, R-MI, and one cosponsor)
The
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5711, a bill that would prevent
the United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), a diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably
prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The bill would undermine
the ability of the United States to meet our JCPOA commitments by
effectively prohibiting the United States from licensing the sale of
commercial passenger aircraft to Iran for exclusively civil end uses, as
we committed to do in the JCPOA, and seeking to deter companies from
pursuing permissible business with Iran. The JCPOA has significantly
constrained Iran's nuclear program – key aspects of the program are
dismantled under the JCPOA, and it subjects Iran's nuclear program to
unprecedented verification and monitoring requirements. It is
profoundly in the national security interest of the United States to
continue to meet our commitments under the JCPOA as long as Iran
continues to meet its commitments.
The
bill prohibits the U.S. government from authorizing transactions by
U.S. financial institutions in connection with the export or re-export
of commercial passenger aircraft to the Government of Iran or Iranian
entities and mandates the revocation of any such licenses already
issued. Without the ability to license these transactions, the United
States will be unable to fulfill one of its JCPOA commitments to the
detriment of U.S. companies, foreign partners, and the world. The
commitment to license these transactions, clearly outlined in the JCPOA
text, has been clear since the conclusion of the JCPOA in July 2015 and
as briefed publicly by this Administration, including during the robust
congressional debate on the JCPOA. Attempts at this juncture to
preclude implementation of U.S. commitments are in bad faith.
The
bill further limits the role of Export-Import Bank financing by
mandating vague restrictions with potentially undefined impact on
commerce. For example, the bill requires the Export-Import Bank to
cancel any financial assistance issued post-enactment that has
"facilitated" the export, sale, or lease of an aircraft to Iran or an
Iranian entity. The sweeping and vague nature of this provision would
have a chilling effect on U.S. and non-U.S. entities seeking to engage
in permissible business with Iran.
This
bill, if enacted, would contravene U.S. commitments in the JCPOA and
interfere with its successful implementation. The United States has a
long tradition of remaining faithful to our commitments and our
international partners, and a reversal of this principle undercuts our
credibility, diminishes our ability to lead globally, and threatens the
very alliances we rely upon in implementing the JCPOA. We fully expect
that, if these measures became law, our closest allies would view this
bill as a violation of our JCPOA commitments and Iran would take the
issue to the Joint Commission. Our allies have steadfastly supported
us when Iran has brought concerns to the Joint Commission, but they
would be unable to do so if this legislation were enacted. We would
lose the P5+1 unity on this issue that has been and will remain critical
to preserving the deal. Continued implementation of JCPOA commitments
by all participants – including the United States and our closest allies
– is critical to ensuring that Iran's nuclear program is and will
remain exclusively peaceful, which is profoundly in the national
security interests of the United States and the international community.
The President has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of the JCPOA. If the President were presented with H.R. 5711, he would veto the bill.
H.R. 5982 – Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016
(Rep. Issa, R-CA, and eight cosponsors)
The
Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and
effective, that they are tailored to advance statutory goals in the most
cost-effective and efficient manner, and that they minimize
uncertainty. When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency
must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural requirements
of Federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act, in a manner
that ensures that the rulemaking process is transparent and considers
the input of stakeholders. In addition, for decades, agency rulemaking
has been governed by Executive Orders issued and followed by
administrations of both political parties. These require regulatory
agencies to promulgate regulations, consistent with their statutes, upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs, to
consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory flexibility.
The
Administration continues to be guided by the same rigorous practices
and principles used to develop and review regulations that have been
upheld throughout the entirety of this Administration and previous
Administrations. On December 17, 2015, the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs reiterated that the Administration
would maintain its normal review standards, and instructed agencies to
plan and prioritize its regulations in order to ensure an orderly review
process during the final year of the Administration. For these
reasons, H.R. 5982 is intended to solve a problem that does not exist.
Lastly,
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) already allows for the Congress to
disapprove of rules on a case-by-case basis. Thus, providing for an
arbitrary packaging of rules for an up-or-down vote, as this bill does,
is unnecessary. In addition, the bill would expand the scope of rules
subject to the CRA such that by the time a vote on a resolution occurs,
some of the rules may have been in effect for over a year. By doing so,
H.R. 5982 would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially
impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards
for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health,
safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.
If the President were presented with H.R. 5982, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.
Source: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget
No comments:
Post a Comment