...

QUESTION: On December 19th, the White House said that the President would veto any new sanctions legislation from the Congress. Since that time, support in the Senate has doubled to 50 senators in favor – bipartisan group of senators in favor of this new sanctions legislation. Those in favor of it say that it gives the President a year flexibility to negotiate, it honors the modest sanctions relief that Iran sought in the interim agreement, and it gives Congress the insurance policy that it had been seeking that ensures that the interim agreement is actually upheld.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say to the senators that haven’t committed yet, given the fact that – actually this morning, it’s now 51, so the bill could pass?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our position on this hasn’t changed. It’s the argument that the Secretary – that Under Secretary Sherman and many Administration officials have been making to Congress, which is that new sanctions in any capacity would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. We continue to strongly oppose any action taken by members of Congress which we feel is unnecessary and directly contradicts the Administration’s work to resolve the concerns about the Iranian nuclear program peacefully.

And the other piece of this that’s very important is the Secretary, the President of the United States, were two of the strongest advocates for sanctions and the effectiveness of sanctions. That’s one of the major reasons why we’re here. And if we got to a point where we needed to put new sanctions in place, they would be leading the charge, and I don’t think anyone thinks there would be a challenge in passing sanctions.

So the question is: Why risk this important pivotal stage we’re at by putting new legislation in place?

QUESTION: Right, and the Iranian point of view on this is that enacting new legislation is a violation of the Joint Plan of Action. Is that – does the Administration have the same perspective that enacting new legislation is the same as imposing? And I cite that the Joint Action Plan says the U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. It doesn’t say “enacting.” It says “imposing.” Are those the same?

MS. PSAKI: As I understand it, putting new legislation in place would be – would violate it. Obviously, if the President were to veto it, then it’s not being put in place. So --

QUESTION: Is this building stepping up its efforts to persuade the senators to back away from this effort to pass this? And if so, in what ways?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Is this just from the legislative arm, or is this from the Secretary on down doing personal lobbying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they have been doing personal outreach. The Secretary, Under Secretary Sherman, many officials in the Administration have done countless briefings with the Hill as well. So that is not stepped up; that has been ongoing throughout. I don’t have any recent updates on that. I can see if there’s anything to report. As you know, Congress is just coming back.

QUESTION: On the answer to the penultimate question, is that supposed to mean that you – that the Administration believes that giving the President authority to impose new sanctions is the same as imposing sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: No, I was saying the opposite of that; that obviously, if sanctions legislation is not put in place. Putting new sanctions legislation in place is the question.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the --

QUESTION: Jen --

MS. PSAKI: And implementing it.

QUESTION: No, but the legislation that’s being discussed doesn’t impose new sanctions; it gives the President authority to impose sanctions. Isn’t that correct? And your line of – by your line of reasoning, granting authority is the same as imposing them, and thus a violation under the agreement.

MS. PSAKI: I did not mean to make that point. I will check on the specifics of this legislation and see if there’s anything we want to offer on that.

...