    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT
                                    OF 2009

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2194

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 28, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-66

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    53-137                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
    ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
        Samoa                            DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         RON PAUL, Texas
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         CONNIE MACK, Florida
    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California             TED POE, Texas
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    BARBARA LEE, California              GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    JIM COSTA, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
    RON KLEIN, Florida
                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
                    Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
                  David S. Abramowitz, Chief Counsel
               Kristin Wells, Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
         Alan Makovsky, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
           David Fite, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
       Pearl Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
         David Killion, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
            James Ritchotte, Professional Staff Member deg.
             Michael Beard, Professional Staff Member deg.
             Amanda Sloat, Professional Staff Member deg.
             Peter Quilter, Professional Staff Member deg.
                    Daniel Silverberg, Counsel deg.
         Brent Woolfork, Junior Professional Staff Member deg.
        Shanna Winters, Senior Policy Advisor and Counsel deg.
                 Jasmeet Ahuja, Professional Staff Member deg.
             Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer
            Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   MARKUP OF

    H.R. 2194, To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance
      United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by
      expanding economic sanctions against Iran......................     3
      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2194 offered by
        the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on
        Foreign Affairs..............................................    18

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    The Honorable Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Minnesota: Letter.................................    66
    The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Evidence of Iran's Military
      Nuclear Intentions and Iran's Safeguard Violations.............    75

                                    APPENDIX

    Markup notice....................................................    82
    Markup minutes...................................................    83
    The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Prepared statement...............    85
    The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Texas: Prepared statement....................    87
    The Honorable Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Minnesota: Prepared statement.....................    90

                  IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Berman. The hearing, the  deg.committee
    will come to order.
        Before we begin, I wanted to take a couple of moments to
    acknowledge the departure of two very key staffers for the
    committee, David Abramowitz, our chief counsel, and Kristin
    Wells, our deputy chief counsel.
        David has been on the committee since 1999, and prior to
    that, he served for a decade in the State Department's Office
    of the Legal Advisor.
        Kristin has been with the committee since 2007, and
    previously served with the Committee on the Judiciary beginning
    in 2001.
        David and Kristin have made major contributions to the
    committee's legislative agenda and to our Nation's foreign
    policy. Both played key roles in the committee's recent passage
    of the State Department authorization bill.
        David's role while in the minority, as well as in the
    majority, working on such issues as the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act, the Millennium Challenge Assistance Program and
    PEPFAR are well-known to many of us. I think it is fair to say
    that David has been instrumental in everything this committee
    has done. His work has resulted in improving the lives of
    millions of recipients of U.S. assistance programs, including
    trafficking victims. We will miss him greatly, but not for
    long, because he will likely be back in his new capacity
    working for Humanity United, an antitrafficking organization.
        Kristin, too, has been a major force in the committee,
    working on behalf of the innocent and disadvantaged. She too
    was instrumental in the Wilberforce Trafficking Reauthorization
    Act of 2007, the United States Caribbean Educational Exchange
    Act, legislation pertaining to Iraqi refugees, the
    International Violence Against Women Act, and she has played a
    key role up to today, up until late last night--which
    deg.today is her last day--in working with Mr. Smith's staff on
    a bipartisan basis to further protections of the innocent. She
    put global women's issues front and center for this
    committee, deg. and her contributions will be long
    remembered.
        So I thank you, both of you, for your service and say,
    ``Good luck.'' As I mentioned, they are going on to new
    professional challenges, David to Humanity United, a foundation
    which is dedicated to ending modern-day slavery and mass
    atrocities. Kristin will be a partner in Patton Boggs, where
    she will be a key figure in their widening practice.
        The way you sort of can tell the value--w deg.When
    you really realize the value of the incredible staff that we
    all have working for us is when they come in to tell you they
    are leaving and you can gauge how depressed you get when you
    hear that news. And in this case, the indicator definitely went
    up on that issue.
        We thank both of them, and we will miss you.
        And now, pursuant to notice, I will call up H.R. 2194, the
    Iran Petroleum Refined--the  deg.Iran Refined
    Petroleum Sanctions Act.
        Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute before the members will be considered as base text
    for purposes of amendment, will be considered as read, and will
    be open for amendment at any time. A summary of the amendment
    in the nature of a substitute is on each member's desk.
        [The information referred to follows:]H.R.
    2194 deg.

    Amendment to H.R. 2194 in NOS deg.

        Chairman Berman. In a moment, I will yield myself 5 minutes
    to explain the bill and then 5 minutes to the ranking member to
    allow her to provide her views on the legislation.
        If a member wishes to make a general statement on the bill,
    they may do so by asking to strike the last word once the bill
    is being considered for amendment.
        Without objection, I may recess the committee from time to
    time.
        In addition, I may exercise the chair's prerogative under
    rule IV of the committee rules to postpone votes for the
    convenience of the members. I will give members as much notice
    as I can on when such postponed votes will occur.
        And without objection, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        In marking up H.R. 2194, I have one transcendent goal in
    mind: To maximize the chances that Iran, the leading state
    sponsor of terrorism, will be prevented from acquiring the
    capacity to produce nuclear arms. That capacity would pose
    perhaps the most serious strategic threat to our Nation.
        Why? Four reasons: First, a nuclear-armed Iran would be
    able to bully its neighbors and dominate its region and would
    be much less susceptible to pressure from the international
    community. Second, its terrorist proteges, like Hezbollah and
    Hamas, would be emboldened. Third, it would likely spark a
    nuclear arms race in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf that
    would lead to the collapse of the global nuclear
    nonproliferation regime. And finally, and very importantly, we
    could never be sure that it wouldn't share its nuclear know-how
    with others, including terrorists, or possibly even use nuclear
    weapons against Israel or other United States allies in the
    region.
        This legislation seeks to target Iran's ongoing dependence
    on refined petroleum imports. It is not a magic bullet, but it
    will--at least--force the Iranians to think twice about
    continuing to flout the will of the international community.
        Unlike previous Iran sanctions legislation, which has been
    ignored by every administration, this bill requires the
    administration to report to Congress all activities that would
    trigger sanctions. Three hundred and thirty members of the
    House, including the overwhelming majority of this committee,
    are cosponsors of this bill.
        When I introduced H.R. 2194, deg. 6 months ago, I
    said that I did not want to mark it up right away because I
    wanted to give diplomacy a chance to succeed. And I still do.
        In recent weeks, there has been a potential development on
    the diplomatic front as the United States, its
    partners, deg. and Iran have discussed the prospect
    that Iran would ship 75 percent of its existing stockpile of
    low-enriched uranium outside the country to be further enriched
    for used deg. in making medical isotopes. If this deal
    is realized, as agreed to in principle, and not with
    significant modifications--and assuming that Iran has no covert
    stockpile of low-enriched uranium--we will have pushed back
    Iran's nuclear clock perhaps 9 months to 1 year.
        In marking up this bill today, we must recognize that
    whatever the progress on that recent arrangement, it does not
    address the international community's central concern:
    Suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program.
        Iran is still refusing to suspend enrichment, as demanded
    in four separate United Nations Security Council resolutions,
    and has thus far not even committed to engage on that core
    issue in the recent round of talks. In fact, as we now know,
    Iran has been seeking to covertly expand its uranium enrichment
    program.
        The Iranian Government should know that the U.S. Congress
    remains intently focused on this issue, and that there will be
    consequences if it continues to stonewall. That is why, after 6
    months of waiting, it is time to begin moving this bill through
    the legislative process.
        I am not giving up on the possibility that diplomacy will
    succeed in bringing about a suspension of
    Iranian deg.'s uranium enrichment program. But if
    diplomacy does not produce the desired results within a very
    short period of time, there should be a robust sanctions regime
    imposed by the U.N. Security Council--or, failing that, by a
    coalition of economically powerful, like-minded states that,
    one hopes, would include the United States, the EU nations,
    Japan, and several of the key oil-producing Arab states.
        Only when we judge that these other options will not
    succeed in a timely manner should we turn to additional
    unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions such as those
    included in H.R. 2194.
        As I said in my statement 2 weeks ago announcing this
    markup, by approving the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act,
    this committee will take the first key steps deg. to
    ensure that President Obama is empowered with the full range of
    tools he needs to address the looming nuclear threat from Iran,
    even as he pursues diplomacy and, if necessary, the
    multilateral sanctions track. Given the length of time it
    ordinarily takes the House and Senate to move a significant
    piece of legislation to the President's desk, it is important
    that we initiate this process today.
        All of us are aware that, deg. if the provisions
    of this bill are ever implemented, they would likely have a
    significant impact on the Iranian economy, including quite
    possibly on average Iranians. While that is a
    distasteful, I give myself deg.--I ask for unanimous
    consent to have 2 additional minutes.
        Mr. Burton. Of course.
        Chairman Berman. And I will give myself that.
        While that is a distasteful prospect--that is the
    significant impact on average Iranians--the urgency of dealing
    with the Iranian nuclear project--and the immense danger that a
    nuclear-armed Iran would pose to tens, if not hundreds, of
    millions of people who will fall within the range of its
    missiles--compels us to go forward with this legislation.
    Should its implementation prove necessary, it would be our hope
    that the Iranian regime would come to its senses and suspend
    its enrichment program at the earliest possible time.
        Iranians should understand that Americans, while distressed
    by the actions of the Iranian regime, have feelings of real
    friendship for the Iranian people themselves, and we believe
    most Iranians reciprocate those feelings. Many of us regret
    that developments in recent decades have created impediments to
    our mutual friendship.
        We look forward to a day when the United States-Iranian
    friendship can blossom anew, when a government in Tehran is
    willing to restore Iran to membership in good standing among
    the community of nations. For Iran, the first step down that
    path is the complete abandonment of its nuclear weapons
    program.
        We know that sanctions can work. We have seen them succeed,
    for example, in the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe, when it
    was known as Rhodesia. But sanctions usually take time. Given
    the advanced state, deg. even of the overt Iranian
    nuclear program; given Iran's achievements in missile
    development; and given persistent reports that Iran has made
    considerable progress on nuclear-weapon design, we have very
    little time to lose. Should diplomacy fail, we must be
    prepared.
        I urge all members of the committee to support this bill,
    and I turn to the ranking member to express her views on the
    legislation.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I am extremely pleased that this urgently needed sanctions
    legislation is being marked up today. The extent of the Iranian
    threat is far greater today than when the Iran-Libya Sanctions
    Act, also known as ILSA, was passed in 1996 or even when the
    Iran Freedom Support Act, which I authored to strengthen Iran
    sanctions, was enacted into law in 2006.
        Throughout, Iran has poured massive resources into its
    nuclear weapons program and has made great strides in its
    development of ballistic missiles and other advanced
    conventional weapons. Its support for militant, Islamic
    extremists has greatly expanded as well. And it has adopted
    increasingly aggressive policies toward other countries in the
    region.
        By sanctioning foreign companies that invested in Iran's
    energy infrastructure, ILSA sought to cut off investment in
    Iran's struggling petroleum sector, the regime's economic life
    line. As a result, Iran's petroleum sector has been denied
    critical foreign investment. Today's legislation, the Iran
    Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, seeks to ratchet up the
    pressure on the regime by targeting a new vulnerability, namely
    Iran's inability to produce sufficient gasoline and other
    refined-petroleum products.
        The bipartisan bill, as you have stated, Mr. Chairman, also
    has 330 cosponsors. There is no question that it will be
    adopted overwhelmingly when it is sent to the floor, which I
    hope will be soon.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute which we are
    considering today contains a number of important changes to the
    introduced bill. I will highlight just a few: A requirement
    that investigations into possible violations of the Iran's
    Sanctions Act be concluded within 180 days; an expansion of
    sanctions beyond the maritime shipment of refined-petroleum
    products to Iran to also include truck and rail shipping; a
    prohibition on new nuclear cooperation agreements with
    governments that do not take effective action against those
    under its jurisdiction who provide Iran with materials and
    technology used in its nuclear weapons program; additional
    reporting requirements regarding the Iranian Revolutionary
    Guard Corps, activity by Iranian diplomats, quasi-official
    entities and proxies, such as Hezbollah in the Middle East,
    Western Hemisphere, Africa and beyond, and trade between Iran
    and the G-20 nations; and an additional sense of Congress
    regarding newly discovered nuclear facilities, as well as
    additional statements of policy, such as calling on the
    Secretary of State to make every effort to assist the American
    hostages taken when Iranian militants seized our embassy in
    1979 and their survivors in achieving full compensation for
    their injuries.
        These and other additions greatly strengthen the bill's
    effectiveness. Major opportunities have been thrown away
    because successive administrations refused to use the many
    powerful tools that Congress has given to them or did so only
    halfheartedly.
        It is my expectation that we will work in a bipartisan
    manner to ensure that congressional mandates and intents are no
    longer ignored by the executive. I further hope that the
    current administration, as with its predecessor in the second
    term, does not allow itself to be manipulated by Iran into an
    indefinite holding pattern to delay and extract greater
    concessions while the clock on their break-out capacity
    continues to tick.
        I used a reference at last week's Burma hearing with
    respect to the proposed new approach to that regime that,
    unfortunately, also fits perfectly when discussing dealings
    with the Iranian regime. And that is a Winston Churchill quote,
    when he warned, ``There is no greater mistake than to suppose
    that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path
    to safety.'' I fear that I will have many opportunities to use
    that Churchill quote in the future.
        After years of failed efforts at engagement and offers of
    inducement, it should be clear that unless we impose the
    maximum pressure on Iran, and this bill is a major step forward
    in that direction, the regime will continue its march toward
    acquiring nuclear weapons, dominating the Persian Gulf, and
    expanding its network of radical militants around the world. We
    still have time to act but we must do so quickly.
        And Mr. Chairman, one last note, I join you in wishing much
    success to David and Kristin in their new endeavors. And
    indeed, it is delight to work with all of your staff members on
    your side. I know that that is the feeling on our side of the
    aisle.
        I enjoy working with you as well, Mr. Chairman, in a
    bipartisan manner and will continue to do so as we move this
    bill along in other committees and on to the floor action.
        Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much, and I share that
    enjoyment of course. Sometimes at 11 o'clock at night, it is--
    for what purpose?
        Mr. Ackerman. Move to strike next to the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized to next of 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, I have been and remain a strong
    advocate for sanctions on Iran. For many years, through
    Democratic and Republican administrations, I have felt it to be
    vital to force Iran to pay a price, some price, any price, for
    its general subversion and state sponsorship of terrorism and,
    most of all, its nuclear proliferation.
        Today we are going to move forward a sanctions bill that I
    believe will strengthen the Obama administration's ability to
    conduct effective diplomacy. The world, and I mean both our
    allies and others, needs to know that the U.S. Congress is dead
    serious about sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the
    real concerns about Iran's nuclear program.
        For those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, I
    would suggest that the opposite is true. With Iranian
    proliferation on the horizon, what is feckless is reckless. If
    you don't want war, it seems to me that you must back the
    toughest possible sanctions.
        But sanctions alone almost certainly are not going to be
    sufficient to force the Iran regime to change course. The
    violence throughout Iran in June following the rigged
    Presidential election as well as the subsequent escalation of
    political repression have both demonstrated Iran's rulers are
    ready to do whatever is takes to preserve their grip on power.
    And given the 10 years of sanctions followed by the war against
    Saddam's Iraq and what hasn't happened to nuclear North Korea,
    I suspect Iranian's thugocracy sees nuclear arms as their
    ultimate insurance policy.
        So even as we proceed, as we must, on enhancing our
    capacity for unilateral sanctions and even as we continue, as
    we must, on developing crippling multilateral sanctions that
    can be applied if diplomacy proves to be ineffectual, we should
    bear in mind that there may not be any level of sanctions
    sufficient enough to compel a change in Iran's nuclear program.
    I would suggest we need a strategy more comprehensive than just
    diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions.
        President Obama's support for direct engagement with Iran
    has already helped to heal a variety of political woes. But by
    itself, diplomatic engagement still leaves too much initiative
    in Iranian hands. Likewise with political and economic
    sanctions if the Iranians remain recalcitrant and sanctions are
    applied, no matter how crippling, and I would want them to be
    absolutely suffocating of the regime, the initiative is still
    left to the Ayatollahs to decide when they have had enough.
        After bemoaning for years the insufficiency of our leverage
    over Iran, why have we chosen to ignore Iran's green movement,
    which so clearly has the Ayatollahs absolutely terrified. Iran
    is sowing chaos and terror throughout the Middle East. Where is
    the Truman-like policy of declaring our support for any nation
    trying to remain free from Iranian threats?
        We do need to pursue engagement, and we do need to have
    sanctions ready in case it fails. But we also need a policy
    that supports the democratic movement within Iran, that
    strengthens our abilities to resist Iranian subversion, that
    enhances our political and military coordination within the
    Persian Gulf, that makes clear to all nations that political
    support for Iran will come at a price in their relations to the
    United States.
        If we don't come up with a comprehensive policy, one that
    applies pressure to Iran across the board, I suspect President
    Obama is soon going to have to decide whether an Iranian
    nuclear weapons is truly unacceptable in the full meaning of
    the word and with full knowledge of what that really means.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        And the gentleman from Indiana that deg., Mr.
    Burton, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Burton. Strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burton. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy we
    are finally getting to this legislation. You introduced it 6
    months ago, and you and I have discussed this many times about
    how quickly we should bring it to the full committee.
        I would just like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you would
    yield to me.
        Chairman Berman. You have the time.
        Mr. Burton. Well, I will yield to you for an answer, then.
    Do we have any assurance that the other committees of
    jurisdiction are going to work with us to bring this bill to
    the floor expeditiously?
        Chairman Berman. If the gentleman will yield.
        Mr. Burton. I am yielding.
        Chairman Berman. What I--I am not going to let--I will do--
    put it this way, I will do everything in my power to make sure
    that the timing of this bill is not negatively affected by the
    sequential referrals to the three committees that come from
    this legislation. And I am not--I am not going to use the
    sequential referral process as an excuse to keep from bringing
    this bill up at the time I think it achieves its purpose.
        Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that, but we have
    waited 6 months for this one.
        And if the other committees of jurisdiction drag their
    heels, we could be messing around with this for another 6
    months or longer.
        I don't trust Iran. You know, in I think 1939, Lord
    Chamberlain went to Munich to talk to Hitler, and he got
    assurances that Hitler wasn't going to do anything to expand
    his aggressive moves. And yet a short time after that, we were
    in the middle of World War II that killed 50 million or 60
    million people.
        We are in the nuclear age right now. We can't drag our
    feet. More currently, the Clinton administration trusted and
    worked with and got some concessions out of North Korea which
    were thrown right down the receptacle we find in our bathrooms,
    and they went right ahead with their nuclear program.
        And so let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is
    essential that this Congress move and move as rapidly as
    possible and try to get our allies to move as rapidly as
    possible to put these sanctions on them. I don't believe that
    they are going to stop their nuclear program.
        We have heard time and again that one of their major goals
    is to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the face of the earth.
    They likewise call us the Great Satan. I haven't heard anything
    in their rhetoric that would change that. And now they are
    saying, well, that they are thinking about it. At Geneva, they
    said that they would start trying to work out something so they
    could send part of their nuclear material back to Russia, 75
    percent or whatever it is. They shouldn't have any of that
    nuclear material.
        And right now, as we speak today, the centrifuges are still
    spinning. They are working today to develop a nuclear weapons
    capability and their missile capability as well. And the longer
    we wait, the more we risk a major conflagration other there.
        I know some of the leaders in Israel, and I know that their
    number one concern is protecting their country. It is a very
    small country and could be almost annihilated with a couple of
    nuclear weapons. And I truly believe, the longer we drag our
    feet, the more we risk a conflict over there that could kill an
    awful lot of innocent people both in Iran and in Israel.
        And so I think we need to move as quickly as possible, and
    I hope you will use all the power you have, as you just stated,
    Mr. Chairman, to get this legislation through the other
    committees and get it to the floor so we can vote on it. We get
    this thing passed and then start talking to our allies about
    working with us and the United Nations. Then, I think, we can
    start putting some real pressure on Iran. But right now,
    solving this problem with just words is not going to get the
    job done.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. Time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. For what
    purpose do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Sherman. To strike one of the words. You can decide
    which one.
        Chairman Berman. Okay, the gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Our policy of engagement needs to be
    complimented by immediate, harsh and extraterritorial
    sanctions. And we need to get the administration to enforce the
    bills that have already become law, especially the Iran
    Sanctions Act. We need to pass several additional sanctions
    through this Congress; then the sanctions can be frozen or
    waived when the centrifuges are frozen, and then talks can
    continue in a more relaxed atmosphere.
        With that being said, this is a good bill. I am proud to
    cosponsor it. It is not comprehensive; it is not intended to be
    comprehensive. And I am not going to offer amendments that are
    outside the objectives of the author. Rather, I hope that those
    other objectives already embodied in bills that I have authored
    or cosponsored, or that others have put forward, will be taken
    up expeditiously so that we will pass every possible useful
    sanction through this Congress. That would include making sure
    that U.S. subsidiaries don't do business with Iran, that is to
    say foreign incorporated subsidiaries of U.S. firms. Also, a
    ban on Iranian exports to the United States. It wouldn't even
    be exterritorial to say that we are going to stop imports from
    Iran. We don't import oil from Iran. We only import the stuff
    that we don't need and they couldn't sell anywhere else.
        There are a number of other sanctions, including those
    designed to prevent Iran from getting mining and milling
    equipment. I believe the ranking member and I are working on
    that. I look forward to working on these other pieces of
    legislation.
        Finally, I want to thank the chairman for including in this
    bill language that would target the Iran Revolutionary Guard
    Corps. That Corps has operated through hundreds of fronts and
    affiliates. It is time that we designate these entities under
    appropriate statutes and executive orders. The amendment put
    forward by the chairman would require that the administration
    identify these fronts and affiliates in reports required by the
    bill, and calls on the President to sanction these entities as
    well as those who do business with them. If you sell to the
    IRGC or any of its fronts or affiliates, you should not be
    selling to us.
        I look forward to the passage of this important
    legislation, commend the chairman for drafting it and yield
    back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        And the gentleman from Indiana, for what purpose----
        Mr. Burton. I will speak again.
        Chairman Berman. The other gentleman from Indiana. There
    are more than one.
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
    last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pence. I am glad to be here today, and I appreciate the
    chairman and the ranking member's leadership in bringing H.R.
    2194 before this committee, which has extraordinary bipartisan
    support in this committee and before the Congress. The bill
    before us today, if enacted, would amend the Iran Sanctions Act
    of 1996 to provide additional tools the administration should
    use to pressure Iran where words have failed.
        Despite the fact that the prevailing diplomatic wins these
    days blow in the direction of diplomacy alone, I believe with
    all my heart that diplomacy and sanctions are not mutually
    exclusive. And the action that this committee will take today.
    And I hope that this Congress will take in the very near future
    in moving and enacting the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act
    will greatly strengthen the position of the United States at
    the negotiation table with our allies relative to Iran.
        This past summer, we saw vivid images of violent acts the
    Iranian regime was willing to commit against its own citizens
    to maintain its illegitimate grip on power. Dissidents took to
    the streets, by the millions to express their opposition to the
    fraudulent elections. The crackdown began with tragic results.
        Mr. Chairman, it was a great privilege for me to partner
    with you in bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor of
    the Congress that gave the American people an opportunity to
    speak in solidarity with the dissidents in Iran and also to
    condemn the violence that took place there.
        The reality was at that time Iran effective declared war on
    its own people. We ought to ponder that as we think about the
    strength of this legislation and U.S. resolve. If this is the
    level of violence that a regime in Tehran is willing to use
    against its own citizens, what does that tell us about the
    level of violence they would be willing to use against other
    nations?
        Iran's support for terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass
    destruction have long threatened global peace and security. To
    the Iranian regime, the United States is the Great Satan and
    our cherished ally Israel has no right to exist.
        Last week Iran missed the deadline to respond to a proposed
    agreement between Iran and six world powers, including the
    United States. Under the deal, Russia and France would accept
    80 percent of Iran's known low-enriched uranium, process it for
    civilian purposes, and then give it back to Iran. Yesterday,
    Iran agreed to this general framework we are told, but they
    said they would seek important changes. This announcement
    should be seen for what it is, little more than a two-step to
    keep the negotiation process going while Iran continues in its
    headlong rush to obtain usable nuclear weapons.
        Iran's failure to meet deadlines in this current ploy to
    drag out negotiations further should come as no surprise. Iran
    deceived the world community time and time again, and any
    assurance that their nuclear program is peaceful should be seen
    for what it is.
        The revelation last month of Iranian's secret uranium
    enrichment facility near Qom has already shown Iran's
    propensity--Tehran's propensity for double dealing. The world
    is left to wonder what other sites might be hiding thousands
    more centrifuges busily churning out highly-enriched uranium
    and how long it will be before they have enough for a bomb.
    Already the leading state sponsor of terror, it would only be a
    matter of time before a nuclear-armed Iran made good on its
    threat.
        The international community and I would argue this country
    has talked long enough about Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is
    time for deeds. It is time to take real concrete steps to begin
    to economically isolate this discredited regime in Tehran. And
    I urge support for the strongest possible measures to be
    included in the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act and,
    again, commend the chairman of this committee and the ranking
    member of this committee for their strong leadership in
    bringing this legislation before the Congress.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you.
        And the gentleman from New York seeks recognition.
        Mr. Engel. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
    word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. I want to associate myself with Mr.
    Pence's remarks, which I think are quite right and on the
    money.
        So I thank you for making those remarks, Mr. Pence, and I
    certainly agree with everything you have said.
        And Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2194, the Iran
    Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor
    of this excellent piece of legislation which seeks to increase
    the pressure on Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And I
    would especially would  deg.like to commend you, Mr.
    Chairman, for sponsoring this thoughtful initiative.
        As you know, I was the author of a Syria Accountability Act
    some years ago. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and I introduced that bill. It
    slapped sanctions on Syria for the first time ever. We pursued
    diplomacy while we pursued sanctions, and I think that is an
    important thing to remember.
        Only a few short weeks ago, the world learned of a secret
    uranium-enrichment facility near the city of Qom. If there was
    ever any doubt Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, I
    believe that this revelation dispels any shred of that doubt.
    The facility, kept secret from the IAEA, was built deep on a
    mountain, on a protected military base. This is how a country
    conceals a nuclear weapons program, not how it develops
    peaceful energy technologies.
        As Iran continues to disregard its legal obligations and
    flouts U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it halt
    its nuclear enrichment program, this committee can play a
    critical role in impeding Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
    capability. By passing this Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions
    Act, Congress will create critical tools to increase the
    pressure on Iran. Although Iran is a leading producer of crude
    oil, it has limited refining capability. This bill seeks to
    increase leverage against Iran by sanctioning entities that
    export refined-petroleum products to Iran or support the
    development of Iran's domestic refining capabilities.
        It is my hope that the administration will apply these
    additional sanctions to make absolutely clear to the
    Ahmadinejad regime that the world will not accept his nuclear
    ambitions.
        Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the
    Western Hemisphere, I would like to raise one additional
    concern which arose at my hearing yesterday on Iran's role in
    the Western Hemisphere. Last month, Venezuelan leader Hugo
    Chavez agreed to provide 20,000 barrels per day of refined
    gasoline to Iran. It is anyone's guess as to whether this will
    ever be implemented, but the deal may be covered by the bill we
    are considering today. While some question whether Venezuela
    has the ability to provide gasoline to Iran since it imports
    some gasoline to meet its own domestic demand, President Chavez
    is clearly approaching a perilous area. I hope he reconsiders
    this unwise step. And if he doesn't, I hope these sanctions
    will apply in that regard.
        The United States, our allies and the United Nations
    Security Council have recognized that a nuclear-armed Iran
    would be a danger to the Middle East and to the nuclear
    nonproliferation regime. A nuclear-armed Iran is simply
    unacceptable, and we must not stand for it. And while the rest
    of the world twiddles its thumbs, this is obviously a very,
    very important issue, not only for us in the United States, but
    for the people of Israel. I think the people of Israel will
    make decisions on how they act, but I believe that we in the
    United States can make decisions to try to block Iran. So I
    therefore strongly support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanction
    Act, and I urge the committee to report this bill favorably,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        And the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, first of all I, want to congratulate you and
    the ranking member in pushing this necessary tightening and
    enhancement of sanctions against Iran. It is important that
    sanctions against the Government of Iran be considered in the
    context not only of United States security interests and those
    of our allies and friends directly threatened, which includes
    especially Israel, but also in pursuit of respect for human
    rights and democratic freedom to which the people of Iran are
    entitled.
        In fact, the two goals cannot be separated, regional and
    global security depend on Iran having a stable government and a
    society where human rights and the will of the Iranian people
    are respected. This bill underscores that point. The bill makes
    clear within the department, within the statement of policy
    that the United States supports ``all Iranian citizens who
    embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties
    and the rule of law.''
        Mr. Chairman, I recently joined my friend and colleague Bob
    Inglis and other House members in sending a letter to Secretary
    of State Hillary Clinton expressing concerns about reports that
    the State Department and USAID are being ``extremely cautious
    as to whether and how they provide funding to promote
    democracy, human rights and the will of law in Iran.''
        The how of it is an important issue for deliberation, but
    there should be no question whatsoever as to whether United
    States actively supports these essential goals of the Iranian
    people. There are reports that important initiatives are being
    undertaken by highly reputable groups such as Freedom House and
    the International Republican Institute, both here in the United
    States, in furtherance of these goals have had their U.S.
    funding renewal requests denied. And as a result, those
    initiatives may be discontinued. This would be
    deg.seem to be contrary to the best interest of the Iranian
    people and the United States.
        The letter to Secretary Clinton asked for information as to
    what strategy the U.S. Government is pursuing in support of the
    green revolution.
        In the meantime, this bill does provide the committee the
    opportunity to send the clear, unmistakable message to the
    Iranian Government that there are consequences to attempting to
    develop nuclear weapons, unconventional weapons and ballistic
    missiles and supporting international terrorism. I am very
    pleased to be one of the cosponsors of the bill.
        And finally, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will
    deeply miss David Abramowitz and Kristin Wells. David and I and
    the members of this committee for years worked on human rights
    legislation. As a matter of fact, the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act would not have become law without the bipartisan
    cooperation and the insights and the wordsmithing that he
    provided, as well as members of our own committee and the
    members of our own staff. That kind of bipartisan cooperation
    is what it is all about. I think this bill is another example
    that that tradition continues to live on. I thank you and yield
    back.
        Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman.
        And does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition? No.
        The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, for what purpose
    do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
    last word.
        I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member
    for their continued efforts on the complicated issues
    surrounding Iran and their dedicated work on this bill. I am a
    proud sponsor of this bill and the broad bipartisan support
    behind this initiative is commendable.
        The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act will expand our
    options under the Iranian Sanctions Act by defining more
    sanctionable offenses and by expanding the available types of
    sanction. This bill allows sanction on firms that send refined
    gasoline to Iran or that send equipment to Iran that could
    support domestic oil refineries. These provisions are both
    appropriate and necessary as we confront Iran's nuclear threat.
        Talks are ongoing, and Iran has allowed U.N. officials to
    visit a previously unknown uranium enrichment site. But this
    type of engagement is buying Iran more time to stall. As we
    have seen before, these developers do not put me at ease about
    Iran's nuclear program, and I believe we must pursue tighter
    sanctions.
        The country's dependence on gasoline import is widely
    known, and this bill will weaken Iran by limiting the country's
    ability to access the energy it needs to continue its nuclear
    ambitions. Our Government has been extremely generous with the
    often infuriating Iranian regime. Now it is time to move
    forward with these sanctions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I
    wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I identify myself
    with the remarks made by Mr. Pence earlier in this hearing.
        With that said, I would hope that this act does not have a
    loophole that will permit the administration to turn a blind
    eye to China's significant involvement in Iran's oil and gas
    industry. It has been reported that China has already surpassed
    Germany as Iran's number one trade partner.
        Sinopec, China's largest oil refiner, last year finalized a
    multibillion dollar deal to develop a giant oil field in Iran.
    And in addition to that, they made the deal of the century, a
    contract for natural gas from Iran's immense North Pars field.
        Chinese contractors are also busy constructing oil
    terminals for Iran in the Caspian Sea, and this while China's
    arms sales to Iran has included such items as ballistic missile
    technology, air defense radars, cruise missiles. I might add,
    one of those cruise missiles took out an Israeli warship a
    couple of years ago. I would also point out that the Jerusalem
    Post reported that many Chinese Grad rockets have been fired
    from Gaza into Israel. And one of those grad rockets, by the
    way, is a Katyusha rocket, which was fired just yesterday into
    the sea, in the area of Galilee.
        To conclude that--let me just note this, if we are serious
    about countering the threat that Iran poses to the United
    States and to its neighbors, we will do everything we can to
    stop the Chinese communist party from playing the spoiler role,
    not only with regard to oil and gas but also to military
    equipment with it provides Iran, which then ships it off to
    terrorist organizations.
        We have to do this, even if it means upsetting the
    communist party leadership in Beijing. And whether it also,
    perhaps, upsets the American corporate elite lapdogs that send
    off to China all of our jobs and technology.
        So while I support this legislation, let's hope that we
    don't lose focus on the role that China is playing and hold
    them accountable as pardon part of this legislation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    you and----
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman moves to strike the last
    word?
        Mr. Connolly. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
    the last and the penultimate word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is not the penultimate
    speaker, though.
        The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again, I want to thank you and the ranking member for
    moving forward with this legislation.
        The United States and its allies have made several
    diplomatic overtures to Iran with the goal of halting Iran's
    nuclear enrichment activity. Recent missile tests and the
    revelation of a secret enrichment facility in Qom add to the
    urgency of the situation.
        Now a new deal is on the table. Just last week, the White
    House announced its official support for an IAEA proposed
    arrangement that would send most of Iran's uranium outside of
    the country for enrichment. Time will tell whether Iran
    supports the proposal. The clock is ticking.
        While Iran may stall in accepting the deal, a common
    measure it has employed in the past, it is time to consider
    measures that will strengthen the United States and its allies'
    negotiating position or up the ante, so to speak.
        The real threat of additional sanctions can do just that.
    The Iranian Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, H.R. 2194, will
    strengthen the President's authority to impose economic
    sanctions on Iran and give the President additional tools to
    use when considering the Iran situation.
        The message to Iran must be clear: Stop stalling and
    negotiate a deal, or there will be severe economic
    consequences.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. For what purpose does the gentleman, Mr.
    Royce, seek recognition?
        Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Royce. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I think you noted that this issue has long
    been under consideration. And I think for those of us who have
    wrestled with this issue, as you have, one of the reasons it
    has been in abeyance for a while is because of that 2007
    National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that in the
    fall, and to use the words of the estimate, in the fall of
    2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.
        Now several of us at the time saw this as a poorly produced
    document, a poorly presented document, and we were rather vocal
    in trying to point out the likelihood that that assessment was
    dead wrong. It surely damaged our international efforts to
    pressure Iran.
        And since that estimate, we have learned a lot about a
    North Korean built nuclear facility in Syria which we
    apparently were blind to at the time. I believe that that was
    likely linked to Iran. And one thing we do know is the Qom
    enrichment facility on an Iranian military bare, which has now
    come to our attention.
        Now the Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Qom
    site undermined one of the U.S. intelligence communities' key
    assessments of the Iranian's nuclear program. And that
    assessment was that Iran had abandoned its plans to enrich
    uranium in secret. We now know it is exactly the opposite of
    what be were told by the intelligence community. And there is
    no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we have lost valuable time in
    responding to this very serious threat. And one of the reasons
    is because of that report, and I hope we learn something from
    it.
        I am also concerned by this administration's apparent
    walking away from the democratic movement in Iran. Other
    members have commented on this, but I wonder if members realize
    that the administration has now cut out grants to respected
    groups supporting democracy in Iran. We have had a bipartisan
    agreement for many years in this committee. And this is under
    our purview, our jurisdiction, for support for those doing work
    for human rights in Iran. And the idea that part of our
    outreach to the Iran regime should be undermining that support
    gives me concern.
        I would make the observation that Andre Sakharov many years
    ago told us something that we probably should have sensed, and
    that is how a regime treats its own people tells you a great
    deal about how it is likely to treat its neighbors. And for
    those of us in America who watched the results of the Basiji or
    the attacks by those armed militia for the regime on those who
    were protesting, trying to get an honest and fair outcome of an
    election that had been stolen; for those of us who learned
    about the bodies that disappeared and later turned up dead, the
    current protesters who have been given sentences of death for
    participating in protesting a stolen election; for those of us
    who know how Iranian families grieve for family members that
    are yet to be accounted for, they have no idea what is
    currently happening to those individuals; I think for us, there
    is a great deal of concern for the cuts to these efforts to
    support human rights.
        Now there is no guarantee that a democratic Iran would be
    nuclear weapons free, but they would be far more likely than in
    Iran in the grip of the Supreme Council, it be far more likely
    that we would have a regime that we could work with or at least
    we didn't have to fear; at least a regime that didn't tell us
    what the Soviets once told us. You know, the Soviet threat was
    that they were going to bury us. Well, we took action to
    contain that threat, and we listened to those dissidents in the
    Soviet Union who said, you know, supporting human rights over
    here is going to help change the system. And it is equally
    important here because smart diplomacy doesn't mean dropping
    any criticism of a regime's human rights abuse, and this it is
    a critical issue I hope this committee will look at, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        And the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon, is recognized
    on a motion to strike for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
    last word.
        And I commend you for your leadership on advancing the Iran
    Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, a historic bipartisan
    piece of legislation which limits investment in Iran's
    hydrocarbon sector. H.R. 2194 would sanction companies that
    help Iran import or produce refined petroleum, companies that
    ultimately endanger the security of the United States, Israel,
    and the world as a whole. Already due to the United States
    pressure, at least 40 banks, including Deutsche Bank and UBS,
    Credit Suisse, and Commerce Bank have all reduced business with
    Iran.
        Yet despite increased pressure, Iran refuses to suspend its
    uranium-enrichment program. In fact, as we have heard this
    morning, the revelation this past September that Iran failed to
    disclose yet another enrichment facility in Qom points to the
    reason why we are all here today. A nuclear-armed Iran is
    unacceptable and is not consistent with a secure and safe
    United States and Israel.
        Since Iran imports 40 percent of its refined petroleum this
    legislation will have a significant impact on Iran's economy
    and will send a clear message that Iran must stop its nuclear
    enrichment program. I am confident that this long-sought
    measure will undoubtedly give the administration the leverage
    that it needs to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime, but the
    United States will also need the full support of the
    international community to use limits on trade and the energy
    to help end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to vote for H.R. 2194, but
    I also urge all my colleagues to support the manager's
    amendment. Among many other positive changes, the manager's
    amendment includes a provision that will require the President
    to report to Congress on the dollar value amount of trade,
    including the energy sector, between Iran and each country
    maintaining membership in the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers
    and Central Bank Governors.
        I thank you, Chairman Berman, for working with me on this
    important provision, this amendment. I have devoted much of my
    efforts on the committee to promoting trans-Atlantic relations
    and nonproliferation efforts, and there is no better way to
    engage with allies and foes alike than to promote a nuclear
    nonproliferation regime.
        Major European allies, including the United Kingdom,
    France, and Germany, have advocated that sanctions be
    significantly toughened. This reporting requirement will allow
    the United States to compare the efforts taken by the G-20
    members in the fight against nuclear proliferation and will
    ultimately further secure the United States, Israel, and the
    global community. Through my provision, the manager's amendment
    will enhance an already comprehensive piece of legislation that
    I have proudly cosponsored.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield the remainder
    of my time.
        Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's
    time has expired.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, for what purpose do you
    seek recognition?
        Mr. Paul. I ask unanimous consent to address the committee
    for 5 minutes----
        Chairman Berman. Without objection.
        Mr. Paul [continuing]. And move to strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I oppose this legislation. I
    do not challenge the motivation of those who support this
    legislation, but I think it is deeply flawed, and I think it is
    going to do a lot more harm than good. It reminds me of all the
    talk that preceded us going into Iraq, all the wonderful things
    that could come by putting more pressure on a particular
    country starting first with sanctions.
        Sanctions are an act of war. It was suggested that
    Venezuela may be going to send oil over there. That means maybe
    intercepts on the high sea. But the best way for others to look
    at this to see my point is how would we react if somebody
    closed down our oil imports? I mean, we would be pretty unhappy
    about that. To think that this is not a serious matter I think
    is being rather naive.
        First off, the Iranians have a right to enrich for peaceful
    purposes. They have never been found in violation of the NPT
    treaty, not once. Our NIE report says they haven't been working
    on a weapon since 2003, and just because you disagree with it
    you can't just dismiss that report out of hand. So there is a
    lot of distortion on this information that we get.
        When we went into Iraq, there were unintended consequences.
    There is still no stability there, but one thing for certain is
    Iraq is a much closer ally of Iran right now. We drove the
    Iraqis into the hands of the Iranians.
        And there has been an expression here that this is a good
    bill, but we still should be concerned about China. Well, if
    you are concerned about China, this is the best thing in the
    world for China. They are motivated. They have already invested
    in Iran. The production of petroleum products has gone up
    significantly in Iran. So this is a big motivation for the
    Iranians to do exactly what you don't want them to do.
        Now the theory is that if we really punish the people, take
    their gasoline from them, and they are going to get angry. And
    they will. They are going to get angry at us. They are not
    going to get angry at the Ayatollah.
        What you are doing is you are deliberately undermining the
    dissidents there. They will lose all credibility. People, when
    attacked on the outside, as we were on 9/11, we come together.
    So all we do is keep pounding on people like this and we ruin
    the dissenting views that are operating in that country. So I
    just think this is all going to backfire.
        And we need to think in terms of the principle of free
    trade. You know, the more you put on sanctions, the more likely
    you will be to fight with them.
        We put on sanctions, and we knew we were destined--at least
    a lot of us thought we were destined to go to war in Iraq. And
    this means that we are willing to take on armed conflict. But
    do you know what? What I don't understand is your willingness
    to sort of disrupt what the President is trying to do. The
    President is trying to negotiate and talk. He said he wanted to
    do it. He should be allowed to do this. This just I think
    disrupts what the President is trying to do.
        Recently, the President spoke at the United Nations; and
    under his pressure and leadership, he had U.N. Resolution 1887
    pass. He has been working multilaterally to try to bring peace
    to that area by having a non-nuclear Middle East. So if that is
    the administration's position, to have a non-nuclear Middle
    East, then why do we do this to disrupt some of the things that
    he is trying to do?
        I just am disturbed by us not looking through and looking
    at the ramifications, looking at the unintended consequences,
    and this pretense that we can just do this and everything is
    going to come out all right. Because I really believe in the
    long run we will suffer, the people will suffer, and there will
    not be more stability.
        How can we get terrified of a threat from the Iranians?
    They are a Third World nation. Up until recently, they couldn't
    even make their own gasoline. But because of our pressure so
    far they are getting quite capable of doing it. We are driving
    them into the hands of the Chinese. They have our money. They
    can control us through the dollar. And yet we are driving the
    Chinese into taking over, just as we drove the Iraqis to become
    close allies of the Iranians.
        I think our policies are deeply flawed. I say your
    motivations are fine and dandy, but motivations aren't the
    answer. We have to think of the consequences.
        Chairman Berman. Time of the gentleman is expired.
        I didn't want to interrupt the gentleman, but, at the end,
    I will make my own motion to strike, and I do want to speak to
    one issue the gentleman raised regarding Iran's right to enrich
    and the absence of my violations of the nonproliferation
    treaty. But I will do that at the end of the debate.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for what purpose do
    you seek recognition?
        Mr. Green. I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing
    today on a markup of H.R. 2194, which would strengthen the Iran
    Sanctions Act of 1996 by placing further and stricter penalties
    on Iran's energy sector. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
    bill.
        Since the United States first took action on this issue in
    1996, Iran has continued to defy the international community by
    overtly developing a nuclear program. By doing this, Iran poses
    serious problems to the stability of its region as well as the
    international community.
        While I support the President's effort to reach a
    diplomatic agreement with Iran, it is also important we send a
    clear signal that there will be negative consequences for
    refusing to cooperate. H.R. 2194 accomplishes this goal by
    targeting one of the largest sectors of the Iranian economy.
    The oil industry comprises 20 percent of Iran's gross domestic
    product, and the Iranian Government receives about 80 percent
    of its revenues from oil.
        I strongly support H.R. 2194 and urge my colleagues to vote
    in favor of this legislation. Stability in the Middle East is
    of the utmost importance, not only to the Middle Eastern
    countries but to the international community; and I also hope
    that negotiations with Iran will move forward and we will
    continue to do what we can to reinforce the President's effort.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up the bill;
    and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for what purpose do
    you seek recognition?
        Mr. Flake. I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flake. I thank the chairman.
        Like Dr. Paul, I don't question at all the motivation
    behind this measure. I know that I think all of us want the
    same in Iran. We don't want to see Iran develop nuclear
    weapons. We would like to see them join the community of
    nations in a responsible manner and form.
        But I do question the efficacy of moving forward in this
    way, in this unilateral way. I have long questioned the
    purpose--not so much the purpose but the efficacy, as I say, of
    these unilateral sanctions. We say that we are not going to tie
    the hands of the administration, and perhaps we aren't today
    with this, but we will later. That will be the next step. That
    tends to be the way we go with unilateral sanctions like this.
        Let me just raise the issue of Cuba. That is what we have
    done there. And I would argue that years later, years and years
    and a couple of decades after the main threat was gone there,
    Cuba's ability to export revolution around the world when the
    Soviets pulled out, we have tied the administration's hands in
    a way that they can't effectively move, our own administration,
    to deal more effectively with the problems still there. And
    there are problems. And I hoped that we could move Cuba closer
    toward democracy. But I would argue that the unilateral
    sanctions that we have there have diminished the prospects of
    an effective end to that problem, and I fear that we will go
    down that road here.
        As I mentioned, I know that this package today does not tie
    the hands of the administration. But my guess is that is the
    next step that we will do, the next step that we will take.
        I hope that the administration is successful in their
    negotiations and in their talks, and I think that we should
    wish them well there. I do believe there is a case for
    multilateral sanctions. I simply want that to happen, and I
    question whether or not sometimes when we move too far ahead of
    our allies it makes it more difficult to pull them in. So I
    hope we have a large multilateral front that is more effective
    than these unilateral sanctions tends to be.
        John Bolton, who we recognize here certainly as Republicans
    is no shrinking violet, says this. He is advocating for this
    legislation, I should say, but he said this, that no one should
    believe that tighter sanctions will in the foreseeable future
    have any impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
        Secretary Clinton said--she described these sanctions on
    Iran as ``leaky.''
        The New York Times reported earlier this month black market
    networks have sprouted up all over the globe to circumvent U.S.
    sanctions on Iran.
        If we concede, and I think all of us have to, that these
    unilateral sanctions aren't going to be an effective means to
    deal with Iran's emerging nuclear problem, then why would we
    take this measure? Why would we do this and start to tie the
    administration's hands on this?
        Now some will say we are just giving them another arrow in
    their quiver. I understand that. But that quickly moves, as we
    have seen in the past, toward tying their hands; and I don't
    think that that is what we do  deg.ought to do at this
    point.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired.
        The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, for what
    purpose do you seek recognition?
        Ms. Woolsey. I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
    word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
        I will vote ``yes'' with the understanding that this
    legislation provides space for the President and for all of us
    and for the President's representatives to further a policy of
    smart security, security that comes based on diplomacy and
    international cooperation.
        Like all of my colleagues, I oppose a nuclear-armed Iran,
    nuclear proliferation making the Middle East and the world as a
    whole much less secure. It is my hope, however, that today's
    action will bring all of the international partners to the
    negotiating table so that America will not go it alone.
        Let me be clear. Our resources and our energy must be
    focused on a peaceful resolution based on ``smart'' security.
    And I say that word over and over. Smart security does not
    start with a gun pointed at you or a bomber flying over your
    city.
        I see this as one more tool for the President. And I hope
    we never have to use it. I stand strongly behind President
    Obama and Secretary Clinton in their pursuit of a peaceful and
    safe Middle East. And, Mr. Chairman, I am counting on you to
    make sure that we go through all of the necessary steps and
    hopefully are safe and secure using diplomacy.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for what
    purpose do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
    last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, Chairman
    Berman. I went to thank Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for
    offering H.R. 2194. I never cease to be amazed at the
    capabilities of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. On my last
    visit to the Middle East, she introduced me to a hero of mine,
    Natan Sharansky, who to me, as a Soviet dissident, helped bring
    about the collapse of the Soviet Empire. And I didn't know she
    had so many friends all over the world, but I am not surprised.
        The bill is needed because a great civilization, Persia,
    has been hijacked by extremists who I think mean what they say
    and that is ``death to America, death to Israel.'' When the
    elections were stolen this year in Iran, the administration
    failed to encourage the youth of Iran who were demonstrating
    for human rights and democracy. We need to act now.
        I am very grateful to be on the Armed Services Committee;
    and, of course, this month we saw that Iran has been testing
    their new missile capability. And the range of their capability
    now clearly includes long-time allies of the United States and
    new allies, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Ukraine, and then to the
    east they can threaten India.
        We also know that Iran has been proceeding with nuclear
    weapons development. There is absolutely no need to build
    nuclear power capability underground, but we have seen the
    pictures of the underground capabilities being developed.
        I know that with the maddened autocrats who are running
    Tehran that they cannot be trusted. We need to act. We need to
    follow the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, peace through strength.
        And I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired, and
    the gentlelady from Texas seeks recognition.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. I would like to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the dilemma that we are in. It is a dilemma
    that we face not made by ourselves but by leadership of Iran
    that simply does not want to be part of the world family.
    However, I also support and recognize the importance of the
    efforts made by the State Department and our President, and I
    support these efforts. I believe engagement has validity to it,
    but I thank you very much for recognizing that it is the people
    of Iran that we must be concerned with.
        It is the human rights. It is important that we acknowledge
    that, throughout 2009, the Government of Iran has persistently
    violated the rights of its citizens. The Government of Iran's
    most overt display of disregard for human rights happened in
    the Presidential elections on June 12, 2009. At that time, I
    said we must condemn Iran for the absence of fair and free
    Presidential elections and urge Iran to provide its people with
    the opportunity to engage in a democratic election process. The
    repression and murder and arbitrary arrests, show trials of
    peaceful dissidents in the wake of the elections were a sad
    commentary on the desire of the Iranian people to have
    democracy.
        I am delighted that language that speaks to the need for
    improved human rights that I submitted has now been included
    into this legislation.
        It is important that we are clear that our concerns are
    with the Government of Iran and not its people. The State
    Department's human rights report on Iran provides a bleak
    picture of life in Iran. The Government of Iran, through its
    denial of the democratic process and repression of dissent, has
    prevented the people from determining their own future.
    Moreover, it is the Government of Iran that persecutes its
    ethnic minorities and denies the free expression of religion.
        Members of the committee should remember that the target is
    the government as we proceed in consideration of this
    legislation. The Government of Iran has repeatedly showed its
    disdain for the international community in repeatedly refusing
    cooperation on nonproliferation.
        However, we have noted over the last couple of weeks their
    doors have been open to those who are now assessing the status
    of their nuclear weapons or potential for such. Some of those
    who were there giving oversight happened to be Americans.
        So my view is this: I want the President and the
    administration and the Secretary of State and other supporting
    agencies to have the full opportunity to engage. I want this
    resolved. I want the people of Iran to have a democratic
    government. I want them to be able to choose their democratic
    government. If this legislation will provide an additional tool
    to move us along, to give the Iranian people what they have
    begged for, for years and decades, to free them, to allow
    women, young women, young men, families, to live in a
    democratic society, to give the Iranian people what they would
    like to do, which is to be part of the world family, then I
    believe this is one tool.
        I would not like this to jump ahead of the engagement
    process; and I would hope that we will be able, Mr. Chairman,
    in weeks to come to be provided with a report from the
    administration on what progress has been made. Otherwise,
    however, the idea of eliminating the refined petroleum products
    is one that creates at least the sense of both strength of the
    world community and the recognition that the American people
    are serious about supporting their brothers and sisters in
    Iran.
        Religious freedom, human rights, democracy, equality, the
    right to excel should be, in essence, the right of the Iranian
    people. For that reason, I will be supporting this legislation.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired;
    and the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Lee. I wanted to thank you for your leadership and also
    for your previous comments and your position with regard to
    this markup, which has stressed the variety of diplomatic and
    multilateral tools that we should use in pursuing our work to
    prevent Iran from pursuing a destabilized and nuclear weapons
    capability.
        As one who believes in and has worked for nonproliferation
    efforts throughout my life everywhere in the world, I am
    equally concerned about the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear
    weapons. And though I believe we should do everything,
    everything we can do to support the Obama administration during
    this very critical juncture, this includes providing the tools
    that the administration deems necessary to prevent Iran from
    backsliding in the very important negotiation processes that
    are taking place at this point.
        At this time, however, we cannot restrict the
    administration's flexibility by mandating unilateral sanctions.
    The strong bipartisan support on this committee and in Congress
    for holding Iran accountable for its actions is, in itself, a
    signal to Iran that if they do not live up to their end of the
    bargain, Congress will act swiftly.
        The prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is
    unacceptable and so is the status quo. However, I am extremely
    concerned, extremely concerned that moving this bill out of
    committee would undermine President Obama's diplomatic efforts;
    and, for those reasons, I cannot support the bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, is recognized
    for--moves to strike the last word? The gentleman is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crowley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last
    word.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use all 5 minutes. But
    let me thank you and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for this
    markup.
        I strongly support this legislation. This move gives the
    President the room he needs to negotiate while also offering
    tools if these negotiations fail. Most importantly, this bill
    makes it clear that there will be a price to pay for the
    development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
        I hope that the Iranian regime, which to date has been
    government of the mullahs, by the mullahs, and for the mullahs,
    will change course by ending its nuclear ambitions and
    respecting its people.
        While the regime is marching toward isolation, the Iranian
    people have marched for change; and we stand strongly on the
    side of the Iranian people in their quest for a future of Iran
    which respects human rights and ends all threats to countries
    throughout the Middle East.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for what purpose
    do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
    to----
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman moves to strike the last
    word?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. Recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I would just like to thank you and the
    ranking member for offering this piece of legislation which I
    strongly support and have cosponsored, and I want to submit my
    full statement for the record. I appreciate it very much.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, for what purpose do
    you seek recognition?
        You don't. Without purpose.
        The gentleman from North Carolina?
        Passes.
        The gentleman from Georgia?
        Passes.
        The gentleman from Minnesota, for what purpose do you seek
    recognition?
        Mr. Ellison. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ellison. I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the
    record the following letters to the committee expressing
    concern about the timing of this markup and asking for delay in
    consideration of this bill.
        Mr. Chairman, you and I share the same goals of a non-
    nuclear-armed Iran----
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman--without objection, those
    lettersPlural but only received one letter deg. will
    be included in the record; and make sure that we get copies of
    them.
        [The information referred to follows:]Letter deg.

        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Ellison. You and I share the same goals of a non-
    nuclear-armed Iran. I do not agree, however, that increased
    sanctions at this time are the right course of action.
        Ten months of diplomacy by the Obama administration has
    achieved more than 8 years of bellicose posturing and 15 years
    of sanctions and 30 years without dialogue. I may be open to a
    sanctions bill in the future, but, at this moment, we need to
    give diplomacy a chance. And so far President Obama's efforts
    have been working. There is finally some progression in dealing
    with Iran. President Obama's diplomacy has yielded an agreement
    that increases inspections and verification and reduces Iran's
    stockpiles of enriched uranium.
        When Iran met with the members of the U.N. Security Council
    on November 1, few were optimistic. But, right now, the United
    Nations inspectors are visiting a uranium enriched site near
    Qom, Iran. Previously, the Iranian Government would not
    disclose its location. Right now, the Iranian Government is
    weighing a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency
    to send enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into
    fuel.
        Diplomacy is an effective means of addressing our issues
    with Iran. We must not rush this process. This is why the Obama
    administration has not asked for additional sanctions at this
    time.
        In fact, sanctions in Iran have not proven to be effective.
        First, Iran has bypassed sanctions. Iran has been able to
    ward off some consequences of sanctions by boosting trade with
    Russia, China, India, and others. The more we take trade
    opportunities away from American businesses, the more other
    nations step into the vacuum.
        Two, Iranian democracy leaders do not support increased
    sanctions. Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi and dissident
    Akbar Ganji tell us that sanctions will only hurt the people,
    especially the working classes in Iran. Even opposition
    candidate MirHousein Mousavi has denounced sanctions, saying
    that anyone who supports his ``green'' revolution movement--
    green movement should also oppose additional sanctions.
        According to Mousavi, ``Sanctions would not actively act
    against the government. Rather, they would only hurt the
    people. We are opposed to any types of sanctions against our
    nation. This is what living the green path means.''
        Increased sanctions may strengthen Iran's revolutionary
    guard. A recent report by the Rand Corporation documented a
    growing corollary between the power of Iran's Revolutionary
    Guard, a branch of the military associated with much of Iran's
    corruption, with sanctions. With inflation in Iran over 20
    percent and with manufacturing in serious decline, sanctions
    will only lead to higher prices and greater black market trade,
    which is already controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.
        Increased sanctions, in sum, are likely to result in Iran
    going around sanctions, are not supported by democracy leaders,
    and may strengthen the Revolutionary Guard.
        Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, I am appalled by Iran's
    dismal human rights record. Since the election of President
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, the number of executions has
    increased fourfold, many of those executed because they spoke
    out against Ahmadinejad's government. Gays and lesbians have
    been rounded up, in some cases executed. Women's rights
    advocates have been arrested, reportedly raped, beaten, and
    killed. Religious minorities like the Baha'i live in fear and
    intimidation.
        I am also shocked and appalled that President Ahmadinejad
    would deny the profound suffering of the Holocaust. All of this
    is unacceptable.
        But, right now, Congress needs to give President Barack
    Obama's diplomatic efforts a chance before increasing
    sanctions. That is why I am opposed to marking up this bill
    right now.
        Diplomacy and efforts toward peace are not naive. In fact,
    after 30 years of no dialogue, 15 years of economic sanctions,
    we cannot expect that doing more of the same will yield a more
    democratic, civil Iranian Government. President Barack Obama's
    efforts are working, and that is why we need to give sanctions
    a chance.
        I would like to thank the chairman for his openness in all
    of his work and the opportunity to speak here today, and I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    and the ranking member--I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McCaul. I want to thank you and the ranking member for
    this legislation.
        The year 1979 certainly transformed the Middle East for
    decades to come when the Ayatollah Khamenei took over. We are
    still dealing with that issue today, which is why I think this
    legislation is necessary. A nuclear Iran, I think everybody in
    this committee agrees, is not acceptable.
        We are providing a lot of carrots, I think, the
    administration, through diplomacy, but this will provide the
    necessary sticks, I think, toward moving forward with a
    nuclear-free Iran.
        My concern, as we demonstrated in the hearing yesterday on
    Venezuela, is that the day that this bill passes, countries
    like Venezuela and China will be immediately in violation of
    this act. And the question before the Congress and the
    President of the United States is going to be, what are we
    prepared to do about that and are we going to enforce this act?
    Are the enforcement provisions in this act strong enough or is
    this just going to be a statement that we make in the Congress,
    like we do so many times, without any teeth?
        So I think that is something, Mr. Chairman, we need to
    think long and hard about. Because we know when this passes the
    Congress that Venezuela is going to continue to supply its
    shipments of refined petroleum products, and we know that China
    is going to continue to do that as well. And we know many other
    countries will as well.
        So I think that is, again, a question we need to ask
    ourselves as we deliberate this legislation; and I think the
    administration and the President needs deg. to be
    prepared for that. Because we know the outcome is certain. And
    if we pass this and do nothing, in my judgment, we are nothing
    but a paper tiger.
        And with that I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords.
        Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Giffords. Thank you for taking this time to mark up
    this important piece of legislation in committee today.
        I am a very proud sponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum
    Sanctions Act and have been working with you and other members
    of our leadership to move this bill as swiftly as possible in
    the Congress.
        I think the people of America firmly understand and
    certainly are allies that for years the Government of Iran has
    repeatedly dismissed international attempts to negotiate the
    country's nuclear program. Preventing the country of Iran from
    developing nuclear weapons is one of the most pressing
    challenges for this Congress and for our allies.
        President Obama has rightly pursued diplomacy; and my
    colleague, Mr. Ellison, spoke recently very eloquently on that.
    However, this legislation also provides the administration with
    a full range of tools needed to address the nuclear threat from
    Iran, and this comprehensive method includes sanctions.
        Furthermore, we cannot allow companies to profit from
    investments made in a country that sponsors terrorism, promotes
    religious intolerance, has an abysmal human rights record, and
    threatens the stability of the Middle East. By targeting these
    firms heavily invested in Iran's energy sector, we will send a
    clear message to the people of Iran and to their leadership: A
    nuclear Iran is simply unacceptable. Iran's petroleum sector
    alone generates 20 percent of the country's gross domestic
    product. Limiting the significant source of funding is
    essential to deterring Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
        This Congress must continue to work to address this threat
    in a comprehensive way, and I commend this committee for
    working swiftly to achieve this goal.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen
    for all of your work on this. I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, for what purpose do
    you seek recognition?
        Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
    last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
    ranking member for bringing this very important piece of
    legislation to the Foreign Affairs Committee today; and I am
    proud to be a cosponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions
    Act of 2009.
        As the administration pursues a diplomatic strategy, I
    firmly believe that Congress must act simultaneously so that
    new and crippling sanctions are ready if negotiations fail. At
    the same time, we must persuade our allies to join us in these
    efforts. We are at our most effective when we work
    multilaterally, and I was encouraged by reports that the
    administration is seeking the support of the Gulf States in
    supplying China with oil.
        China is a large consumer of energy, getting larger by the
    day; and if China ends its reliance on Iranian oil, they may be
    more likely to support a new and tougher round of sanctions in
    the United Nations.
        In my meetings with Arab ambassadors and representatives to
    the United States, their sense of urgency is palpable as they
    consider the future of the Middle East if Iran were to get a
    nuclear weapon. This is a scary prospect, unacceptable, and the
    Arab states have everything to lose. Their oil is an important
    resource that they can use to prevent an Iranian nuclear
    weapons program and an arms race in the region.
        This legislation seeks to sanction companies that provide
    refined petroleum to Iran. As other members have already
    mentioned, Iran imports 40 percent of its oil because they do
    not have enough refining capacity. This bill could bring Iran's
    economy to a standstill. The business class in Iran, which is
    rather sophisticated, wants to be part of the global economy;
    and they should take this opportunity to say to their
    leadership and their government, enough is enough.
        Now is the time to move this legislation and send a strong
    message to Iran and our allies around the world that there are
    serious and isolating consequences for Iran's actions.
        I would also like to thank the chairman for working with me
    to include language in the bill under consideration today based
    on a bill that I have filed, the resolution H.R. 3922, the
    Accountability for Business Choices in Iran Act. This
    legislation, which is supported in a bipartisan way in this
    Congress, requires companies, including foreign companies that
    have U.S. Government contracts, including grants earmarks,
    stimulus funds, or bank bailouts, to certify that they do not
    conduct business in Iran. This is, again, a way of engaging
    multinational businesses outside the United States as well in
    making choices.
        The Accountability for Business Choice in Iran Act has
    achieved broad support, and I believe its inclusion in today's
    resolution strengthens our efforts.
        Today, we are requiring companies to certify that they are
    not providing the last crutch of support to the Iranian economy
    by boosting their refined petroleum. It is time for companies
    to make a choice: Either do business with the United States
    Government or do business with Iran. Iran must not get a
    nuclear weapon, not on our watch and certainly not on our dime.
        I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership,
    along with the ranking member; and I urge my colleagues to
    support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair is unaware of any other--the chair is wrong--
    again.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, for what purpose do
    you seek recognition?
        Mr. Meeks. Strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the
    ranking member for your hard work and for your dedication to
    this committee.
        Mr. Chairman, both carrots and sticks are important when
    you sit at the negotiating table. And I am supporting the Iran
    Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act not because I believe it is
    ideal but rather because I want to send the message that all
    options remain on the table if diplomatic negotiations do not
    produce results.
        As a general rule, I am not a enthusiastic supporter of
    unilateral sanctions; and I want to be clear that I fully
    support the administration's diplomatic efforts so far as we
    try to change the dynamics with regard to Iran and its nuclear
    ambitions. For a nuclear Iran is not something that we can
    tolerate or have at all.
        But we have seen some encouraging signs from recent
    engagements by the administration, and I hope that the progress
    continues. However, seeing the clearest indication yet of the
    administration's thinking on the Iran issue, sanctions issue, I
    am extremely convinced that the combination of a more effective
    sanctions regime which targets the actual leaders of Iran,
    alongside measures that empower the people to build up their
    civil society and strive for political representation, seems to
    me exactly the type of approach that we should be taking in the
    long run. It is smart sanctions, as opposed to some general
    sanctions that affect the people, the entire population of
    Iran.
        I have heard many individuals talk about how we don't want
    to hurt the people of Iran. Because someone used the word that
    Iran had been ``hijacked'' by a few. We need to find the
    sanctions that are going to affect those few who, in effect,
    have hijacked the entire country.
        I want to call your attention to a hearing on October 6,
    2009, before the Senate Banking Committee regarding Iran's
    sanctions. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Under
    Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey discussed at length the
    Obama administration's official Iran policy with a special
    focus on what types of sanctions the administration believed
    would be most effective. From this hearing, it became clear
    that the administration is not entirely sold on a comprehensive
    petroleum sanctions as the best course of action on Iran.
        Mr. Levey was asked if the administration supports a
    petroleum embargo; and he said, I think in the long run we have
    to. But in terms of which the potential measures of sanctions,
    whether they are more targeted on individual entities in Iran
    as opposed to a broad-based thing that would affect the Iranian
    economic like that, and I think we have not reached a judgment
    as to which of those might be the most effective, in part
    because not only do we want to have the impact on the economy,
    but we want to make sure that it is going to affect the
    decision making in Iran and not target the wrong people in Iran
    and, similarly, to make sure that we maximize the chance of
    getting international support for these things. Because there
    is obviously a risk in these things; and if we do not have
    international support, then there will be diversions. There
    will be workarounds, and the affect of the sanctions will not
    nearly be as effective.
        The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which imposes a
    gasoline embargo on Iran and which has the support of three-
    quarters of both Chambers, is apparently not the ideal
    legislation in the eyes of the administration. The
    administration does not support or oppose this administration.
    Rather, the Obama administration is pursuing its own strategy,
    taking into account a number of factors that must be
    considered. Among these are human rights concerns as well as
    the current political dynamic in Iran with the people rising up
    against the government.
        I close with Mr. Steinberg's statement when he said, ``I do
    think we always have to worry about the humanitarian impact and
    the political impact of proposed sanctions. Because we want to
    take advantage of the dynamic they have and not to undercut the
    opposition, not to hurt those who are being courageous in
    Iran.''
        And, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley.
        Ms. Berkley. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Berkley. I thank the chairman for your time and for
    your skillful, thoughtful and resolute leadership on this
    issue.
        The chairman knows how important I think this bill is to
    the peace and security of the entire world. Therefore, I am a
    proud cosponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act,
    because I believe we must do everything in our power to stop
    the Iranian nuclear threat.
        A nuclear Iran is a danger not only to Israel but a danger
    to the entire Middle East, to our European allies and friends
    and, ultimately, to the United States. Iran has repeatedly
    shown its willingness to destabilize and threaten other
    countries. One need only look to its support for terrorist
    groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and yesterday's joint hearing
    in our committee to see Iran's evolving and very dangerous
    influence in South America.
        A nuclear Iran would spark an arms race in the Middle East.
    The Saudis and the Egyptians would never stand for a nuclear
    Iran. They would likely build up their own defenses, including
    nuclear weapons, to counter the Iranian threat and usher in a
    new era of a new nuclear arms race the likes of which this
    world has never seen before.
        And, as we know all too well, Iran has threatened to wipe
    Israel off the map. The Iranian President has denied the
    Holocaust, while planning one of his own.
        Why does he attack Israel? Because it is our ally, and we
    are the Iranian regime's ultimate target. So if we are serious
    when we say ``never again'' and if we are serious about
    protecting ourselves from Iran, then we must stop this threat
    now.
        As the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told a
    group of Congress people during his last visit to the United
    States, Iran is as much a threat to the United States and to
    Europe and to the Middle East as it is to Israel; and the world
    should not leave it to Israel to do its dirty work.
        We must use every tool available to us, including this
    important legislation. I am a cosponsor of this bill because it
    sends a clear message to those who do business with Iran's
    petroleum sector: You can trade with Iran and its less than
    $300 billion economy or you can trade with the United States
    with an economy of more than $13 trillion. I believe the choice
    should be clear.
        This bill is just a part of a broader picture. We must also
    enforce our own previously passed sanctions and sanctions that
    have already been approved by the United Nations. It is time to
    put our words into action, which, unfortunately, has not been
    the case so far. We and our partners on the United Nations
    Security Council must enforce laws already passed and stop our
    companies from skirting the sanctions we, ourselves, agreed to.
    If sanctions are to work, they must be enforced by all parties
    before we all face this common threat.
        I also want to applaud and thank Stuart Levey, Under
    Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,
    who has done a masterful job of targeting Iran's financial
    sector. Using a creative mix of diplomacy, economics, and
    sanctions, Mr. Levey has made it extremely difficult for the
    Iranian regime to get loans and to conduct the simple financial
    transactions our Government considers routine.
        The assets of countless Iranian officials have been frozen,
    and banks the world over are now unwilling to do business with
    the Iranian Government officials because they know the United
    States, a far more important and lucrative trading partner,
    won't do business with them at the same time. This bill also
    strengthens those foreign exchange and financial sanctions.
        Frankly, I am deeply skeptical Iran will ever agree to
    negotiate away their nuclear weapons program, but I do believe
    it strengthens our position when we mix negotiations with
    sanctions. We do not seek war and do not wish to harm the
    Iranian people, and we are not working for regime change in
    Iran. We are focused on one goal and one goal only: The end of
    Iran's nuclear threat. With this bill today, we send a message
    to Iran that we are determined to end their nuclear threat. We
    should not take any option off the table.
        I urge support for this bill. I urge all nations to join us
    in this effort. And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        The gentleman from the American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
    word.
        Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and our ranking
    member for your leadership and initiative by introducing this
    important legislation.
        I note with interest that this legislation is aimed at the
    Iranian regime and not at the good people of Iran. The recent
    Presidential elections in Iran have proven that there is still
    a problem in having democratic elections in that country.
        I support this legislation, Mr. Chairman. The only concern
    I raise is, Mr. Chairman, where does the administration stand
    on this proposed bill? Will it help or hinder the
    administration's efforts to find a resolution to this difficult
    issue, now seriously raised, the security issues in this region
    of the world?
        It is my understanding that for years the vast majority of
    foreign companies doing business in Iran were from countries
    that are our own allies. It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman,
    that the issue is not about petroleum, but about nuclear
    proliferation. There is no question that much has been said
    about the potential of Iran possessing nuclear weapons, raising
    the question of where Israel stands on this. And then the next
    question is whether or not the Arab countries would also like
    to have in their possession nuclear weapons for their own
    security and protection.
        I do commend President Obama's recent initiative to lessen
    the number of nuclear weapons we now have in the world and the
    initiative in doing this with the former Soviet Union. It is my
    understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we now have, worldwide, well
    over 20,000 nuclear weapons capable of blowing this planet 10
    times over, if we look at it in those terms.
        But these are the concerns that we can fully understand and
    appreciate: If Iran chooses to go the way of producing nuclear
    weapons, not only does it undermine but it does question the
    seriousness and the implications of the nuclear
    nonproliferation treaty. It is not about petroleum; it is about
    the serious problem of nuclear capabilities in these countries
    in this very volatile region, the Middle East.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        No other members seeking recognition, the chair,
    notwithstanding his comments--Mr. Paul--has concluded that he
    will only hurt his cause if he moves to strike and takes 5
    minutes to deal with all of Mr. Paul's comments and instead
    would hand Mr. Paul and put into the record a 4-page sheet
    called ``Evidence of Iran's Military Nuclear Intentions and
    Iran's Safeguard Violations.'' I will make sure you get a copy
    on that one issue.
        [The information referred to follows:]Evidence of
    Iran's Military Nuclear Intentions deg.

        Chairman Berman. And the question occurs on the amendment
    in the nature of a substitute without amendment.
        All in favor will vote aye.
        All opposed, no.
        The ayes appear to have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        The chair is prepared to receive a motion.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I move the favorable
    recommendation of H.R. 2194, as amended, to the House.
        Chairman Berman. The question occurs on the motion by the
    gentleman from American Samoa to report H.R. 2194, as amended,
    favorably to the House.
        All in favor, say aye.
        All opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.
        Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single
    amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the
    amendments adopted by the committee; and the staff is directed
    to make any technical, conforming changes.
        I would like to say one last thing. The staff on both
    sides, in terms of putting this together until very late last
    night, have done tremendous work. I am not going to mention all
    the names, but I do want to point--single out one person in
    particular, and that is our legislative counsel, who
    personally, even with the discretion to ask someone else to do
    this work, made a very complicated bill, complicated for a
    number of reasons, in some kind of coherent legal sense; and,
    Sandy Strokoff, we are very grateful for your help in this
    case.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman, if I can have 1 minute to
    say----
        Chairman Berman. Of course.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Thank you so much again for
    negotiating in good faith with all of us during this whole
    ordeal. It really has been a wonderful experience, and I hope
    that we can protect this fine legislation that we reported out
    of committee while it is being considered in other committees
    and as it moves to the House and then in conference with the
    Senate. And we hope that we can have it at the President's desk
    sooner rather than later and appreciate again your work on this
    bill. Thank you.
        Chairman Berman. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Berman. For me, the transcendent purpose here is
    to maximize our chances in Congress of playing a useful role in
    stopping Iran's nuclear program. So everything--I can only
    speak for myself but, number one, I commit to be transparent
    with you in terms of our goals and the timing and the problems
    that are coming up and changes that are being sought and,
    secondly, to do everything based on that and not on either
    undue deference to an executive branch or to political
    pressures from around here but to focus on the goal here, which
    is to play as useful a role as we can play in stopping Iran's
    nuclear program.
        Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
    commend you also for the bipartisanship. This is also probably
    the last meeting we will have prior to November 9; and, of
    course, this coming Tuesday in a bipartisan effort we will be
    welcoming the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. An
    extraordinary achievement, a unified Germany. It was 20 years
    ago virtually today that very few people understood that the
    Berlin Wall would come down beginning on November 9, 1989; and
    so we need to recognize the heroism.
        And as I am sitting here I am thinking of our former
    chairman, Tom Lantos, and his leadership during the Cold War
    and his opposition to totalitarian Communism. We can be
    successful. We can have victory.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. All right, unanimous consent that all
    statements that people want to submit for the record will be
    included, including mine.
        And, with that, the committee is adjourned. Thank you all
    very much for your cooperation.
        [Whereupon, at 12 o'clock p.m., the committee was
    adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

             Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.

                                   Minutes deg.

                                   Berman statement deg.
                                   __________

                                   Jackson Lee statement deg.
                                   __________

                                   Ellison deg.