[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6469-H6478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1715
                  IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3107) to impose sanctions on persons exporting certain goods 
or technology that would enhance Iran's ability to explore for, 
extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3107

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The efforts of the Government of Iran to acquire 
     weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them and 
     its support of acts of international terrorism endanger the 
     national security and foreign policy interests of the United 
     States and those countries with which the United States 
     shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives.
       (2) The objective of preventing the proliferation of 
     weapons of mass destruction and acts of international 
     terrorism through existing multilateral and bilateral 
     initiatives requires additional efforts to deny Iran the 
     financial means to sustain its nuclear, chemical, biological, 
     and missile weapons programs.
       (3) The Government of Iran uses its diplomatic facilities 
     and quasi-governmental institutions outside of Iran to 
     promote acts of international terrorism and assist its 
     nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile weapons programs.
       (4) The failure of the Government of Libya to comply with 
     Resolutions 731, 748, and 883 of the Security Council of the 
     United Nations, its support of international terrorism, and 
     its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction constitute 
     a threat to international peace and security that endangers 
     the national security and foreign policy interests of the 
     United States and those countries with which it shares common 
     strategic and foreign policy objectives.

     SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       (a) Policy With Respect to Iran.--The Congress declares 
     that it is the policy of the United States to deny Iran the 
     ability to support acts of international terrorism and to 
     fund the development and acquisition of weapons of mass 
     destruction and the means to deliver them by limiting the 
     development of Iran's ability to explore for, extract, 
     refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources of Iran.
       (b) Policy With Respect to Libya.--The Congress further 
     declares that it is the policy of the United States to seek 
     full compliance by Libya with its obligations under 
     Resolutions 731, 748, and 883 of the Security Council of the 
     United Nations, including ending all support for acts of 
     international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire 
     weapons of mass destruction.

     SEC. 4. MULTILATERAL REGIME.

       (a) Multilateral Negotiations.--In order to further the 
     objectives of section 3, the Congress urges the President to 
     commence immediately diplomatic efforts, both in appropriate 
     international fora such as the United Nations, and 
     bilaterally with allies of the United States, to establish a 
     multilateral sanctions regime against Iran, including 
     provisions limiting the development of petroleum resources, 
     that will inhibit Iran's efforts to carry out activities 
     described in section 2.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--The President shall report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, and periodically 
     thereafter, on the extent that diplomatic efforts described 
     in subsection (a) have been successful. Each report shall 
     include--
       (1) the countries that have agreed to undertake measures to 
     further the objectives of section 3 with respect to Iran, and 
     a description of those measures; and
       (2) the countries that have not agreed to measures 
     described in paragraph (1), and, with respect to those 
     countries, other measures (in addition to that provided in 
     subsection (d)) the President recommends that the United 
     States take to further the objectives of section 3 with 
     respect to Iran.
       (c) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     section 5(a) with respect to nationals of a country if--
       (1) that country has agreed to undertake substantial 
     measures, including economic sanctions, that will inhibit 
     Iran's efforts to carry out activities described in section 2 
     and information required by subsection (b)(1) has been 
     included in a report submitted under subsection (b); and
       (2) the President, at least 30 days before the waiver takes 
     effect, notifies the appropriate congressional committees of 
     his intention to exercise the waiver.
       (d) Enhanced Sanction.--
       (1) Sanction.--With respect to nationals of countries 
     except those with respect to which the President has 
     exercised the waiver authority of subsection (c), at any time 
     after the first report is required to be submitted under 
     subsection (b), section 5(a) shall be applied by substituting 
     ``$20,000,000'' for ``$40,000,000'' each place it appears, 
     and by substituting ``$5,000,000'' for ``$10,000,000''.
       (2) Report to congress.--The President shall report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees any country with respect 
     to which paragraph (1) applies.
       (e) Interim Report on Multilateral Sanctions; Monitoring.--
     The President, not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, shall report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on--
       (1) whether the member states of the European Union, the 
     Republic of Korea, Australia, Israel, or Japan have 
     legislative or administrative standards providing for the 
     imposition of trade sanctions on persons or their affiliates 
     doing business or having investments in Iran or Libya;
       (2) the extent and duration of each instance of the 
     application of such sanctions; and
       (3) the disposition of any decision with respect to such 
     sanctions by the World Trade Organization or its predecessor 
     organization.

     SEC. 5. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Sanctions With Respect to Iran.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the President shall impose 2 or more of the 
     sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 
     6 if the President determines that a person has, with actual 
     knowledge, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     made an investment of $40,000,000 or more (or any combination 
     of investments of at least $10,000,000 each, which in the 
     aggregate equals or exceeds $40,000,000 in any 12-month 
     period), that directly and significantly contributed to the 
     enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources 
     of Iran.
       (b) Sanctions With Respect to Libya.--
       (1) Trigger of Mandatory sanctions.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the President shall impose 2 or more of the 
     sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 
     6 if the President determines that a person has, with actual 
     knowledge, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     exported, transferred, or otherwise provided to Libya any 
     goods, services, technology, or other items the provision of 
     which is prohibited under paragraph 4(b) or 5 of Resolution 
     748 of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted 
     March 31, 1992, or under paragraph 5 or 6 of Resolution 883 
     of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted 
     November 11, 1993, if the provision of such items 
     significantly and materially--
       (A) contributed to Libya's ability to acquire chemical, 
     biological, or nuclear weapons or destabilizing numbers and 
     types of advanced conventional weapons or enhanced Libya's 
     military or paramilitary capabilities;

[[Page H6470]]

       (B) contributed to Libya's ability to develop its petroleum 
     resources; or
       (C) contributed to Libya's ability to maintain its aviation 
     capabilities.
       (2) Trigger of discretionary sanctions.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (f), the President may impose 1 or more of the 
     sanctions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 
     6 if the President determines that a person has, with actual 
     knowledge, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     made an investment of $40,000,000 or more (or any combination 
     of investments of at least $10,000,000 each, which in the 
     aggregate equals or exceeds $40,000,000 in any 12-month 
     period), that directly and significantly contributed to the 
     enhancement of Libya's ability to develop its petroleum 
     resources.
       (c) Persons Against Which the Sanctions Are To Be 
     Imposed.--The sanctions described in subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall be imposed on--
       (1) any person the President determines has carried out the 
     activities described in subsection (a) or (b); and
       (2) any person the President determines--
       (A) is a successor entity to the person referred to in 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) is a parent or subsidiary of the person referred to in 
     paragraph (1) if that parent or subsidiary, with actual 
     knowledge, engaged in the activities referred to in paragraph 
     (1); or
       (C) is an affiliate of the person referred to in paragraph 
     (1) if that affiliate, with actual knowledge, engaged in the 
     activities referred to in paragraph (1) and if that affiliate 
     is controlled in fact by the person referred to in paragraph 
     (1).

     For purposes of this Act, any person or entity described in 
     this subsection shall be referred to as a ``sanctioned 
     person''.
       (d) Publication in Federal Register.--The President shall 
     cause to be published in the Federal Register a current list 
     of persons and entities on whom sanctions have been imposed 
     under this Act. The removal of persons or entities from, and 
     the addition of persons and entities to, the list, shall also 
     be so published.
       (e) Publication of Projects.--The President shall cause to 
     be published in the Federal Register a list of all 
     significant projects which have been publicly tendered in the 
     oil and gas sector in Iran.
       (f) Exceptions.--The President shall not be required to 
     apply or maintain the sanctions under subsection (a) or (b)--
       (1) in the case of procurement of defense articles or 
     defense services--
       (A) under existing contracts or subcontracts, including the 
     exercise of options for production quantities to satisfy 
     requirements essential to the national security of the United 
     States;
       (B) if the President determines in writing that the person 
     to which the sanctions would otherwise be applied is a sole 
     source supplier of the defense articles or services, that the 
     defense articles or services are essential, and that 
     alternative sources are not readily or reasonably available; 
     or
       (C) if the President determines in writing that such 
     articles or services are essential to the national security 
     under defense coproduction agreements;
       (2) in the case of procurement, to eligible products, as 
     defined in section 308(4) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 
     (19 U.S.C. 2518(4)), of any foreign country or 
     instrumentality designated under section 301(b)(1) of that 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2511(b)(1));
       (3) to products, technology, or services provided under 
     contracts entered into before the date on which the President 
     publishes in the Federal Register the name of the person on 
     whom the sanctions are to be imposed;
       (4) to--
       (A) spare parts which are essential to United States 
     products or production;
       (B) component parts, but not finished products, essential 
     to United States products or production; or
       (C) routine servicing and maintenance of products, to the 
     extent that alternative sources are not readily or reasonably 
     available;
       (6) to information and technology essential to United 
     States products or production; or
       (7) to medicines, medical supplies, or other humanitarian 
     items.

     SEC. 6. DESCRIPTION OF SANCTIONS.

       The sanctions to be imposed on a sanctioned person under 
     section 5 are as follows:
       (1) Export-import bank assistance for exports to sanctioned 
     persons.--The President may direct the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States not to give approval to the issuance of any 
     guarantee, insurance, extension of credit, or participation 
     in the extension of credit in connection with the export of 
     any goods or services to any sanctioned person.
       (2) Export sanction.--The President may order the United 
     States Government not to issue any specific license and not 
     to grant any other specific permission or authority to export 
     any goods or technology to a sanctioned person under--
       (i) the Export Administration Act of 1979;
       (ii) the Arms Export Control Act;
       (iii) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; or
       (iv) any other statute that requires the prior review and 
     approval of the United States Government as a condition for 
     the export or re-export of goods or services.
       (3) Loans from united states financial institutions.--The 
     United States Government may prohibit any United States 
     financial institution from making loans or providing credits 
     to any sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in 
     any 12-month period unless such person is engaged in 
     activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or 
     credits are provided for such activities.
       (4) Prohibitions on financial institutions.--The following 
     prohibitions may be imposed against a sanctioned person that 
     is a financial institution:
       (A) Prohibition on designation as primary dealer.--Neither 
     the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System nor the 
     Federal Reserve Bank of New York may designate, or permit the 
     continuation of any prior designation of, such financial 
     institution as a primary dealer in United States Government 
     debt instruments.
       (B) Prohibition on service as a repository of government 
     funds.--Such financial institution may not serve as agent of 
     the United States Government or serve as repository for 
     United States Government funds.

     The imposition of either sanction under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) shall be treated as 1 sanction for purposes of section 5, 
     and the imposition of both such sanctions shall be treated as 
     2 sanctions for purposes of section 5.
       (5) Procurement sanction.--The United States Government may 
     not procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement 
     of, any goods or services from a sanctioned person.
       (6) Additional sanctions.--The President may impose 
     sanctions, as appropriate, to restrict imports with respect 
     to a sanctioned person, in accordance with the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 and following).

     SEC. 7. ADVISORY OPINIONS.

       The Secretary of State may, upon the request of any person, 
     issue an advisory opinion to that person as to whether a 
     proposed activity by that person would subject that person to 
     sanctions under this Act. Any person who relies in good faith 
     on such an advisory opinion which states that the proposed 
     activity would not subject a person to such sanctions, and 
     any person who thereafter engages in such activity, will not 
     be made subject to such sanctions on account of such 
     activity.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Iran.--The requirement under section 5(a) to impose 
     sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect 
     to Iran if the President determines and certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that Iran--
       (1) has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, 
     or acquire--
       (A) a nuclear explosive device or related materials and 
     technology;
       (B) chemical and biological weapons; and
       (C) ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch 
     technology; and
       (2) has been removed from the list of countries the 
     governments of which have been determined, for purposes of 
     section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, to 
     have repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism.
       (b) Libya.--The requirement under section 5(b) to impose 
     sanctions shall no longer have force or effect with respect 
     to Libya if the President determines and certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that Libya has fulfilled 
     the requirements of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 731, adopted January 21, 1992, United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 748, adopted March 31, 1992, and 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 883, adopted 
     November 11, 1993.

     SEC. 9. DURATION OF SANCTIONS; PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       (a) Delay of Sanctions.--
       (1) Consultations.--If the President makes a determination 
     described in section 5(a) or 5(b) with respect to a foreign 
     person, the Congress urges the President to initiate 
     consultations immediately with the government with primary 
     jurisdiction over that foreign person with respect to the 
     imposition of sanctions under this Act.
       (2) Actions by government of jurisdiction.--In order to 
     pursue consultations under paragraph (1) with the government 
     concerned, the President may delay imposition of sanctions 
     under this Act for up to 90 days. Following such 
     consultations, the President shall immediately impose 
     sanctions unless the President determines and certifies to 
     the Congress that the government has taken specific and 
     effective actions, including, as appropriate, the imposition 
     of appropriate penalties, to terminate the involvement of the 
     foreign person in the activities that resulted in the 
     determination by the President under section 5(a) or 5(b) 
     concerning such person.
       (3) Additional delay in imposition of sanctions.--The 
     President may delay the imposition of sanctions for up to an 
     additional 90 days if the President determines and certifies 
     to the Congress that the government with primary jurisdiction 
     over the person concerned is in the process of taking the 
     actions described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     making a determination under section 5(a) or 5(b), the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the status of consultations with the 
     appropriate foreign government under this subsection, and the 
     basis for any determination under paragraph (3).
       (b) Duration of Sanctions.--A sanction imposed under 
     section 5 shall remain in effect--
       (1) for a period of not less than 2 years from the date on 
     which it is imposed; or

[[Page H6471]]

       (2) until such time as the President determines and 
     certifies to the Congress that the person whose activities 
     were the basis for imposing the sanction is no longer 
     engaging in such activities and that the President has 
     received reliable assurances that such person will not 
     knowingly engage in such activities in the future, except 
     that such sanction shall remain in effect for a period of at 
     least 1 year.
       (c) Presidential Waiver.--
       (1) Authority.--The President may waive the requirement in 
     section 5 to impose a sanction or sanctions on a person 
     described in section 5(c), and may waive the continued 
     imposition of a sanction or sanctions under subsection (b) of 
     this section, 30 days or more after the President determines 
     and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 
     that it is important to the national interest of the United 
     States to exercise such waiver authority.
       (2) Contents of report.--Any report under paragraph (1) 
     shall provide a specific and detailed rationale for the 
     determination under paragraph (1), including--
       (A) a description of the conduct that resulted in the 
     determination under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may be;
       (B) in the case of a foreign person, an explanation of the 
     efforts to secure the cooperation of the government with 
     primary jurisdiction over the sanctioned person to terminate 
     or, as appropriate, penalize the activities that resulted in 
     the determination under section 5(a) or (b), as the case may 
     be;
       (C) an estimate as to the significance--
       (i) of the provision of the items described in section 5(a) 
     to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources, or
       (ii) of the provision of the items described in section 
     5(b)(1) to the abilities of Libya described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C) of section 5(b)(1), or of the investment 
     described in section 5(b)(2) on Libya's ability to develop 
     its petroleum resources,
     as the case may be; and
       (D) a statement as to the response of the United States in 
     the event that the person concerned engages in other 
     activities that would be subject to section 5(a) or (b).
       (3) Effect of report on waiver.--If the President makes a 
     report under paragraph (1) with respect to a waiver of 
     sanctions on a person described in section 5(c), sanctions 
     need not be imposed under section 5(a) or (b) on that person 
     during the 30-day period referred to in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 10. REPORTS REQUIRED.

       (a) Report on Certain International Initiatives.--Not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and every 6 months thereafter, the President shall transmit a 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees 
     describing--
       (1) the efforts of the President to mount a multilateral 
     campaign to persuade all countries to pressure Iran to cease 
     its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile weapons 
     programs and its support of acts of international terrorism;
       (2) the efforts of the President to persuade other 
     governments to ask Iran to reduce the presence of Iranian 
     diplomats and representatives of other government and 
     military or quasi-governmental institutions of Iran and to 
     withdraw any such diplomats or representatives who 
     participated in the takeover of the United States embassy in 
     Tehran on November 4, 1979, or the subsequent holding of 
     United States hostages for 444 days;
       (3) the extent to which the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency has established regular inspections of all nuclear 
     facilities in Iran, including those presently under 
     construction; and
       (4) Iran's use of Iranian diplomats and representatives of 
     other government and military or quasi-governmental 
     institutions of Iran to promote acts of international 
     terrorism or to develop or sustain Iran's nuclear, chemical, 
     biological, and missile weapons programs.
       (b) Other Reports.--The President shall ensure the 
     continued transmittal to the Congress of reports describing--
       (1) the nuclear and other military capabilities of Iran, as 
     required by section 601(a) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Act of 1978 and section 1607 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993; and
       (2) the support provided by Iran for acts of international 
     terrorism, as part of the Department of State's annual report 
     on international terrorism.

     SEC. 11. DETERMINATIONS NOT REVIEWABLE.

       A determination to impose sanctions under this Act shall 
     not be reviewable in any court.

     SEC. 12. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall apply to any activities subject 
     to the reporting requirements of title V of the National 
     Security Act of 1947.

     SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Sunset.--This Act shall cease to be effective on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Act of international terrorism.--The term ``act of 
     international terrorism'' means an act--
       (A) which is violent or dangerous to human life and that is 
     a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of 
     any State or that would be a criminal violation if committed 
     within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; 
     and
       (B) which appears to be intended--
       (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
       (ii) to influence the policy of a government by 
     intimidation or coercion; or
       (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by 
     assassination or kidnapping.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Finance, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Banking 
     and Financial Services, and the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Component part.--The term ``component part'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 11A(e)(1) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410a(e)(1)).
       (4) Develop and development.--To ``develop'', or the 
     ``development'' of, petroleum resources means the exploration 
     for, or the extraction, refining, or transportation by 
     pipeline of, petroleum resources.
       (5) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution'' includes--
       (A) a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), including a branch or 
     agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of 
     the International Banking Act of 1978);
       (B) a credit union;
       (C) a securities firm, including a broker or dealer;
       (D) an insurance company, including an agency or 
     underwriter; and
       (E) any other company that provides financial services.
       (6) Finished product.--The term ``finished product'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 11A(e)(2) of the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2410a(e)(2)).
       (7) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is not a United States person or an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence into the 
     United States; or
       (B) a corporation, partnership, or other nongovernmental 
     entity which is not a United States person.
       (8) Goods and technology.--The terms ``goods'' and 
     ``technology'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     16 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 
     2415).
       (9) Investment.--The term ``investment'' means any of the 
     following activities if such activity is undertaken pursuant 
     to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of rights under 
     such an agreement, that is entered into with the Government 
     of Iran or a nongovenmental entity in Iran, or with the 
     Government of Libya or a nongovernmental entity in Libya, on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act:
       (A) The entry into a contract that includes responsibility 
     for the development of petroleum resources located in Iran or 
     Libya (as the case may be), or the entry into a contract 
     providing for the general supervision and guarantee of 
     another person's performance of such a contract.
       (B) The purchase of a share of ownership, including an 
     equity interest, in that development.
       (C) The entry into a contract providing for the 
     participation in royalties, earnings, or profits in that 
     development, without regard to the form of the participation.

     The term ``investment'' does not include the entry into, 
     performance, or financing of a contract to sell or purchase 
     goods, services, or technology.
       (10) Iran.--The term ``Iran'' includes any agency or 
     instrumentality of Iran.
       (11) Iranian diplomats and representatives of other 
     government and military or quasi-governmental institutions of 
     iran.--The term ``Iranian diplomats and representatives of 
     other government and military or quasi-governmental 
     institutions of Iran'' includes employees, representatives, 
     or affiliates of Iran's--
       (A) Foreign Ministry;
       (B) Ministry of Intelligence and Security;
       (C) Revolutionary Guard Corps;
       (D) Crusade for Reconstruction;
       (E) Qods (Jerusalem) Forces;
       (F) Interior Ministry;
       (G) Foundation for the Oppressed and Disabled;
       (H) Prophet's Foundation;
       (I) June 5th Foundation;
       (J) Martyr's Foundation;
       (K) Islamic Propagation Organization; and
       (L) Ministry of Islamic Guidance.
       (12) Libya.--The term ``Libya'' includes any agency or 
     instrumentality of Libya.
       (13) Nuclear explosive device.--The term ``nuclear 
     explosive device'' means any device, whether assembled or 
     disassembled, that is designed to produce an instantaneous 
     release of an amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear 
     material (as defined in section 11aa. of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954) that is greater than the amount of energy that 
     would be released from the detonation of one pound of 
     trinitrotoluene (TNT).
       (14) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) a natural person;
       (B) a corporation, business association, partnership, 
     society, trust, any other nongovernmental entity, 
     organization, or group, and any governmental entity operating 
     as a business enterprise; and
       (C) any successor to any entity described in subparagraph 
     (B).

[[Page H6472]]

       (15) Petroleum resources.--The term ``petroleum resources'' 
     includes petroleum and natural gas resources.
       (16) United states or state.--The term ``United States'' or 
     ``State'' means the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession 
     of the United States.
       (17) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) a natural person who is a citizen of the United States 
     or who owes permanent allegiance to the United States; and
       (B) a corporation or other legal entity which is organized 
     under the laws of the United States, any State or territory 
     thereof, or the District of Columbia, if natural persons 
     described in subparagraph (A) own, directly or indirectly, 
     more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock or 
     other beneficial interest in such legal entity.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3107, the Iran and Libya 
Sanctions Act of 1996 which mandates sanctions on persons making 
investments that would enhance the ability of Iran to explore for, 
extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources.
  It would also establish a mandatory sanctions regime on foreign 
persons who violate United Nations Security Council Resolutions 748 and 
883 by selling weapons, aviation equipment, and oil equipment to Libya, 
a country responsible for the cowardly and unforgivable attack on Pan 
Am flight 103 in December 1988.
  I take great pleasure in bringing before the House a bill that would 
put our country on the front lines of our fight to combat state-
supported terrorism and that will help to induce our allies in Europe 
and Asia to join us in a multilateral sanctions regime against Iran.
  This multilateral sanctions regime will allow the President to waive 
the application of sanctions against the nationals of a country that 
has put in place its own sanctions regime against Iran, but it will 
also require him to impose an enhanced sanction--in the form of a 
reduction in the trigger level for investment in Iran from $40 to $20 
million--against the nationals of all other countries.
  In short, the bill requires foreign companies to choose between 
investing in our market and those of Iran and Libya. In the process, it 
gives the President the policy tools he needs to begin fulfilling his 
pledges to increase diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian and 
Libyan Governments.
  As approved by the Ways and Means Committee in close consultation 
with the House International Relations Committee, this bill imposes a 
sanction regime on companies helping to develop the oil and gas 
industries in Iran and Libya. Its enactment can sharply diminish the 
future revenues from oil and gas production of these rogue regimes and 
will put a halt to their campaigns of state-sponsored terrorism and 
their efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
  Iran looms as the principal long-term threat to United States 
interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. It continues its 
terrorist and subversive activities against its neighbors in the Gulf 
states and around the world, as far away as Argentina. Over the past 
year, Iran has actively supported efforts to destabilize Bahrain, 
promoting the Gulf Cooperation Council to issue a public statement 
admonishing Iran to put a halt to its subversive policies in the 
region.
  Its leaders openly advocate the destruction of the state of Israel 
and its support for terrorist groups in Lebanon have led to renewed 
rounds of violence in that country and have set back the prospects for 
a peace accord in the Middle East.
  Iran, like Iraq, has launched a clandestine program to build nuclear 
weapons and missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass 
destruction payloads to targets up to 1,000 kilometers from its 
borders, thereby threatening key allies in the region including Jordan, 
Israel, and Turkey.
  In his testimony before the House International Relations Committee 
on November 9, 1995, Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State for 
political Affairs, noted that any foreign investment to help increase 
offshore oil and gas production would inevitably lead to increase 
financial support by Iran for its weapons of mass destruction and 
terrorist activities.
  An April 1996 report on proliferation issued by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense came to the same conclusion in regard to Libya. It 
noted it particular, that and I quote:

       .Libya probably dedicates several hundred million dollars 
     annually to acquire nuclear, biological and chemical weapons 
     and missiles made possible by its substantial income from oil 
     and gas exports.

  In the most recent State Department report on global terrorism, it 
was noted that the end of 1995 marked the 4th year of Libya's refusal 
to comply with the demands of U.N. Security Council Resolution 731. 
This measure was adopted following the indictments on November 1991 of 
two Libyan intelligence agents for the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am flight 
103 which killed 189 Americans.
  This resolution endorsed the demands of the United States, the United 
Kingdom, and France that Libya turn over the two suspects for trial in 
the United States or the United Kingdom, pay compensation to the 
victims and fully cooperate in the investigations into the bombings of 
Pan Am 103 and UTA flight 772.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 748 was adopted in April 1992 as a 
result of Libya's refusal to comply with UNSCR 731.
  Resolution 748 imposed sanctions that embargoed Libya's civil 
aviation and military procurement efforts and required all states to 
reduce Libya's diplomatic presence.
  Yet another resolution adopted in November 1993, UNSCR 883, imposed 
additional sanctions on Libya, including a freeze on limited assets and 
an oil technology ban. To date, none of these efforts have produced 
these two indicted officials for trial either in the U.S. or the U.K.
  I have consistently argued for and urged the administration to 
increase the pressure to comply with all existing U.N. resolutions and 
should adopt policies that can begin to implement some of the campaign 
promises that Governor Bill Clinton made in September 1992 to the 
family of one of the Pan Am 103 victims to broaden oil sanctions on 
Libya.
  Adoption of the provisions in this bill in regard to Libya will put 
teeth in these U.N. sanctions and give the President the authority he 
needs to begin imposing sanctions on companies making new investments 
in the oil and gas sector in this terrorist country.
  By imposing a total embargo on Iran in March of last year, the 
administration took an important step in our efforts to isolate Iran. 
Together with the Junior Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato, I have 
been pressing the administration to take additional steps to reduce 
Iran's funding sources for its worldwide subversive activities and for 
its programs supporting weapons of mass destruction.
  If we want our deeds to match our words in this effort, enactment of 
this bill is the next and necessary step to contain the terrorist 
activities of both Iran and Libya. By asking foreign companies to make 
a simple choice between the American market and those of Iran and 
Libya, this bill will help the administration deliver an unmistakable 
message to our European and Asian allies that the era of critical 
bilateral dialog is over and the time for multilateral action has now 
begun.
  The bipartisan bill before us today requires the President to impose 
sanctions on companies making investments of $40 million or more that 
would enhance the ability of Iran to develop its petroleum resources.
  If he made such a determination, the President would have to pick two 
or more sanctions from a list of six sanctions including: A denial of 
Eximbank assistance; a denial of specific licenses for the export of 
controlled technology; a suspension of imports under the provisions of 
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; a prohibition on a 
sanctioned financial institution from serving as a primary dealer in 
U.S. Government debt instruments; a prohibition on any U.S. financial 
institution from making any loan to a sanctioned

[[Page H6473]]

person over $10 million a year; and a ban on any U.S. Government 
procurement of any goods or services from a sanctioned person.
  The legislation allows the President to delay imposition of sanctions 
for 90 days to pursue consultations with the government of the 
sanctioned person to end the sanctionable activities. An additional 90 
day delay is permitted if he determines that he is making progress 
toward this goal.
  The President may also waive any of these sanctions if he determines 
that doing so is in the national interest.
  This bill also includes a 5-year sunset provision.
  Adoption of a companion Iran and Libya sanctions bill in the Senate 
on December 22, 1995, has already had a deterrent effect on potential 
investors and oil field suppliers to Iran and Libya. The enactment of 
this measure today will ensure that we can maintain this deterrent on 
further investments in these rogue regimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the many members on the 
International Relations Committee and the Ways and Means Committee who 
worked long and hard to make the legislation possible. Subcommittee 
Chairman Dan Burton, Representative Peter King, the respective ranking 
members of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee and the International 
Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee, Representatives Howard Berman 
and Sam Gejdenson, as well as Chairman Bill Archer and Trade 
Subcommittee Chairman Phil Crane.
  I urge the adoption of H.R. 3107.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the Members I think are 
most responsible for producing this compromise bill. The gentleman from 
New York, Chairman Gilman, the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Archer, 
and the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Leach, all deserve credit for 
their willingness to look for creative solutions to their differences.
  I also want to say a word of appreciation to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] and the other original cosponsors of the bill because of their 
willingness to advance the bill and to support the agreement that has 
been reached today.
  Finally, may I say that the administration, which supports this bill, 
also deserves credit, I think, for helping Members understand the 
implications of the bill for U.S. diplomacy and U.S. economic 
interests.
  There is very little disagreement between the United States and its 
allies about the challenges posed by the two countries that are the 
focus of this bill. Iran poses a serious threat to several shared 
security interests. It is a confirmed sponsor of terrorism. It is 
trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It seeks to undermine 
the Middle East peace process. It is pursuing a military buildup that 
could enable it to threaten shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf. Libya 
continues to harbor terrorists responsible for the death of more than 
300 Americans and others on Pan Am flight 103, and it is also 
developing weapons of mass destruction and threatening the security of 
its neighbors.
  The premise of this bill, which I believe to be a correct one, is 
that the best way to curb Iran and Libya's dangerous conduct is to 
limit the oil and gas export earnings that help pay for it. This has 
been a principal goal of U.S. policy for several years. In our effort 
to squeeze the economies of Iran and Libya, the United States has cut 
off all of its trade with both countries. But the impact of unilateral 
sanctions is limited, so we also have urged Iran's and Libya's main 
trading partners to restrict or sever their economic ties.
  Despite our efforts and despite the egregious conduct of Iran and 
Libya, many of our friends have maintained their ties with both 
countries. So the dilemma here for United States policy is to find ways 
to increase the economic isolation of Iran and Libya without, in the 
process, causing undue harm to our own economy or to our relations with 
our allies.
  H.R. 3107 makes a very good start in responding to that policy 
dilemma. The ultimate goal of this bill is not to punish foreign firms 
but to persuade other governments to adopt measures that squeeze the 
economies of Iran and Libya.
  We do not know whether we are going to achieve that goal for some 
time, but this bill does give to the President of the United States the 
tools to enable him to have the flexibility in implementing U.S. 
sanctions. For that and other reasons, I strongly urge the approval of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of our Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, for yielding time to me.
  I rise in very strong support of this measure which would tighten 
economic sanctions against two deadly enemies of the United States, the 
dictatorial Governments of Iran and Libya. I commend the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations for his 
outstanding work in bringing this bill to the floor. This measure uses 
our best weapon against these regimes and other countries which support 
them, the power of the American purse. With 260 million American people 
and the highest standard of living on Earth, the United States 
represents a market that is just too lucrative for other countries to 
ignore when they want to trade with us.
  That is why this bill makes so much sense, Mr. Speaker.
  It would impose a range of economic sanctions against other countries 
that irresponsibly abet the terrorist activities of Iran and Libya by 
investing their oil sectors or supplying them with oil-related goods or 
technologies.
  When these countries face the prospect of losing part of our vast 
American market, they will think twice about their investments in these 
two outlaw nations, and that is what they are.
  Mr. Speaker, the terrorist threat is real. It is growing. Stiff 
measures like this are called for. We all know that Libya, under 
Colonel Qadhafi, and Iran, under fundamentalist dictatorship, are two 
of the world's major sponsors of terrorism. Their capabilities to 
conduct acts of terror are increasing at an alarming rate.
  Let us take a look at Iran. As we speak, Iran is in a furious drive 
to acquire weapons of mass destruction aided and abetted by Communist 
China, which by the way is another nation we ought to be imposing 
sanctions on instead of giving them carte blanche favored-nation 
treatment. We will deal with that a little bit later this month.
  In the past few months alone, we have seen reports that Communist 
China has been supplying Iran with cruise missiles, chemical weapons 
technology and plutonium processing technology. Couple this with 
nuclear reactor technology supplied by another great country, Russia, 
and we can clearly see what Iran is up to and what kind of threat we 
face.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to act now before it is too late. That is why 
Chairman Gilman and Chairman Archer deserve our highest praise for 
working so hard to bring this bill to the floor. Come over here and let 
us pass it. It is important.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] who is an original sponsor 
of the bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, Iranian profits are used to murder 
innocent civilians on the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and those 
who trade with Iran, like those who traded with the Nazis, irrespective 
of their murderous act, aid and abet them.
  The debate we have here today is what action we can take following 
support of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations and the President of the United States in 
trying to isolate Iran and reduce its ability to assist the murder of 
innocent civilians.
  Unfortunately, most of our democratic allies in Europe and Japan are 
not being helpful. They will pay a price as surely as the nations who 
ignored terrorism in the early 1960's and 1970's soon found that it 
existed not just isolated in Israel and the Middle East but across the 
globe.

[[Page H6474]]

  There is a clear and direct link between Iran's ability to profit 
from its oil sales and assistance to terrorist Hezbollah and other 
causes. When Secretary of State Christoper was in Syria, it was 
reported that Iranian planes with arms landed there to aid Hezbollah 
attacks on the Israelis and the peace process.
  Today it is Iranian rockets, grenades and bombs. But what happens if 
Iran, months or years from now, when they have the ability to deliver 
nuclear or chemical weapons. Today Iran threatens women and children 
and men on buses. An Iran which uses its profits to develop nuclear and 
chemical weapons will be an Iran that threatens the globe.
  Corporate profits must be put aside here as the President has led us 
and in the so-called civilized world.
  We must deny companies who profit from exports to Iran the 
opportunity to access our markets. We have begun that process with this 
legislation. I am writing to the banks and economic entities in the G-7 
countries warning them that we will monitor their activity. And if they 
fail to join us, we will take further actions.
  If the Baader Meinhof gang had territory, would the German Government 
have traded with them when they blew up innocent German civilians? I 
think not. The Iranians may have territory and a government, but they 
should not be allowed to continue to profit and murder innocent 
children.
  Some of my European and Japanese friends have been offended that I 
point out their complicity. Well, if this offends them, it does not 
worry me in the least. It offends me to see the arms and legs and 
bodies of children and adults strewn on the streets of Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter:

         One Hundred Fourth Congress, Congress of the United 
           States, Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1996.
     Mr. Jochen Sanio,
     Vice President, Federal Banking Supervisory Office, 
         Gardschutzenweg 71-101, D-12203 Berlin, Germany.
       Dear Mr. Sanio: As you may be aware, many of my colleagues 
     and I are concerned about the flow of foreign money into 
     Iran's petroleum sector. The U.S. State Department has found 
     that Iran's financial capability to build weapons of mass 
     destruction and to support international terrorism depends on 
     Iran's ability to explore for, extract, refine, or transport 
     by pipeline its petroleum resources.
       In legislation now proceeding through Congress, the 
     President will be required to impose sanctions on foreign 
     companies that invest in Iran's oil sector. To some extent, 
     the legislation will stop short of imposing sanctions on 
     foreign entities that finance such investments. However, 
     financing of these projects remains a major concern.
       I know that your government shares our concern over the 
     threat posed by an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. I would 
     hope that your government would therefore take action to 
     preclude the financing of petroleum development by the 
     financial institutions in your country. The U.S. Congress 
     will be carefully monitoring foreign funding of Iran's oil 
     development. Should foreign banks choose to ignore the threat 
     posed by Iran, I have no doubt that the U.S. Congress will 
     revisit this issue and pass legislation that would impose 
     sanctions on foreign institutions that finance petroleum 
     development in Iran.
       I look forward to working with you on this issue of mutual 
     concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sam Gejdenson,
         Ranking Member, Subcommittee on International Economic 
           Policy and Trade.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], chairman of our Subcommittee on 
International Economic Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my chairman, for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. SPEAKER, first let me commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for their work on 
this issue.
  No one can question their commitment to fighting terrorism.
  Moreover, there is no doubt that Iran and Libya are rogue states.
  The leaders of these regimes have violated every standard of 
acceptable behavior.
  I share the goal of turning Iran and Libya away from terrorism, away 
from making weapons of mass destruction and away from brutality against 
their own people.
  But I believe this legislation is a step backward not forward.
  In my judgment, this bill will not work, for three reasons.
  First, economic sanctions simply do not work in today's world when 
the United States acts alone.
  Sanctions did not work against Vietnam. They have not worked against 
Cuba. And they have not worked against China. Iran has 65 million 
people and a $300 billion economy.
  Libya has 5 million people and a $33 billion economy.
  Neither country can be isolated, geographically or economically. In 
both countries, exports are growing. From 1988 to 1994, Iran's exports 
grew nearly 50 percent, to $19 billion. Libya's exports grew nearly 10 
percent, to $8 billion.
  The reality is, none of Iran's or Libya's major trading partners will 
go along with our sanctions. Not Germany, not France, not Italy, not 
Spain, not Japan.
  Without their cooperation, how will our sanctions ever work?
  This brings me to the second flaw in this bill.
  This legislation would impose a secondary boycott on our closest 
allies. The sponsors argue that the bill will force Europe to choose 
between trading with us and trading with Iran and Libya. This will 
never work.
  The only effect of this bill has been to unify the European Union--
all 15 members--against our policy toward Iran and Libya.
  If this becomes law, we should expect blocking statutes to prevent 
European companies from complying. Aside from Europe, the Muslim 
countries of the Middle East, South Asia, and the Caucasus will not 
comply.
  Look what is happening with Iran. Pakistan now has an economic 
alliance with Iran.
  Kazakhstan and Armenia have started a new joint venture with Iran to 
develop a huge oil field and build a pipeline.
  We have invested a lot to cultivate good relations with these former 
Soviet Republics.
  Are we going to impose sanctions and throw away all our work over the 
past 5 years? And if we do sanction these countries, how will they 
respond?
  This legislation is not isolating Iran or Libya--it is isolating 
ourselves. No one should be surprised. After all, the Arab League 
boycott of Israel has been a total failure.
  We and the Europeans all prevented our companies from complying. The 
same thing will happen with this legislation.
  Finally, this bill is a mistake because it provides the leaders of 
Iran and Libya with a convenient excuse for their own failures. Both 
regimes have inflicted great suffering on their people.
  The elites siphon off more and more money to prop up their regimes.
  But as the discontent rises among the Libyan and Iranian people, 
Gaddhafi and the Ayatollahs will just point to the United States and 
say: ``See what the Americans are doing to you.''
  Mr. Speaker, our goal should be to change Iran's and Libya's 
behavior.
  But whatever we do, it has to be effective. We need our allies with 
us, not against us.
  There was a time when the United States could sound the alarm and 
Europe would rally to our side. That day is over.
  Economic sanctions do not work when they are unilateral. If we enact 
this bill, we will take a step backwards.
  Iran and Libya will still be rouge regimes. And we will have 
jeopardized our relations with the very countries whose support we need 
to eventually reach the goal of turning Iran and Libya away from 
terrorism. This bill will pass--but what will be the result?

                             {time}   1730

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], also an original cosponsor of 
the bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee 
for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus my comments in addressing the 
remarks just made by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of 
all, given his

[[Page H6475]]

comments, I am quite pleased that he was willing to support this bill 
when it moved through the Committee on International Relations, and I 
appreciate that support.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not affect exports to Iran. The 
bill affects and imposes sanctions on companies which invest in Iran, 
which meet the threshold of investment in Iran, and just in Iran's 
energy sector. It is a targeted bill focused on trying to squeeze the 
source of financing for a totally accepted, universally acknowledged 
practice that the Iranians have of exporting terrorism and financing 
terrorism throughout the Middle East and in other areas, as well to 
meet their own purposes. It seeks to squeeze the financing by blocking 
the investments in Iran's energy sector so they are hampered in what 
everybody acknowledges is their concerted effort to develop weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Iran is seeking a nuclear reactor. They claim they are for peaceful 
purposes. This is the most oil-rich country in the world. The notion 
that they need a peaceful nuclear energy program for energy sources is 
absurd on its face. No one but the most innocent and unsophisticated 
observer can assume there is any other purpose in their particular 
program.
  I want to comment on the European reaction, particularly the German 
and Japanese reaction. They say our way is better, our way is 
constructive dialog. They have been engaged in this constructive dialog 
for years and years and years, with nothing to show for it. The Iranian 
and Libyan effort to develop weapons of mass destruction continues. The 
support for terrorism continues. I suggest that these arguments about 
finding moderate, geopolitical considerations, are all smokescreens for 
commercial interests which are governing that particular policy.
  What happened to a western alliance of free would countries that was 
committed in the course of the cold war to dealing with totalitarian 
actions, imperialism, aggressive conduct, and seeking to reduce and 
avoid the threat of nuclear war? Has it been so blown apart that 
countries that share our values and claim to share our values turn 
their back, pursue policies that are just smokescreens for commercial 
interests, and watch this happen?
  This bill that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] are sponsoring, and I am a 
cosponsor of, and has been supported in our committee, is one crucial 
step to make our sanctions meaningful. They are a message to countries 
that we are allied with normally, that they have to think twice about 
what has come from constructive dialog.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the chairman of our 
House Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Iran 
Oil Sanctions Act of 1996. This legislation is the result of much hard 
work and compromise between the Committee on International Relations 
and the Committee on Ways and Means. I really want to commend my 
colleagues for bringing forward this very important piece of 
legislation.
  The bill is necessary to erode Iran's and Libya's ability to finance 
international terrorism in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons 
development programs. By targeting these countries' primary moneymaking 
industries, this legislation strikes at the heart of Iran's and Libya's 
efforts to undermine the Middle East peach process and to terrorize its 
peaceful neighbors.
  This bill sends a clear message to these countries that the United 
States will not tolerate the flouting of international law and 
international norms of behavior. At the same time, it shows strong 
leadership to our allies and serves as an example to be followed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on International Relations for yielding me this time and 
for the work that he has done in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to support the 
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This is a tough bill. It is a bill that I 
think has been made smarter and tougher as a result of the negotiations 
that took place between the three committees that had jurisdiction on 
the bill: the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and Means. I 
am particularly pleased that we were able to strengthen the bill in a 
very important area. That is for a multinational approach to dealing 
with this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we offer a carrot-stick approach to our allies to assume 
responsibility as to the terrorist activities that Iran and Libya are 
engaged in, to enter into an international effort to isolate these 
countries. Make no mistake about it, the investments that go into 
Iranian infrastructure for oil finance the money that are being used 
for terrorist activities. The President, the Secretary of State, the 
director of the CIA, have all identified Iran as the world's leading 
sponsor of international terrorism. This bill is directly aimed at 
dealing with that fact, it is indisputable, to dry up the dollars 
supporting international terrorist activities. That is in the security 
interests of the United States.
  The families of the victims of PanAmerican 103 keep us focused on the 
continued treachery of Libya. We must continue to strengthen the 
enforcement of sanctions against Libya as approved by the United 
Nations. All this bill does is to make it clear that we are going to 
isolate those two countries. It preserves the leadership of the United 
States in making it clear to countries that harbor terrorists that we 
will not allow them to participate in the international marketplace and 
to secure international investments. That is what this stands for.
  We, before, provided the leadership to the world in the actions that 
we did in the former Soviet Union. This is a bill that is worthy of the 
entire support of this membership and I urge Members to vote for it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] for bringing this important bill before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the Iran and Libya Oil Sanctions 
Act. I strongly urge Congress to pass it, and the President to sign it 
into law swiftly. Terrorism has emerged in the wake of the cold war as 
the leading threat to democracy and world security. Innocent men, 
women, and children have been brutally murdered by vicious acts of 
violence of those who prefer destruction to peace. In many cases, this 
terrorism has been sponsored not by private fringe groups but by 
national governments. I strongly believe the United States should be as 
bold in isolating and weakening these governments as they are in the 
support that they lend to the destruction of innocents.
  We have the opportunity to address this international pathology in 
the Iran and Libya Oil Sanctions Act, which is aimed at two of the 
world's leading sponsors of terrorism. The State Department considers 
Iran the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, and reports 
that its terrorist activities are increasing. It is the major financier 
of some of the most sinister terrorism groups in the world, including 
Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
  Libya is constructing the world's largest chemical weapons complex. 
That rogue nation harbors terrorists and refuses, to this day, to hand 
over those suspected of instigating the terrorism bombing of Pan 
American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which took 270 innocent 
lives, including 189 Americans. My home State of New Jersey suffered 
more lost lives, 37, than any other single State in that deliberate act 
of horror.
  Mr. Speaker, what Iran and Libya have sponsored is murder. We should 
never accept the idea of aiding and abetting, directly or indirectly, 
any nation that knowingly and willfully sponsors terrorism and 
threatens world peace.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

[[Page H6476]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I commend him and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as 
well as the leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means and everyone 
else who had anything to do with bringing this to the floor. I think it 
is a very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we must have zero tolerance for terrorism. I think this 
bill sends a very strong message that we are serious about that. I 
support the bill, as I said, and I am particularly pleased about the 
requirement in the bill called Presidential reports. It says:

       The bill requires the President to report periodically to 
     Congress on efforts to persuade other countries to pressure 
     Iran to cease weapons of mass destruction programs, support 
     of international terrorism, and on attempts to urge Iran's

and it goes on for some other consideration about diplomats.
  It also only grants the President a waiver if the President certifies 
to Congress that Iran has ceased its efforts to develop and acquire a 
nuclear explosive device, chemical or biological weapons, or ballistic 
missiles or missile technology, and has been removed from the countries 
determined under the Export Administration Act of having supported 
international terrorism.

  I call this to the attention of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because 
it seems to me this is a very important step to take. This requirement 
on the President is an important one. At the same time, though, as we 
are putting out these requirements, indeed even the same day, the 
Committee on Ways and Means is moving on China MFN. These two issues 
are not connected, except in one way: China is one of the leading 
suppliers of technology for nuclear, chemical, and missile weaponry, 
weapons of mass destruction.
  So if our purpose in this legislation is to reduce terrorism, if our 
purpose in this legislation is to say that the President may only waive 
this bill when Iran stops developing nuclear and chemical, biological, 
and the list goes on, ballistic and other explosive devices, then why 
do we not get to the source and take action against those countries, 
China being leading among them, that are supplying Iran with that 
technology? The sanctions should be at the source as well as with Iran, 
who deserves them.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the senior member of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy, if I may. I have several technical questions about H.R. 3107, 
as amended.
  First, section 5(e) of the bill as amended states, ``The President 
shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a list of all 
significant projects which have been publicly tendered in the oil and 
gas sector in Iran.'' Will this be a comprehensive list for purposes of 
the sanctions provisions of the bill?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. No, Mr. Speaker the list may not necessarily be 
comprehensive. In such a case, the investor could be subject to 
sanctions under the bill notwithstanding that the project did not 
appear on the list published in the Federal Register.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Second, if section 5(f)(3) of the bill as amended 
exempts from the bill's requirement to impose sanctions ``products, 
technology, or services provided under contracts entered into before 
the date on which the President publishes in the Federal Register the 
name of the person on whom the sanctions are to be imposed,'' does this 
provision mean the sanctions cannot be imposed under section 5(a) or 
5(b) on a person for actions taken by that person prior to the 
publication of that person's name in the Federal Register?
  Mr. GILMAN. No, that would be an illogical construction of the 
provisions. Section 5(f)(3) is essentially a contract sanctity 
provision.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Third, I was hoping the chairman could explain how 
section 5(d) of the bill as amended is intended to apply. Am I correct 
that under section 5(d), if a parent company engages in investment 
activities that cause the subsidiary to be subject to sanctions, the 
parent itself will be subject to sanctions?
  Mr. GILMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Am I also correct that if the parent company 
supervises and guarantees the subsidiary's investment activities, the 
parent will be subject to sanctions?
  Mr. GILMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Am I further correct that if the parent company has an 
equity share or profit-sharing relationship to the investment, the 
parent company also will be subject to sanctions?
  Mr. GILMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Finally, I would like to draw the gentleman's 
attention to the concern I expressed in my statement about the prospect 
that foreign banks may finance oil development in Iran. I would ask the 
gentleman, does he share my concern?
  Mr. GILMAN. I certainly do. The financing of oil development in Iran 
poses virtually the same threat as investments in those same projects.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that unfortunately we might 
look back in 5 to 10 years and say this is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation that this Congress will pass in this session of 
Congress. It really is dealing with a threat that is out there, not 
just to the United States but to the entire world, a threat dealing 
with issues of Iran's terrorism in terms of their activism, in terms of 
the islands off Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, including their issues in 
terms of missiles, in terms of diesel submarines.
  We have the ability by this legislation to weaken their potential to 
do that. That is exactly what we are trying to do. It is very narrowly, 
specifically drawn in terms of attacking them where it could hurt the 
most in terms of their ability to increase their production of oil and 
to gain revenues to do that.
  Iran stands out as really a rogue nation today, committed to force 
terrorism throughout the entire planet, not just in our hemisphere. I 
urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I seek to have a colloquy with the chairman.
  I have several technical questions about provisions in the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3107.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to respond to the 
questions of the distinguished ranking minority member of our 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. BERMAN. First, I note in section 6 of the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute there are six possible sanctions that could be imposed 
pursuant to section 5. Is it the case that the President must, under 
section 5(a) for example, select two of the sanctions listed in section 
6 to apply to a sanctioned person, but after selecting them the 
President may decide not to actually apply them to the sanctioned 
person?
  Mr. GILMAN. No, that is not the intent of section 6. The sanctions 
identified in section 6 are intended to be mandatory when selected 
pursuant to either section 5(a) or 5(b)(1).
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman.
  Second, it is suggested that the President may have flexibility under 
sections 5 and 6 to impose sanctions on a person that, because of the 
nature of that person's business, are meaningless to that person as a 
practical matter. Would such action by the President be consistent with 
the intent of sections 5 and 6?
  Mr. GILMAN. No, the imposition of meaningless sanctions would be 
inconsistent with our intent.
  Mr. BERMAN. Finally, I note that the definition of ``investment'' set 
forth in section 14(9) states, ``The term `investment' does not include 
the entry into, performance, or financing of a contract to sell or 
purchase goods,

[[Page H6477]]

services, or technology.'' What is the purpose of this exception?
  Mr. GILMAN. This language in the definition of ``investment'' is 
intended to underscore that, particularly with respect to Iran, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute does not contain a trade 
trigger for the imposition of sanctions.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I too, want to congratulate the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and the work of 
our committee in bringing this sanctions legislation before the House 
today. But I would be less than honest if I did not also express some 
profound disappointment.
  If this legislation today had come before the House in an amendable 
fashion, I would have been offering an amendment to provide that the 
sanctions against Iran would remain in place not simply until it ceases 
terrorism against the world but until it respects the rights of its own 
people. In enacting sanctions against Iraq, Vietnam and Cuba, this body 
respected the rights of the people in those countries and insisted upon 
strong sanctions until the war against them, their political rights, 
their freedom and their safety was respected. Somehow with regard to 
the Iranian people, despite the deaths of the Baha'is, Christians, 
Jews, a Moslem majority, we take no such action. Because this bill 
comes before us on the suspension calendar, that amendment is not 
possible and indeed it is on the suspension calendar so such amendments 
are not possible.
  It will be difficult to explain to Iranian-Americans and indeed one 
day to the people of Iran when they ask, ``You took sanctions to defend 
yourselves, why did you not take them to respect us? ''
  Second, Mr. Speaker, I also express profound disappointment because 
this is not the same legislation that left the Committee on 
International Relations. We had sanctions against Libya but they were 
mandatory. Until Colonel Qadhafi handed over to international justice 
those who were responsible for Pan Am 103, there were going to be 
sanctions, no ands, ifs, or buts. But between the cup and the lip, they 
became optional. A sigh of relief in Tripoli, and, frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, a difficult explanation in my State to the 37 families who 
thought we were going to have mandatory sanctions and now are left at 
home wondering why.
  Mr. Speaker, I have participated in many proud and principled moments 
on this floor when this Congress has taken strong positions. I am glad 
today that we, if we alone in the world, stand up to Iran and Libya in 
their injustice. But frankly we could have done more, for Iranians 
locked in the prison of their own country who want someone to stand up 
not only to international terrorism but domestic abuse as well, and to 
those poor families left wondering why there is an option in standing 
up to Qadhafi.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Iran Oil Sanctions Act strikes at the 
heart of international terrorism.
  For too long, terrorists have menaced innocent people around the 
world with their cowardly attacks. Sadly, we have seen the tragic 
effects of these attacks many times this year. Hamas bombings claimed 
nearly 60 lives in Israel while recent rocket launches by Hezbollah 
threatened the lives of those in northern Israel.
  Talking reason will not get us very far with fanatics who are willing 
to kill men, women, and children whose only fault was to be in a 
marketplace, on a bus, or on an airplane at the wrong time. We need to 
cut the supply line that allows terrorist groups to continue their 
disgraceful campaigns. We need to cut the flow of funds to these 
criminals.
  Iran and Libya stand out as major sponsors of terrorism around the 
world. This bill strikes at these backers of devastation and will limit 
their ability to underwrite acts of terror as they have done for far 
too long.
  I urge my colleagues to take this stand against those who bankroll 
cruel terrorist violence.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the most recent State Department report 
on international terrorism, Iran was again deemed the most dangerous 
state sponsor of terrorism.
  On May 21, in a speech before a symposium of a prominent Middle East 
think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, our 
Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher, said Iran was guiding, as well as 
funding and training, radical groups opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace 
process.
  Earlier this month, Bahrain presented hard evidence that Iran was 
involved in attempts to destabilize that country, an important U.S. 
ally in the gulf. Several of those captured by Bahraini authorities 
admitted to have been trained in Iran and by Iranian agents in Lebanon.
  We have learned just last week that Iran is using its virtual 
takeover of the Abu Musa island in the Persian Gulf to improve port 
facilities on that island and Iran could use that expanded port 
facility to handle the fast patrol boats it has recently received from 
China.
  We are calling on other nations now to curtail any efforts to 
refinance Iran's mounting bilateral debts and to end their supply of 
arms and technology to Iran and to Libya. We strongly urge Russia to 
stop work on its contract to finish Iran's nuclear reactor in Iran.
  Enactment of this bill is a vital element in the administration's 
policy of containment of Iran and of Libya and I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation before us today. The Iran Oil Sanctions Act of 1996 will 
impose sanctions on persons exporting certain goods or technology that 
would enhance the ability of Iran or Libya to explore for, extract, or 
refine their petroleum resources.
  This bill will help to deter these rogue states from supporting 
international terrorism or acquiring weapons of mass destruction which 
would lead to greater regional instability.
  I believe that this bill is a critically important element in our 
policy of cutting off the sources of funding to the Iranian and Libyan 
regimes who are responsible for much of the state-sponsored terrorism 
which continues to plague the region.
  Since the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, economic 
sanctions have formed a key part of our Nation's policy toward Iran. 
Various actions taken by our Government have disqualified Iran from 
receiving United States foreign aid, sales of items on the United 
States munitions lists, Eximbank credits, and United States support for 
foreign loans. In addition, strict licensing requirements are needed 
for any United States exports of controlled goods or technology.
  This legislation adds to these restrictions by exploiting Iran's 
economic vulnerabilities, particularly its shortages in hard currency. 
By pressuring the Iran Government in this fashion, we will force it to 
change its behavior.
  Iran threatens our national interests. It openly sponsors groups bent 
on regional and global acts of terror and it is actively pursuing 
weapons of mass destruction. As Under Secretary of State Peter Tarnoff 
said before the House International Relations Committee last fall, ``a 
straight line links Iran's oil income and its ability to sponsor 
terrorism * * * .''
  This bill serves that link. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
H.R. 3107.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I was not a 
proponent of H.R. 3107 as introduced. I want to thank Mr. Gilman, Mr. 
Leach, Mr. Clinger, and the respective committees involved for their 
efforts to work out the agreed substitute amendment, which was approved 
by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 13. These changes, which are 
incorporated in the bill before us today, make it possible for me to 
support the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.
  While we can differ on approach, Americans are united in their 
perception that Iran is using economic benefits, gained through foreign 
investment in its oilfields, to support expanded terrorist attacks and 
the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction.
  Likewise, Libya refuses to relinquish the two individuals accused of 
bombing the Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland to face criminal charges, 
and fails to respect norms governing weapons of mass destruction. 
Americans remain fundamentally dismayed that, as our

[[Page H6478]]

firms pull back from investment and trade with these countries, our 
trading partners and allies are not restrained in their pursuit of lost 
United States contracts.
  The bill reported from the Ways and Means Committee reaffirms my goal 
that our trading partners join with the United States in a 
multilaterally agreed regime to stem Iran's ability to export 
international terrorism to the rest of the world. Too many innocent 
individuals have suffered at the hands of Iran's Government for 
business as usual to persist. In this bill, we make clear that our 
allies cannot continue to look the other way.
  However, this legislation puts a priority on supporting the 
achievement of a multilateral agreement to isolate Iran economically.
  In order to keep the focus on achieving change in Iran, the 
substitute contains provisions providing discretion for the President. 
Thus, we ensure that he is in the best position to be persuasive with 
our trading partners, and to respond to violations judiciously. Where 
the President determines a country has taken substantial measures to 
join with us to contain the threat of Iran to international peace and 
security, section 4 of the bill permits a waiver of the application of 
sanctions.
  While the investment trigger for Iran remains mandatory in the new 
bill, the substitute increases the number of choices available to the 
President on the menu of sanctions he has to choose from.
  In this and all other cases the President has authority to waive 
sanctions if their application would hurt the national interest. The 
waiver authority is intended to be broad enough to accommodate 
instances when invoking sanctions would be violative to international 
trade obligations.
  I want to emphasize that the bill as reported from the Committee on 
Ways and Means treats the cases of Iran and Libya differently, because 
of their unique economic histories and geopolitical circumstances. 
While a mandatory trade trigger is viewed by the Committee on Ways and 
Means as unworkable for Iran, and therefore not included in the 
substitute, such a mechanism has been included as a tool for Libya. The 
difference is that a multilateral regime is already in place for Libya.
  Subsection 5(c) also provides the President with the discretion to 
impose sanctions in connection with new, large investments in Libya's 
petroleum sector, if he believes it would advance U.S. interests to do 
so.
  I hope our allies can appreciate the deep and urgent commitment in 
Congress for increasing pressure on Iran and Libya to end their lawless 
behavior. While the approach of H.R. 3107 carries with it the risk of 
exposing U.S. exporters and investors to possible retaliation, this 
threat has been minimized in the substitute. With the addition of solid 
contract sanctity language, and strict limitations on vicarious 
liability for companies with parents or subsidiaries located abroad, 
the bill should not engender the same serious criticism.
  Finally, the 5-year sunset provision in the bill ensures that this 
type of legislation does not remain on the books indefinitely. The 
committee report indicates that because this is such a difficult policy 
area, it will be important for Congress to revisit these issues in 5 
years in order to evaluate the behavior of Iran and Libya, and whether 
this bill has been effective.
  To summarize, Mr. Speaker, my greatest fear has been that world 
attention would shift to United States violations of trade agreements 
and away from the targets of our condemnation--Iran and Libya. I 
strongly urge the President to implement H.R. 3107 in a manner that 
respects our international trade obligations. To the nations of Europe, 
Japan, Australia, and others I renew a pledge to work together to 
establish a multilateral solution that isolates these two outlaw 
nations.
  Let's join forces and accomplish the job. Working together involves 
each country taking substantial measures that achieve results--mere 
words will no longer suffice.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
concern with the precedent that could be set by provisions of H.R. 
3107, legislation originating in the International Relations Committee, 
and referred to the Ways and Means Committee on which I serve.
  No one argues that the goal of bringing the Pan Am 103 bombers to 
justice, nor with containing international terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must find ways to 
increase United States and international pressure on these rogue 
nations and the threat they pose to U.S. interests. However, I do have 
concerns with H.R. 3107's provisions that may rely on unilateral 
actions rather than multilateral cooperation.
  The concept of a secondary boycott was opposed by the United States 
when the Arab League used it against Israel in the 1970's and 1980's, 
and remains contrary to the principles endorsed by this very body when 
it approved NAFTA and GATT. Indeed, U.S. law, most recently enacted in 
the Export Administration Act, has long prohibited any U.S. person from 
``complying with or supporting'' a foreign boycott against another 
country.
  The use of trade sanctions to accomplish trade law compliance is 
vital and appropriate but the use of trade sanctions as a foreign 
policy tool to coerce other sovereign nations to do our bidding 
breaches America's commitment to preserving independence from 
international control. It is fundamental to U.S. participation in trade 
agreements that other governments should not be permitted to dictate 
business relationships among U.S. firms and citizens, as H.R. 3107 
could do for our trading partners.
  Mr. Speaker, as the world's greatest exporter, the United States 
benefits tremendously from free and open trade with our allies. Given 
our past commitment to an international trading regimen, the United 
States should not expose United States exporters and investors to 
possible retaliation through abrogation of international rules, or 
exacerbate the dispute with our allies over policies toward Iran and 
Libya. If it becomes possible for countries to dictate each other's 
policy under threat of trade sanctions, U.S. participation in these 
important organizations could be threatened.
  Put at risk by unilateral U.S. action are the benefits to the U.S. 
economy created by strong protection of intellectual property rights, 
the guarantee of competitive bidding opportunities under the Government 
Procurement Code and dramatic tariff reductions for U.S. exports--all 
of which were improved and expanded by NAFTA and GATT.
  Instead, I would urge that we work to avoid the painful consequences 
of trade retaliation and continue pressing for additional multilateral 
action and enforcement of existing agreements. As in the case with the 
extraterritorial Helms-Burton law which penalizes firms outside the 
jurisdiction of the United States for trading with Cuba, foreign 
governments will not permit their firms to comply with such 
legislation. As we seek to contain and punish terrorists and those 
states that sponsor them, we do not want to drive a costly wedge 
between the United States and its allies whose support we are seeking.
  While I will be supporting H.R. 3107, I am doing so because it 
provides the administration adequate discretion in executing the 
provisions of this bill. Moreover, in doing so, it is my hope that the 
administration will effectively implement multilateral sanctions 
against Iran and Libya.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3107, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________