[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4864-H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROHIBITION ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH COUNTRIES SUPPORTING 
                         TERRORISM ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 748) to amend the prohibition of title 18, United States 
Code, against financial transactions with terrorists, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 748

       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 ``Prohibition on Financial 
     Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH TERRORISTS.

       Section 2332d of title 18, United States Code, (relating to 
     financial transactions) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Except as provided in regulations issued 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, whoever'' and inserting ``Whoever''; and
       (B) by inserting ``of 1979'' after ``Export Administration 
     Act''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``1956(c)(4)'' 
     the following: ``, except that such term does not include any 
     transactions ordinarily incident to--
       ``(A) routine diplomatic relations among countries;

[[Page H4865]]

       ``(B) an official act by a representative of, or an act 
     which is authorized by and conducted on behalf of, the United 
     States Government;
       ``(C) the broadcasting or reporting of news by 
     organizations regularly engaged in such activity; or
       ``(D) the provision or purchase of assistance intended to 
     relieve human suffering, including medical services, 
     supplies, and equipment;
       ``(E) the receipt of emergency medical services;
       ``(F) any postal, telegraphic, or other personal 
     communication which does not involve a transfer of anything 
     of value;
       ``(G) the protection of intellectual property rights of any 
     United States person;
       ``(H) the performance of any contract or agreement that was 
     entered into before June 12, 1997, but not those renewed 
     after such date;
       ``(I) the provision of hospitality or transportation 
     services; or
       ``(J) the payment of a claim to any United States person''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF ENACTMENT.

       Beginning not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment to this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, shall issue an 
     annual report to Congress on--
       (1) the impact of this prohibition on United States 
     businesses; and
       (2) any means by which a negative impact might be 
     ameliorated.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Delahunt] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 748, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 748, is an important addition to the 
Federal Government's battle against international terrorists and 
particularly those countries which have been identified as supporters 
of terrorism.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, and I introduced this bill for the purpose of 
eliminating overly permissive regulations promulgated by the 
administration last year which have effectively gutted the provisions 
he and I offered successfully to the antiterrorism bill in the last 
Congress.
  The amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and I 
successfully offered to the antiterrorism bill, now known as section 
321, prohibited all financial transactions between U.S. persons and 
governments which have been designated as supporters of terrorism.
  Section 321 was drafted with a dual purpose in mind. First, by 
prohibiting financial support from terrorist countries to terrorist 
persons, it attempts to prevent the long arm of terrorism from reaching 
the shores of the United States through domestic entities. Second, the 
provision was intended to prohibit all financial transactions by U.S. 
persons with these countries regardless of where these transactions 
took place. This would have the effect of cutting off terrorist 
sponsoring governments from economic benefits of doing business with 
U.S. companies.
  We agreed last year to authorize the Department of the Treasury, in 
consultation with the Department of State, to issue regulations which 
provided some exceptions to this ban. We intended that these 
regulations exclude a variety of specific transactions such as those 
which occur in the course of diplomatic activities and other related 
official matters.
  Instead, in August of last year, the Treasury Department published 
regulations in relation to section 321 which essentially reversed the 
effect of the new prohibition. These regulations permit all financial 
transactions other than those which pose a risk of furthering domestic 
terrorism. The regulations prohibit U.S. persons from receiving 
unlicensed donations and from engaging in financial transactions with 
respect to which the United States person knows or has reasonable cause 
to believe that the financial transaction poses a risk of furthering 
terrorist acts in the United States. Thus, these regulations completely 
ignore the second purpose of the prohibition. They ensure a business as 
usual policy and represent a step backwards in the effort to isolate 
countries which provide support to terrorists.
  H.R. 748 strips the executive branch of its authority to issue 
regulations exempting transactions from the prohibition. It establishes 
instead a legislative exception only for specified transactions. The 
list of permitted activities and transactions incident thereto include: 
routine diplomatic relations among countries; official acts by 
representatives of the U.S. Government; news reporting; humanitarian 
assistance; emergency medical services and the provision of medical 
supplies; postal and telephone services; the protection of intellectual 
property rights; hospitality or transportation services; payments of a 
claim to U.S. persons; and transactions connected to contracts and 
agreements entered into before the formal consideration of this 
legislation.
  As a result of sanctions currently in place involving Iran, Iraq, 
North Korea, Libya, and Cuba, this bill has a more significant impact 
on transactions between United States persons and the governments of 
Sudan and Syria. These two countries are the only terrorist-list 
countries not subject to economic sanctions under other provisions of 
law.
  It has been suggested by some that this legislation comes at a time 
when peace talks between Syria and Israel are a future possibility. We 
have all got to hope that that occurs. In fact, I certainly hope that 
that is true and that such talks will occur and be fruitful. Until such 
time, however, we must all stand firm on the principle that terrorism 
will not be tolerated and that countries giving shelter and support to 
terrorists are acting against the well being of the world community.
  If the passage of this legislation would detract from the peace 
process, as some I think genuinely believe, I however do not, but as 
some believe, then I would suggest that the peace that is at hand is 
not really there and that it is a false hope rather than a reality. For 
all this legislation does is simply say that we are enforcing the laws 
of this land, that we are interested in making certain that those 
countries that do engage in supporting terrorism to the extent that 
they are placed on a terrorist list by our government as countries that 
support these acts are not going to any longer be able to engage in 
normal financial transactions with U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, U.S. 
companies, and all that a country has to do to get off the list, to 
avoid this sanction, is simply to stop those activities that have 
gotten them on the list in the first place. While some of the countries 
listed may engage more openly and more often and more frequently in 
these acts that make them terrorist-list countries, all of the 
countries are on the list for a reason. I would submit again that if 
one or two of these nations are close to the line and only have to take 
a few steps to come off the list that they proceed to do so. In fact 
that is indeed the message of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 748 is a very important piece of legislation. There 
should be no higher priority for the United States in the battle 
against terrorism than the elimination of foreign government support 
for terrorists. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would replace the existing rules and 
procedures governing financial transactions with terrorism listed 
governments with an absolute ban on such transactions unless they fit 
in one of the 10 express exemptions provided by the bill. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for his diligent 
efforts on behalf of this measure. I want to associate myself with the 
intent of his legislation.
  While I join with him and the rest of the committee in reporting the 
bill favorably, I do have a concern which I raised during the 
committee's consideration of the bill as to what effect the bill might 
have on the embargoes currently in place against 5 of the 7 countries 
on the terrorism list. Specifically,

[[Page H4866]]

I was concerned about whether the bill leaves the executive branch 
sufficient flexibility to address individual cases as they may arise 
since it is impossible to fully anticipate all the myriad circumstances 
which might require private citizens or the government itself to engage 
in financial transactions in the midst of an embargo. I have since 
received a letter from the Department of State which indicates that.

       The effect on these embargoes would be significant, 
     including in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed 
     at this time.

  The letter which I would ask to have included in the Record goes on 
to say that:

       If H.R. 748 were adopted, the administration may no longer 
     be able, under the embargo authorities otherwise available to 
     it, to authorize transactions with terrorist-list 
     governments, other than those specifically exempted by H.R. 
     748. An example might be the repatriation of MIA remains from 
     North Korea.''

                              {time}  1545

  The department's letter offers many other such examples, including 
the payment of taxes and other fees to protect property interests in 
terrorist listed countries, payments on claims negotiated before the 
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, transactions made in connection 
with the dismantlement of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and 
transactions associated with humanitarian activities that may not fall 
within the express exemptions in the bill.
  I frankly do not know whether these particular horrors would come to 
pass if the bill becomes law or not. I am not in a position to know, 
but I think it should matter to us that those who are in a position to 
know have raised questions of this magnitude. One thing that I do know 
is that the gentleman from Florida is a thoughtful and reasonable 
colleague and that he has attempted to work with the administration to 
resolve these concerns, and I hope and trust and am confident that he 
will continue to do so.


                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1997.
     Hon. William D. Delahunt,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Delahunt: Thank you for your question, raised at 
     the House Judiciary Committee meeting of June 18, whether 
     H.R. 748 would have an effect on the embargoes currently in 
     place against five of the seven terrorism-list countries 
     under the authorities that include the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq. 
     (``IEEPA''), the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 
     Sec. 1 et seq. (``TWEA''), and section 5 of the United 
     Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c) (``UNPA''). The 
     five countries are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya. 
     The effect on those embargoes would be significant, including 
     in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed at this 
     time.
       The Department of the Treasury regulations (31 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 596.503), currently in force under the authority of 18 
     U.S.C. 2332d, incorporate by reference the exemptions and 
     licensing policies applicable under each individual embargo, 
     so as to preserve the legislative mandates and executive 
     branch policies that apply under each program. H.R. 748 would 
     remove this regulatory authority and thus would appear to 
     have the effect of overriding any statutory or regulatory 
     provisions that may conflict. If H.R. 748 were adopted, the 
     Administration may no longer be able, under the embargo 
     authorities otherwise available to it, to authorize 
     transactions with terrorist-list governments, other than 
     those specifically exempted by H.R. 748. An example might be 
     the repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea.
       A further related concern is whether H.R. 748 is meant to 
     take precedence over more specific laws such as the Cuban 
     Democracy Act of 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq. (``the CDA or 
     Torricelli Act) which authorizes various forms of support for 
     the Cuban people ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law,'' or the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act of 
     1996, 22 U.S.C. 6021 et seq. (``the Libertad Act'' or ``the 
     Helms-Burton Act'') which codifies the pre-existing Cuban 
     embargo, including licensing authorities.
       Your question highlights the difficulty that the Judiciary 
     Committee and the Administration would face in trying to 
     develop a specific and comprehensive list of exemptions that 
     would be necessary if a complete ban on financial 
     transactions with terrorism-list governments were adopted. 
     While the exemptions that have been added to H.R. 748 are 
     helpful, they are by no means adequate. Enclosed is a list of 
     examples that we have developed within the Department of 
     State to identify some of the more obvious and troublesome 
     consequences if H.R. 748, as amended, were enacted into law. 
     (Other Departments and agencies may have additional concerns 
     for their programs.)
       We do not know the full range of transactions which U.S. 
     citizens or residents may be required to engage in with the 
     individual terrorism-list governments, nor can we anticipate 
     all the activities, whether governmental or private, that may 
     require some form of financial transaction with a terrorism-
     list government in the future. No enumeration of specific 
     exemptions would be adequate to meet all the unforeseen 
     circumstances that inevitably arise in the administration of 
     a sanctions regime. Unless the Administration is entrusted 
     with the discretion to address specific circumstances, as in 
     current law, any list of exemptions would necessarily be 
     inadequate to protect the interests of the United States.
       We appreciate your consideration of these views.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Barbara Larkin,
     Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.  
                                  ____


                          H.R. 748 as Amended


                              description

       H.R. 748, as amended by the House Judiciary Committee, 
     prohibits financial transactions with terrorism-list 
     governments, unless specifically exempted by its terms. The 
     ten exemptions included thus far, however, are inadequate to 
     alleviate a wide range of adverse consequences for American 
     citizens and the civilian population of the countries 
     concerned, as well as for the conduct of foreign policy and 
     other governmental and intergovernmental functions. It strips 
     the Executive Branch of all regulatory and licensing 
     flexibility now contained in section 321 of the 1996 
     Antiterrorism Act and other embargo authorities. By so doing, 
     its potential impact would exceed that of any existing 
     embargo.
       We appreciate the effort made by the Judiciary Committee to 
     accommodate certain limited concerns; however the minimal 
     exceptions reflected in the H.R. 748, as amended, are 
     inadequate. We do not know the full range of incidental 
     transactions which Americans may be required to engage in 
     with individual terrorism-list governments, nor can we 
     anticipate all the activities, whether governmental or 
     private, that may require some form of financial transaction 
     with a terrorism-list government in the future. As a result, 
     it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list of cases 
     that could serve as the basis for developing exemptions to 
     this provision.
       Unless the Executive Branch is entrusted with the 
     discretion to address individual circumstances, as under 
     current law, any list of exceptions would necessarily be 
     inadequate to protect the interests of the United States.
       Among the consequences of such a rigid legislative approach 
     could be the following:
       The U.S. might no longer be able to meet certain binding 
     legal obligations undertaken in the past with Iran, including 
     implementation of the Algiers Accords through the Iran-U.S. 
     Claims Tribunal in the Hague, and implementation of the 
     agreement settling the 1988 Iran Air shootdown and certain 
     Tribunal bank claims. These obligations may extend beyond the 
     more limited exceptions provided for payments incident to 
     official acts by the USG or on its behalf or payments of 
     claims to Americans, to include, for example:
       Payments by U.S. claimants of Tribunal awards to the 
     Government of Iran (Under the Algiers Accords, these awards 
     are enforceable in foreign courts.)
       Payments by Iran for the warehousing arrangement it has 
     with Victory Van in Virginia, which stores Iran's equipment 
     that the USG refuses to license for export to Iran.
       Payments via government-controlled banks to Iranian 
     relatives of victims of the Iran Air shootdown; and
       Private payments for expenses that are not necessarily on 
     behalf of the USG the denial of which could result in USG 
     liability under the Accords or other agreements;
       Payments by Iran necessary to enforce its awards or bring 
     other claims in U.S. courts (also as provided for in the 
     Algiers Accords);
       Payments by terrorism list governments generally to defend 
     lawsuits and property interests in the U.S., which may raise 
     constitutional issues.
       It is unclear whether the provision is meant to override 
     the basic scheme of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 
     (FSIA) by denying American attorneys payment for 
     representation of terrorism list governments sued in the 
     United States.
       (Under the FSIA, foreign states are not immune from actions 
     arising from a broad range of activities, including terrorist 
     acts by the 6(j) countries against U.S. nationals. The Act 
     assumes the issues of immunity and liability will be resolved 
     through U.S. court proceedings. Deprivation of counsel for 
     6(j) government defendants may raise constitutional issues, 
     call into question the fairness of the U.S. legal system, and 
     generally discourage foreign governments from participation 
     in suits under the FSIA, thus impeding USG efforts to 
     persuade foreign states to adopt the restrictive theory of 
     sovereign immunity and honor U.S. court judgments.)
       It is unclear that an exception for provision of 
     humanitarian assistance would be sufficient to enable U.S. 
     nationals to pay the incidental government fees and personal 
     expenses necessary to enable them to travel to or subsist in 
     terrorism list countries to support or work in humanitarian 
     programs in these countries;
       It is unclear whether an exception for the provision of 
     assistance intended to relieve human suffering is sufficient, 
     for example, to allow Americans to repatriate the remains of 
     family members who die in terrorism list countries, to settle 
     decedents' estates, or to relieve other personal hardships 
     that may arise in these countries;

[[Page H4867]]

       Nor is it clear that an exception strictly limited to 
     official transactions by the USG or conducted on its behalf 
     would be sufficient to permit the continuation of 
     transactions by intergovernmental or non-governmental 
     organizations or of private individuals in furtherance of on-
     going programs serving important U.S. interests, including 
     repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea, dismantlement 
     of North Korea's and Iraq's nuclear weapons' programs, and 
     promotion of freer communication with the Cuban population;
       The exception for transactions ``incident to routine 
     diplomatic relations among countries'' may not clearly 
     encompass the maintenance of interest sections and protecting 
     power arrangements, which are not generally viewed as 
     ``routine diplomatic relations;''
       Nor is it clear whether the provision's diplomatic 
     exception applies to multilateral representation, for 
     example, the ability of terrorism-list governments to 
     maintain missions to international organizations 
     headquartered in the United States (even where the USG has 
     relevant treaty obligations such as the obligation under the 
     U.N. Headquarters Agreement not to impede the functioning of 
     these missions).
       The protection of intellectual property rights of Americans 
     is a welcome exception, but does not adequately resolve 
     binding legal obligation of the United States under various 
     multilateral intellectual property agreements to protect the 
     rights of property owners in other member states;
       Nor do the exceptions adequately provide for taxes and 
     other fees that Americans may be required to pay to protect 
     real or other property interests in terrorism-list countries;
       It is unclear how Americans are to interpret the scope of 
     the various exceptions on their own without administrative or 
     regulatory guidance from a designated federal agency, as is 
     normally the practice under embargoes; the net result may be 
     a chilling effect on even those transactions that the 
     Congress seeks to protect from interruption through these 
     exemptions.
       In sum, the Government already has a wide range of economic 
     sanctions against countries that support international 
     terrorism including Syria and Sudan. Sanctions are most 
     effectively used in dealing with specific events or problems. 
     They are a tool, not an end in themselves. To impose such 
     sweeping mandatory sanctions, particularly in the absence of 
     a precipitating event, does not strengthen our counter-
     terrorism efforts or other foreign policy goals with these 
     individual countries. Indeed, it weakens them. It uses up the 
     remaining economic arrows, leaving little ammunition in 
     reserve.
       Such sweeping measures, make it more difficult to maintain 
     the contacts and dialogue needed to get necessary cooperation 
     on specific situations, as we have in the past been able to 
     obtain from Syria and Sudan. We have even had limited success 
     with certain embargoed countries which would not have been 
     possible without the flexibility and discretion available to 
     the Executive branch under existing laws to create a climate 
     for encouraging positive change within those countries.
       The Administration has sufficient authority to deal with 
     specific situations as necessary.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to the gentleman only to state a couple of 
things. One is that the concerns that he has expressed through the 
letter of the State Department of June 20, 1997, I have examined with 
my staff. We do not believe that the specific concerns listed in the 
letter are concerns that are not addressed in the bill. They are 
addressed in the bill.
  For example, if there is a repatriation of MIA remains that would be 
involved from North Korea, they are covered because the language that 
we have in the exemption of the bill says it does not include any 
transaction ordinarily incident to an official act by a representative 
of or an act which is authorized by and conducted on behalf of the 
United States Government. And I have spent some considerable time with 
staff of other committees making certain that this covers activities 
that we might delegate out through our communities, both in defense and 
intelligence, as well as those which the State Department may be doing.
  The same would be true with regard to the Cuban Democracy Act and the 
concern which was expressed in that letter about it because the act 
itself on its face, the Cuban Democracy Act, says notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, and this bill, 748, does not override that 
concern, is still the express view of the bill on its face that was 
passed before the Cuban act that I am talking about.
  I would also add that while of course we cannot list every possible 
exception, and the ideal was what we passed in the legislation that is 
currently law, where we give full discretion to the Treasury and the 
State Departments to make exceptions as they see fit. The fact is they 
abused it grossly, and if we are going to restrict the terrorist list 
countries and restrict financial transactions of U.S. citizens from 
doing such things as going out and developing oil fields and investing 
in those countries that are terrorist list nations and giving them then 
the means and the resources to fuel terrorist acts around the world by 
their support of terrorist activities, then the whole exercise that we 
had in the antiterrorism bill is futile and useless and not workable. 
And while I would continue to work with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts as well as those at the State Department and our 
Government in the period of time between the House floor activity today 
and any final bill that comes out of both bodies in conference to see 
if there are other issues that we might need to resolve, it is 
certainly my intent and, I believe, the members of the subcommittee by 
and large and the full Committee on the Judiciary to see that the House 
passes this bill today, as I believe it will be the will of the House, 
and that we send a clear and unmistakable message that doing business 
with terrorist organizations and in support of terrorism and being on 
the terrorist lists by our State Department, if they are a country 
doing that, then they are not going to get the benefits of ordinary, 
everyday financial transactions with United States citizens. It is 
simply not common sense to let that happen, it is not good American 
policy, and I believe that this legislation needs to be adopted and 
should be adopted.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, combating international terrorism is in the 
vital national interest of the United States. There can be no mistake 
about that. Nor can there be any question that the Clinton 
administration has worked tirelessly in pursuit of this objective. 
While the purpose of H.R. 748 is to assist in this effort, the ultimate 
consequence, albeit unintended, may very well be the opposite.
  If passed, H.R. 748 will prevent the administration from acting on 
foreign policy objectives and conducting basic diplomacy. In his 
opening remarks, Representative McCollum stated clearly, ``The bill 
strips the executive branch of the authority to issue regulations 
exempting transactions from the prohibition. It establishes instead a 
legislative exception * * *.'' By removing any flexibility the 
Executive branch has in implementing economic sanctions or prohibitions 
on financial transactions, the President is stripped of his ability to 
conduct the foreign policy affairs of the United States--a 
responsibility granted him by the Constitution.
  In addition, while this bill may be touted as a safeguard against 
loopholes in existing legislation, it is vital to point out that the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is an effective 
tool employed by the President to advance our counter-terrorism agenda 
in a manner he deems most appropriate, country by country. This 
restrictive legislation has serious implications--ultimately tying the 
President's hands in waging the war on international terrorism.
  While the bill may have an effect on various regions of the world, 
one can look to the Middle East peace process as a clear example of how 
it will restrict the President's foreign policy. Without the ability to 
engage Syria, the United States can not be viewed as a balanced 
intermediary between the parties to the process. The peace process 
itself, a critical foreign policy objective, would be hindered by such 
action because the bill would impede the Administration's ability to 
advance stated peace process objectives.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 748, 
which, in the name of stopping terrorism, would mandate an automatic 
one-size-fits-all foreign policy and restrict the rights of American 
citizens and companies to do business in some countries overseas.
  We all agree that terrorism is abhorrent, and that stopping it must 
be a top foreign policy priority for the United States.
  The tough question, though, is how best to meet that goal. Are we 
better off adopting multilateral policies to deal with individual state 
sponsors of terrorism? Or should we automatically impose unilateral 
sanctions on every nation deemed a sponsor of terrorism?
  The bill before us today chooses the second answer to this question: 
Automatic sanctions. This is a tempting solution. After all, we're 
talking about countries like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. There 
are few defenders of these regimes anywhere in the world.
  Unfortunately, there are three major costs associated with imposing 
unilateral sanctions.
  First, unilateral sanctions are rarely, if ever, an effective 
punishment. When

[[Page H4868]]

American companies are barred from entering foreign markets, 
competitors from Asia and Europe are poised to take advantage. Without 
multilateral support for sanctions, then, the punitive effect of 
banning American business from a country may be minimal at best.
  Second, imposing unilateral sanctions means lost American jobs. It is 
self-evident that keeping American companies out of foreign markets 
means lost American wealth.
  Third, imposing unilateral sanctions will not necessarily end a 
foreign government's use of terrorism. In fact, in cases where 
terrorist regimes are generally supported by their subjects, imposing 
sanctions is likely only to increase anti-American sentiment and 
strengthen the hold of those in power.
  I do support unilateral sanctions in certain targeted instances, for 
example with Iran. But taking away the President's prerogative to 
choose, and Congress's ability to assess whether to use this blunt 
policy tool, as the bill before us would do, will make our 
antiterrorism foreign policy worse, not better.
  Mr. Speaker, we should do everything in our power to end all forms of 
terrorism. We are right to lead international efforts to isolate and 
punish terrorists. But imposing the automatic one-size-fits-all 
response to terrorism contained in H.R. 748 will be ineffective and 
costly. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. If the 
gentleman does not, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Florida for his reassurances.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodling). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 748, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. 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.

                          ____________________