[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1754-H1774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 282) to hold the current regime in Iran 
accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to 
democracy in Iran, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 282

       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 Freedom Support Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title
Sec. 2. Table of contents

            TITLE I--CODIFICATION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

Sec. 101. Codification of sanctions
Sec. 102. Liability of parent companies for violations of sanctions by 
              foreign entities

 TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996 AND 
             OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN IRAN

Sec. 201. Multilateral regime
Sec. 202. Imposition of sanctions
Sec. 203. Termination of sanctions
Sec. 204. Sunset
Sec. 205. Clarification and expansion of definitions
Sec. 206. United States pension plans
Sec. 207. Technical and conforming amendments

[[Page H1755]]

TITLE III--DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO CURTAIL IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION 
               AND SPONSORSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Sec. 301. Diplomatic efforts
Sec. 302. Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

                      TITLE IV--DEMOCRACY IN IRAN

Sec. 401. Declaration of Congress regarding United States policy toward 
              Iran
Sec. 402. Assistance to support democracy in Iran
Sec. 403. Waiver of certain export license requirements

            TITLE I--CODIFICATION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

     SEC. 101. CODIFICATION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Codification of Sanctions.--United States sanctions, 
     controls, and regulations with respect to Iran imposed 
     pursuant to Executive Order 12957, sections 1(b) through 
     (1)(g) and sections (2) through (6) of Executive Order 12959, 
     and sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 13059 (relating to 
     exports and certain other transactions with Iran) as in 
     effect on January 1, 2006, shall remain in effect until the 
     President certifies to the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the Government of 
     Iran has verifiably dismantled its weapons of mass 
     destruction programs.
       (b) No Effect on Other Sanctions Relating to Support for 
     Acts of International Terrorism.--Subsection (a) shall have 
     no effect on United States sanctions, controls, and 
     regulations relating to a determination under section 
     6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)), section 620A(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), or section 40(d) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)) relating 
     to support for acts of international terrorism by the 
     Government of Iran, as in effect on January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 102. LIABILITY OF PARENT COMPANIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   SANCTIONS BY FOREIGN ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--In any case in which an entity engages in 
     an act outside the United States which, if committed in the 
     United States or by a United States person, would violate 
     Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995, Executive Order 13059 
     of August 19, 1997, or any other prohibition on transactions 
     with respect to Iran that is imposed under the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and if 
     that entity was created or availed of for the purpose of 
     engaging in such an act, the parent company of that entity 
     shall be subject to the penalties for such violation to the 
     same extent as if the parent company had engaged in that act.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) an entity is a ``parent company'' of another entity if 
     it owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the 
     equity interest in that other entity and is a United States 
     person; and
       (2) the term ``entity'' means a partnership, association, 
     trust, joint venture, corporation, or other organization.

 TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996 AND 
             OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN IRAN

     SEC. 201. MULTILATERAL REGIME.

       (a) Reports to Congress.--Section 4(b) of the Iran and 
     Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than six months after 
     the date of the enactment of the Iran Freedom Support Act and 
     every six months thereafter, the President shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report regarding 
     specific diplomatic efforts undertaken pursuant to subsection 
     (a), the results of those efforts, and a description of 
     proposed diplomatic efforts pursuant to such subsection. Each 
     report shall include--
       ``(1) a list of the countries that have agreed to undertake 
     measures to further the objectives of section 3 with respect 
     to Iran;
       ``(2) a description of those measures, including--
       ``(A) government actions with respect to public or private 
     entities (or their subsidiaries) located in their 
     territories, that are engaged in Iran;
       ``(B) any decisions by the governments of these countries 
     to rescind or continue the provision of credits, guarantees, 
     or other governmental assistance to these entities; and
       ``(C) actions taken in international fora to further the 
     objectives of section 3;
       ``(3) a list of the countries that have not agreed to 
     undertake measures to further the objectives of section 3 
     with respect to Iran, and the reasons therefor; and
       ``(4) a description of any memorandums of understanding, 
     political understandings, or international agreements to 
     which the United States has acceded which affect 
     implementation of this section or section 5(a).''.
       (b) Waiver.--Section 4(c) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may, on a case by case 
     basis, waive for a period of not more than six months the 
     application of section 5(a) with respect to a national of a 
     country, if the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees at least 30 days before such waiver 
     is to take effect that--
       ``(A) such waiver is vital to the national security 
     interests of the United States; and
       ``(B) the country of the national has undertaken 
     substantial measures to prevent the acquisition and 
     development of weapons of mass destruction by the Government 
     of Iran.
       ``(2) Subsequent renewal of waiver.--If the President 
     determines that, in accordance with paragraph (1), such a 
     waiver is appropriate, the President may, at the conclusion 
     of the period of a waiver under paragraph (1), renew such 
     waiver for subsequent periods of not more than six months 
     each.''.
       (c) Investigations.--Section 4 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President shall initiate an 
     investigation into the possible imposition of sanctions 
     against a person upon receipt by the United States of 
     credible information indicating that such person is engaged 
     in activity related to investment in Iran as described in 
     section 5(a).
       ``(2) Determination and notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after an 
     investigation is initiated in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     the President shall determine, pursuant to section 5(a), 
     whether or not to impose sanctions against a person engaged 
     in activity related to investment in Iran as described in 
     such section as a result of such activity and shall notify 
     the appropriate congressional committees of the basis for 
     such determination.
       ``(B) Extension.--If the President is unable to make a 
     determination under subparagraph (A), the President shall 
     notify the appropriate congressional committees and shall 
     extend such investigation for a subsequent period, not to 
     exceed 180 days, after which the President shall make the 
     determination required under such subparagraph and shall 
     notify the appropriate congressional committees of the basis 
     for such determination in accordance with such subparagraph.
       ``(3) Determinations regarding pending investigations.--Not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall, with respect to any investigation 
     that was pending as of January 1, 2006, concerning a person 
     engaged in activity related to investment in Iran as 
     described in section 5(a), determine whether or not to impose 
     sanctions against such person as a result of such activity 
     and shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of 
     the basis for such determination.
       ``(4) Publication.--Not later than 10 days after the 
     President notifies the appropriate congressional committees 
     under paragraphs (2) and (3), the President shall ensure 
     publication in the Federal Register of the identification of 
     the persons against which the President has made a 
     determination that the imposition of sanctions is 
     appropriate, together with an explanation for such 
     determination.''.

     SEC. 202. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Sanctions With Respect to Development of Petroleum 
     Resources.--Section 5(a) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act 
     of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``to Iran'' and inserting 
     ``to the Development of Petroleum Resources of Iran'';
       (2) by striking ``(6)'' and inserting ``(5)''; and
       (3) by striking ``with actual knowledge,''.
       (b) Sanctions With Respect to Development of Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction or Other Military Capabilities.--Section 
     5(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Mandatory Sanctions With Respect to Development of 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction or Other Military Capabilities.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     shall impose two or more of the sanctions described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 6 if the President 
     determines that a person has, on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, exported, transferred, or otherwise 
     provided to Iran any goods, services, technology, or other 
     items knowing that the provision of such goods, services, 
     technology, or other items would contribute to the ability of 
     Iran to--
       ``(1) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear 
     weapons or related technologies; or
       ``(2) acquire or develop destabilizing numbers and types of 
     advanced conventional weapons.''.
       (c) Persons Against Which the Sanctions Are to Be 
     Imposed.--Section 5(c)(2) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, with actual 
     knowledge,'' and by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, with actual 
     knowledge,'' and by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) is a private or government lender, insurer, 
     underwriter, or guarantor of the person referred to in 
     paragraph (1) if that private or government lender, insurer, 
     underwriter, or guarantor engaged in the activities referred 
     to in paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to actions taken on or after March 
     15, 2006.

[[Page H1756]]

     SEC. 203. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       Section 8(a) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 
     (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) poses no significant threat to United States national 
     security, interests, or allies.''.

     SEC. 204. SUNSET.

       Section 13 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``; SUNSET'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking the subsection 
     designation and heading; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 205. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Person.--Section 14(14)(B) of the Iran and Libya 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``trust,'' the following: 
     ``financial institution, insurer, underwriter, guarantor, any 
     other business organization, including any foreign 
     subsidiaries of the foregoing,''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     such as an export credit agency''.
       (b) Petroleum Resources.--Section 14(15) of the Iran and 
     Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended 
     by inserting after ``petroleum'' the second place it appears, 
     the following: ``, petroleum by-products,''.

     SEC. 206. UNITED STATES PENSION PLANS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States and the international community face 
     no greater threat to their security than the prospect of 
     rogue regimes who support international terrorism obtaining 
     weapons of mass destruction, and particularly nuclear 
     weapons.
       (2) Iran is the leading state sponsor of international 
     terrorism and is close to achieving nuclear weapons 
     capability but has paid no price for nearly twenty years of 
     deception over its nuclear program. Foreign entities that 
     have invested in Iran's energy sector, despite Iran's support 
     of international terrorism and its nuclear program, have 
     afforded Iran a free pass while many United States entities 
     have unknowingly invested in those same foreign entities.
       (3) United States investors have a great deal at stake in 
     preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
       (4) United States investors can have considerable influence 
     over the commercial decisions of the foreign entities in 
     which they have invested.
       (b) Publication in Federal Register.--Not later than six 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 
     six months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall ensure 
     publication in the Federal Register of a list of all United 
     States and foreign entities that have invested more than 
     $20,000,000 in Iran's energy sector between August 5, 1996, 
     and the date of such publication. Such list shall include an 
     itemization of individual investments of each such entity, 
     including the dollar value, intended purpose, and current 
     status of each such investment.
       (c) Sense of Congress Relating to Divestiture From Iran.--
     It is the sense of Congress that, upon publication of a list 
     in the relevant Federal Register under subsection (b), 
     managers of United States Government pension plans or thrift 
     savings plans, managers of pension plans maintained in the 
     private sector by plan sponsors in the United States, and 
     managers of mutual funds sold or distributed in the United 
     States should, to the extent consistent with the legal and 
     fiduciary duties otherwise imposed on them, immediately 
     initiate efforts to divest all investments of such plans or 
     funds in any entity included on the list.
       (d) Sense of Congress Relating to Prohibition on Future 
     Investment.--It is the sense of Congress that, upon 
     publication of a list in the relevant Federal Register under 
     subsection (b), there should be, to the extent consistent 
     with the legal and fiduciary duties otherwise imposed on 
     them, no future investment in any entity included on the list 
     by managers of United States Government pension plans or 
     thrift savings plans, managers of pension plans maintained in 
     the private sector by plan sponsors in the United States, and 
     managers of mutual funds sold or distributed in the United 
     States.

     SEC. 207. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--Section 2 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions 
     Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (4).
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--Section 3 of the Iran and Libya 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Policy With 
     Respect to Iran.--''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).
       (c) Termination of Sanctions.--Section 8 of the Iran and 
     Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Iran.--''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).
       (d) Duration of Sanctions; Presidential Waiver.--Section 
     9(c)(2)(C) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) an estimate of the significance of the provision of 
     the items described in section 5(a) or section 5(b) to Iran's 
     ability to, respectively, develop its petroleum resources or 
     its weapons of mass destruction or other military 
     capabilities; and''.
       (e) Reports Required.--Section 10(b)(1) of the Iran and 
     Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended 
     by striking ``and Libya'' each place it appears.
       (f) Definitions.--Section 14 of the Iran and Libya 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by--
       (i) striking ``, or with the Government of Libya or a 
     nongovernmental entity in Libya,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``nongovenmental'' and inserting 
     ``nongovernmental''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or Libya (as the 
     case may be)'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (12); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (13), (14), (15), (16), and 
     (17) as paragraphs (12), (13), (14), (15), and (16), 
     respectively.
       (g) Short Title.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions 
     Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking 
     ``and Libya''.
       (2) References.--Any reference in any other provision of 
     law, regulation, document, or other record of the United 
     States to the ``Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996'' shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the ``Iran Sanctions Act of 
     1996''.

TITLE III--DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO CURTAIL IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION 
               AND SPONSORSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

     SEC. 301. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress Relating to United Nations Security 
     Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that the President should instruct the 
     United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
     to work to secure support at the United Nations Security 
     Council for a resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran 
     as a result of its repeated breaches of its nuclear 
     nonproliferation obligations, to remain in effect until Iran 
     has verifiably dismantled its weapons of mass destruction 
     programs.
       (b) Prohibition on Assistance to Countries That Invest in 
     the Energy Sector of Iran.--
       (1) Withholding of assistance.--If, on or after April 13, 
     2005, a foreign person (as defined in section 14 of the Iran 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as renamed 
     pursuant to section 208(g)(1)) or an agency or 
     instrumentality of a foreign government has more than 
     $20,000,000 invested in Iran's energy sector, the President 
     shall, until the date on which such person or agency or 
     instrumentality of such government terminates such 
     investment, withhold assistance under the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) to the government of the 
     country to which such person owes allegiance or to which 
     control is exercised over such agency or instrumentality.
       (2) Waiver.--Assistance prohibited by this section may be 
     furnished to the government of a foreign country described in 
     subsection (a) if the President determines that furnishing 
     such assistance is important to the national security 
     interests of the United States, furthers the goals described 
     in this Act, and, not later that 15 days before obligating 
     such assistance, notifies the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of such 
     determination and submits to such committees a report that 
     includes--
       (A) a statement of the determination;
       (B) a detailed explanation of the assistance to be 
     provided;
       (C) the estimated dollar amount of the assistance; and
       (D) an explanation of how the assistance furthers United 
     States national security interests.

     SEC. 302. STRENGTHENING THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons (commonly referred to as the ``Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty'' or ``NPT'') states that countries 
     that are parties to the Treaty have the ``inalienable right . 
     . . to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy 
     for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in 
     conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.''.
       (2) Iran has manipulated Article IV of the Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty to acquire technologies needed to 
     manufacture nuclear weapons under the guise of developing 
     peaceful nuclear technology.
       (3) Legal authorities, diplomatic historians, and officials 
     closely involved in the negotiation and ratification of the 
     Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty state that the Treaty neither 
     recognizes nor protects such a per se right to all nuclear 
     technology, such as enrichment and reprocessing, but rather 
     affirms that the right to the use of peaceful nuclear energy 
     is qualified.
       (b) Declaration of Congress Regarding United States Policy 
     to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.--Congress 
     declares that it should be the policy of

[[Page H1757]]

     the United States to support diplomatic efforts to end the 
     manipulation of Article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty, as undertaken by Iran, without undermining the Treaty 
     itself.

                      TITLE IV--DEMOCRACY IN IRAN

     SEC. 401. DECLARATION OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES 
                   POLICY TOWARD IRAN.

       (a) In General.--Congress declares that it should be the 
     policy of the United States to support independent human 
     rights and peaceful pro-democracy forces in Iran.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran.

     SEC. 402. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN IRAN.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to provide 
     financial and political assistance (including the award of 
     grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, 
     and entities that support democracy and the promotion of 
     democracy in Iran. Such assistance may include the award of 
     grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and 
     television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into 
     Iran.
       (2) Limitation on assistance.--In accordance with the rule 
     of construction described in subsection (b) of section 401, 
     none of the funds authorized under this section shall be used 
     to support the use of force against Iran.
       (b) Eligibility for Assistance.--Financial and political 
     assistance under this section may be provided only to an 
     individual, organization, or entity that--
       (1) officially opposes the use of violence and terrorism 
     and has not been designated as a foreign terrorist 
     organization under section 219 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) at any time during the 
     preceding four years;
       (2) advocates the adherence by Iran to nonproliferation 
     regimes for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
     materiel;
       (3) is dedicated to democratic values and supports the 
     adoption of a democratic form of government in Iran;
       (4) is dedicated to respect for human rights, including the 
     fundamental equality of women;
       (5) works to establish equality of opportunity for people; 
     and
       (6) supports freedom of the press, freedom of speech, 
     freedom of association, and freedom of religion.
       (c) Funding.--The President may provide assistance under 
     this section using--
       (1) funds available to the Middle East Partnership 
     Initiative (MEPI), the Broader Middle East and North Africa 
     Initiative, and the Human Rights and Democracy Fund; and
       (2) amounts made available pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations under subsection (g).
       (d) Notification.--Not later than 15 days before each 
     obligation of assistance under this section, and in 
     accordance with the procedures under section 634A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-l), the 
     President shall notify the Committee on International 
     Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Such 
     notification shall include, as practicable, the types of 
     programs supported by such assistance and the recipients of 
     such assistance.
       (e) Sense of Congress Regarding Diplomatic Assistance.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) contacts should be expanded with opposition groups in 
     Iran that meet the criteria under subsection (b);
       (2) support for a transition to democracy in Iran should be 
     expressed by United States representatives and officials in 
     all appropriate international fora;
       (3) efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program 
     of Iran, including steps to end the supply of nuclear 
     components or fuel to Iran, should be intensified, with 
     particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding 
     such program--
       (A) between the Government of Iran and the Government of 
     the Russian Federation; and
       (B) between the Government of Iran and individuals from 
     China and Pakistan, including the network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer 
     (A. Q.) Khan; and
       (4) officials and representatives of the United States 
     should--
       (A) strongly and unequivocally support indigenous efforts 
     in Iran calling for free, transparent, and democratic 
     elections; and
       (B) draw international attention to violations by the 
     Government of Iran of human rights, freedom of religion, 
     freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of State such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 403. WAIVER OF CERTAIN EXPORT LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.

       The Secretary of State may, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, waive the requirement to obtain a 
     license for the export to, or by, any person to whom the 
     Department of State has provided a grant under a program to 
     promote democracy or human rights abroad, any item which is 
     commercially available in the United States without 
     government license or permit, to the extent that such export 
     would be used exclusively for carrying out the purposes of 
     the grant.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I request the time in opposition if neither 
gentleman is opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California support 
the motion?
  Mr. LANTOS. Yes, I support the motion, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
entitled to control 20 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in very strong support of H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support 
Act. And I want to thank our colleague from Florida, Chairman Ros-
Lehtinen, for sponsoring this important legislation. I am proud to be 
an original cosponsor.
  The United States and the world community, Madam Speaker, are at a 
crucial point in our efforts to prevent Iran from producing nuclear 
weapons. Let us be clear: Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will be 
a devastating blow to peace and security not only in the Middle East 
but in the entire world.
  Iran has been designated, as we know, as a ``State Sponsor of 
Terrorism'' for over two decades. The Department of State has declared 
in its most recent Country Reports on Terrorism that Iran ``remained 
the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world.'' Iran 
maintains ``a high profile role,'' they go on to say, ``in encouraging 
antiIsraeli terrorist activity, both rhetorically and operationally,'' 
according to the State Department. Supreme religious leader Khamenei 
does not just praise Palestinian terrorist operations; Iran also 
provides Lebanese and Palestinian terrorist groups, most notably Hamas, 
with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iran has now pledged 
to contribute $50 million to Hamas so that the Hamas regime in 
Palestine can continue to resist international pressure to recognize 
Israel's right to exist.
  In October Iran's President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be 
``wiped off the map.'' In December he declared the Holocaust ``a 
myth.'' Last Monday he attacked Israel as a ``fake regime'' that 
``cannot logically continue to live.'' Can we doubt that such people 
are capable of carrying out their threats if they ever acquire the 
means to do so? Have we learned nothing in 60 years?
  This prudent measure will strengthen our sanctions regime against 
Iran's nuclear weapons proliferation. To keep up economic pressure, the 
bill tightens the existing sanctions against Iran by requiring a yes-
or-no decision on whether to impose sanctions on firms reported to be 
making investments in the Iranian petroleum sector. The bill also 
amends the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA, Public Law 104-172, to 
eliminate the 5-year sunset clause included in the original ILSA. We 
should certainly not give the Iranians the impression that they can 
wait us out on the sanctions issue.
  The bill requires that all bilateral U.S. sanctions, controls, and 
regulations on Iran related to weapons of mass destruction remain in 
effect until Iran has verifiably dismantled its WMD programs. The bill 
also provides the means and moral pressure to encourage American 
investors and American pension plans to divest from companies

[[Page H1758]]

that invest in Iran's energy sector. Such investment can be a powerful 
tool in our efforts to stop Iran's march towards nuclear weapons.
  In February, Madam Speaker, H. Con. Res. 341 passed overwhelmingly by 
this House, 404-4. We called on all members of the U.N. Security 
Council, in particular the Russian Federation and the People's Republic 
of China, to take expeditious action in response to Iran's 
noncompliance with the mandate of the Security Council, and it calls on 
``all responsible members of the international community'' to impose 
economic sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear 
weapons.
  We were severely criticized by many members of the world community, 
Madam Speaker, for not relying on the Security Council and on sanctions 
in our confrontation with Saddam Hussein. Now is the time for the world 
community, for China and Russia especially, to show that they are 
indeed responsible members of the international community and take 
effective action to stop this terrorist regime in Iran.
  Time is running out. The world needs to act now. The Bush 
administration deserves high praise for working with our friends to get 
Iran to the Security Council where once again next week it will be on 
the agenda.
  This bill renews our call for diplomatic and multilateral action and 
will strengthen the President's hand with our international partners.
  Finally, we must work to change Iran itself by working to promote 
democracy and human rights within Iran. This bill authorizes the 
President to provide democracy assistance to individuals who are 
working through exclusively peaceful means to support democracy and 
promote democracy in Iran. It does not in any way authorize the use of 
force.
  The bill was introduced, as I noted, by our friend and colleague Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who has devoted tremendous efforts to secure 
its passage. She now has 360 cosponsors. Chairman Hyde had asked her to 
manage the bill, but she has a family emergency in Florida that 
required her to leave for Florida and to be with her family. Our 
thoughts and prayers are with her during this time.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I sought the time in opposition mainly because it is a 
very opportune time to talk about our foreign policy and the 
disadvantages that intervention poses for us.
  There are two types of foreign policy we can have: interventionism, 
where we tell other people what to do; and the more traditional 
American foreign policy of nonintervention and not using force to tell 
other people what to do. The policy of foreign intervention has been 
around a long time, and it is not only one party that endorses it. In 
1998 we had a similar bill come up to the floor. It was called the 
Iraqi Freedom Act. And that was the preliminary stages of leading to a 
war, which is a very unpopular, very expensive, and deadly war going on 
right now in Iraq. So this is a similar bill moving in that direction.

                              {time}  1115

  The 1998 resolution, which required regime change and laid the plans 
out for regime change, did not come up under this administration. That 
occurred with the previous administration.
  But I have no qualms about the goals of the authors of this 
legislation. They would like to see freedom in Iran. I would, too. It 
is just that I believe the use of force backfires on us, and when we 
use force such as sanctions and subsidizing and giving money to 
dissidents, what we really do is the opposite of what we want. Those 
individuals who are trying to promote more freedom in Iran actually are 
forced to ally themselves with the radicals, so instead of undermining 
the system, it has made it worse. It is always argued that they will 
welcome us when we march in as liberators, and Iraq proved that that 
was not the case. Iran won't be much better.
  But let me just say a few things about interventionism. 
Interventionism, which is essentially something that was gradually 
developed over the 20th century, led to a century of war and killing 
and was very expensive to the American people in costs. It means that 
we assume the moral right and the constitutional authority to be 
involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and yet there is no 
moral right for us to get involved in the internal affairs of other 
countries, and there is no constitutional authority for us to do so.
  We are not designated as ``the nation builder.'' No matter how well-
intended it is, it doesn't work, and we don't have this authority to do 
this. We have not been designated the ``policeman of the world,'' 
although we have assumed that role more so every year, and that has 
been going on for several decades.
  There are always more costs than anybody imagines. Iraq was supposed 
to cost $50 billion. It is now hundreds of billions of dollars. There 
is economic harm done. There is inflation that it causes. Yet it 
continues, and instead of coming to an end, it tends to spread. That is 
why I fear this so much.
  I see the way we are dealing with Iran as just spreading a problem 
that we contributed to in the Middle East. Too many innocent lives are 
lost, innocent American lives, GIs that go over and are killed so 
needlessly, especially since we don't achieve the goal of bringing 
freedom and liberty and democracy to these countries.
  Interventionism endorses the principle that we have this authority to 
change regimes. We have been doing it for more than 50 years through 
activities of the CIA in a secret manner, and now we are doing it in a 
much more open manner where we literally invade countries. We initiate 
the force. We start the war because we believe that we have a monopoly 
on goodness that we can spread and teach other people to understand and 
live with.
  There are too many unintended consequences, too much blow-back. It 
comes back to harm us in the long run. At one time we were an ally of 
Saddam Hussein. At one time we were an ally of Osama bin Laden. These 
things don't work out the way we think they are going to.
  The one thing that interventionism endorses, which I strongly 
disagree with, it really deemphasizes diplomacy. It deemphasizes it to 
the point where if we don't feel like it, we are not willing to talk to 
people. When we feel like it, we might demagogue it and pretend we are 
talking. But it really doesn't encourage diplomacy.
  Another reason why interventionism is so bad for us, it encourages 
special interests to get behind our foreign policy and endorse what we 
are doing and influence what we are doing, possibly another country and 
possibly some industry that might influence us.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The 
single-most important action that we will take today is to ensure that 
the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act is not extended. Libya no longer needs to 
be subject to such punitive measures. It is our partner in the global 
goal of controlling the spread of unconventional weapons.
  In December 2003, Libya took a bold and courageous step. It pledged 
to rid itself of all weapons of mass destruction. I was in Tripoli 
immediately thereafter in January 2004 to encourage the leadership of 
Libya to follow through with its stated goal. After that, Libya loaded 
its nuclear weapons onto American ships. These weapons, together with 
all detailed plans and programs, are today under lock and key in 
Tennessee. As a result, the legislation now before us removes all 
references to Libya from the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. ILSA, Madam 
Speaker, is dead, and the Iran Sanctions Act will rise in its place.
  The weight of American sanctions will now be focused exclusively on 
Iran because the mullahs in Tehran continue to pursue blatantly their 
nuclear ambitions. The message to Tehran is simple: follow the Libya 
model, and we in Congress are more than prepared to open a new, 
constructive and happy chapter in U.S.-Iranian relations.
  Madam Speaker, the Iran Freedom Support Act will dramatically ratchet 
up the economic pressure on Tehran to abandon its head-long pursuit of 
nuclear weapons. If we fail to use both our economic and our diplomatic 
tools, the world will face a nightmare that

[[Page H1759]]

knows no end; a despotic, fundamentalist regime that avidly supports 
terrorism, exploiting and threatening to use the ultimate weapon of 
terror.
  Just yesterday the leader of Iran indicated that they stand ready to 
share their nuclear technology with the Government of Sudan, which as 
we speak here this morning is engaged in genocide in Darfur. This is 
the regime that we are dealing with.
  It is very naive, Madam Speaker, to expect that we can convince Iran 
to end its nuclear program voluntarily based on reason. We can only 
hope to inflict economic pain at the highest levels in Tehran and 
starve the Iranian leadership of the resources it needs to fund a 
costly nuclear program. And that is the purpose of our legislation.
  Some argue that this legislation might undermine our relations with 
European allies which invest in Iran, but who have also helped lead an 
important diplomatic effort to bring the Iranian nuclear issue to the 
U.N. Security Council. But that argument, Madam Speaker, is a pure and 
simple misreading of the contents of our bill.
  Our legislation is intended to reinforce diplomacy with economics. We 
ask our allies to do what the United States did over a decade ago, 
divest from Iran's energy sector, the cash cow of the ayatollahs' 
nuclear plans.
  At the same time, our legislation does not put the President in a 
straitjacket. If a verifiable deal to eliminate Iran's nuclear program 
can be negotiated, or if certain sanctions will undermine the national 
security of our own Nation, the President may waive implementation of 
our law.
  But, Madam Speaker, let me be clear on one point: Congress will no 
longer tolerate lax enforcement of American sanctions against Iran. For 
over a decade both Democratic and Republican administrations failed to 
implement the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act measures that we do have in 
place. Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear program has marched forward at a 
frighteningly rapid pace.
  Our legislation will extend the Iran Sanctions Act indefinitely. It 
will dramatically boost congressional oversight over its 
implementation. The administration will have to enforce the law fully. 
Ignoring the law will no longer be an option.
  I commend the administration for convincing the International Atomic 
Energy Agency in Vienna to send its Iran file to the U.N. Security 
Council. Unfortunately, the Russians have already made clear that the 
Security Council action will be impeded by them. Just last week, the 
Russian Foreign Minister announced that Moscow would only consider U.N. 
sanctions on Iran if it were shown what it called concrete proof of 
Iran's nonpeaceful intentions.
  Madam Speaker, what gall. As we all know, there is no shortage of 
proof to be found in the numerous International Atomic Energy Agency 
reports over recent years. These reports demonstrate conclusively that 
for two decades, for two decades, Iran has run a clandestine nuclear 
program in violation of its commitments under the treaty of the 
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
  I can't help but wonder what the Russians require as proof. Perhaps 
Iran parading a nuclear device through the streets of Tehran, or Israel 
being wiped off the map, as the Iranian President has declared.
  The leadership in Moscow ought to know that support for terrorists is 
not a policy that the United States or other civilized nations will 
accept, especially from a country that expects to be treated as a 
member of the G-8 nations, seven of which are a true democracy. Russia 
clearly is not.
  Madam Speaker, I would be delighted if our legislation were rendered 
redundant by serious Security Council action, but the attitudes shown 
by Russia and China thus far show that that is a most unlikely 
development. In the meantime, we cannot shirk our responsibility to 
employ every peaceful means possible to undermine Iran's ugly nuclear 
ambitions. That, in essence, is the reason for the urgency of passing 
H.R. 282 today.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill for the sake of staving 
off a looming, long-term nuclear threat, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do as well.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be 
controlled by my good friend, our colleague from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
since I have responsibilities in the International Relations Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) will now control the time that the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) previously had controlled.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds for a quick quote, 
and then I am going to yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  The quote: ``The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into 
a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. 
They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. 
The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have 
been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody 
and inefficient than the public knows. We are today not far from a 
disaster.''
  This comes from Lawrence of Arabia, 1920. We should learn from our 
mistakes and other countries' mistakes.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this resolution.
  One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that I argued against our invasion 
of Iraq long before the war began was because I felt we needed to face 
far more serious threats like the danger posed by Iran. In the 3 years 
since that attack, the threat from Iran has grown, and our capacity to 
meet that threat has diminished. Now Iran has a President who exploits 
Iranian national grievances to consolidate power and has threatened to 
wipe Israel off the map. Our troops are bogged down in Iraq, placing 
them at risk should Iran launch a new wave of terrorism.

                              {time}  1130

  We have done nothing to break our dependency on oil, the control of 
which gives Iran its greatest ability now to blackmail us and other 
countries.
  I appreciate the leadership of my good friend Mr. Lantos and others 
bringing the resolution forward to spotlight the problems with Iran. I 
appreciate their working with us to improve the bill.
  For instance, now the bill will not allow us to deal with terrorist 
groups on our own watch list. I think that is very, very important. 
Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide solutions. Instead it 
limits the administration's flexibility to pursue diplomacy without 
providing any new tools not already at their disposal.
  We need allies and partners to address the Iranian threat. We need 
the cooperation of the European Union, of China and, yes, Russia, since 
we have no more unilateral sanctions to place on Iran.
  Our global standing is at a low point. Yet this bill sanctions not 
Iran, but the very countries we need for a strong diplomatic effort. 
This bill tragically gives equal weight to overthrowing the Iranian 
Government as it does to the immediate threat of nuclear proliferation.
  Now, I am strongly opposed to this regime, but preventing them from 
developing nuclear weapons capacity must be our first priority, not 
prioritizing behavior change over regime change. We pull the rug out 
from underneath anybody in the current Iranian leadership who values 
survival over the nuclear program, and it clearly works to eliminate 
incentives for diplomatic solutions.
  I have a sense of deja vu when I think back to the Iraq Liberation 
Act of 1998 which did not explicitly authorize the use of force, but 
certainly got the ball rolling that led to the tragedy of this Iraq 
war. Knowing what they know today, how many Members of this House would 
have voted differently 8 years ago?
  I am very worried about where all this ends. We have heard reports 
from the Pentagon of plans to attack Iran, indeed plans for a nuclear 
strike on Iran, the repercussions of which should make us all recoil 
with horror. Now, the administration dismisses these news reports, but 
the American people

[[Page H1760]]

and this Congress got better information about what happened in Iraq 
from reporters like Seymour Hirsch than it got from, sadly, the 
President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice.
  I do not pretend to imagine the horrific things that Iran would do 
with nuclear weapons. We are all opposed to that. That is why we need a 
strong, smart, constructive diplomatic strategy. This bill does not 
provide it.
  For over half a century, Madam Speaker, we have made a series of 
mistakes regarding Iran, starting in 1953 when the United States led 
the charge to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Iran 
and replace them with a dictatorship in the person of the Shah. Our 
support for that dictatorship and its repressive policies fueled the 
reaction that led to the Iranian revolution. It was part of what 
happened with the hostage crisis in Iran.
  More recently there are very credible reports that diplomatic feelers 
extended by the Iranian Government were dismissed by this 
administration 2 and 3 years ago. I sincerely hope that we do not 
overwhelmingly and unthinkingly pass a resolution today that makes us 
feel good because we all hate this regime, but instead sets in motion a 
process that actually is destabilizing and makes the peaceful future 
that we all seek harder.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
bill be extended by 40 minutes equally divided, and I yield 10 minutes 
of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which I ask he 
be permitted to control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, debates of this nature, I think, are wholly 
constructive in the life of the Nation. I rise today not just to 
support the Iran Freedom Support Act, but to engage in a thoughtful 
debate.
  I commend my colleagues, 360 of whom have cosponsored this 
legislation brought forward by the admirable Representative Ros-
Lehtinen of Florida and supported strongly by the International 
Relations Committee. But I also speak with admiration on behalf of my 
colleagues who are here debating and opposing this measure. In fact, 
the gentleman from Oregon just made some eloquent comments in which he 
called, and I paraphrase, with respect for strong, smart, diplomatic 
efforts.
  And while we may disagree on the meaning of those words, I would 
borrow them, Madam Speaker, to say that I believe that is precisely 
what the Iran Freedom Support Act is. It is strong, it is smart, and it 
is a diplomatic measure expressed by the Congress, the will of the 
American people, into a circumstance that is real, that is meaningful, 
and for which the clarity of the position of the United States of 
America is essential at this moment.
  Let me speak for just a second about the Iran Freedom Support Act, 
which does just a couple of things that are worth restating, and then I 
want to talk about the nature of this confrontation.
  This legislation attempts to deny the Iranian regime critical 
technical and financial resources to pursue unconventional weapons, 
incite terror and oppress the Iranian people. It is important to note 
that H.R. 282 does not authorize the use of force against Iran, despite 
the tone and tenor of some of the debate today.
  Specifically this bill requires that WMD-related U.S. sanction 
controls and regulations on Iraq remain in effect until Iran has 
verifiably dismantled its WMD program. It also authorizes the President 
to provide democracy assistance to foreign and domestic individuals and 
organizations promoting freedom within that country, and engages in a 
host of additional economic measures and sanctions, including amending 
the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act to recognize the historic gains that 
Ranking Member Lantos referred to in relation to our relationship with 
Libya.
  Now, that being said, I just want to talk as a Hoosier from the 
Midwest about the real stakes here, and about the nature of the present 
leadership in Iran, and the importance of us to speak as the one people 
and as one Nation forcefully into this diplomatic engagement.
  Listen to some of the quotes of the leadership of Iran today. 
President Ahmadinejad said in September of last year, ``Iran is ready 
to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their 
need.''
  We are not just dealing with nuclear proliferation within a country 
that has a long and profound history of association with terrorism, but 
one that desires to export nuclear technologies.
  President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ``God willing, 
with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world 
without the United States and without Zionism.'' And it was not long 
ago that he said that Iran would inflict both ``harm and pain on the 
United States.''
  And his threats against Israel in particular should be deeply 
offensive to every freedom-loving person in the world, and every 
American who cherishes our relationship with our ally, Israel. 
President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ``As the Imam said, 
Israel must be wiped off the map.'' And the President of Iran also 
said, ``Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the 
Islamic Nations' fury.''
  This is real, Madam Speaker. This is a confrontation that I pray we 
will be able to resolve with strong, smart, diplomatic efforts. But if 
the United States fails to act with clarity, including adopting the 
Iran Freedom Support Act, the potential consequences of inaction could 
be catastrophic.
  I urge my colleagues to join the 360 Members, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, who have supported this legislation when it comes to 
the floor later today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes strong sanctions as 
well as funding to dissident groups inside Iraq to overthrow that 
government. In my interpretation that is the use of force, and I yield 
6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the 
point that he made that is well taken.
  With all due respect to my colleagues who may have a difference of 
opinion about this bill, I think that most American people know that 
this administration has already made a mess of international relations 
with respect to the illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq.
  We now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, that 
Iraq was not cooperating with al Qaeda with respect to 9/11, that Iraq 
had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United 
States, and yet we took steps, starting with the policy of regime 
change, that took us into a war against Iraq that we clearly did not 
have to initiate, and we clearly should not be there.
  Now, if you love the steps which took this country into a war in 
Iraq, then you are going to like this bill because it does the same 
thing, which is why I rise in opposition to it. This bill sounds a lot 
like the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which many Members voted for in 
good faith, not knowing later on it would be evoked as a cause for the 
prosecution of war against Iraq.
  Overall this bill seriously inhibits the ability of the United States 
Government to use diplomacy, and diplomacy is the strongest and most 
rational tool we have to resolve the situation regarding Iran's nuclear 
program.
  Instead I submit that this bill sets our country on a path to war 
with Iran. You can be sure the Government of Iran will view this bill 
in this way. First, the bill makes it official U.S. policy to impose 
international sanctions through the U.N. Security Council for Iran's 
``repeated breaches'' of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations.
  Now, this sounds eerily familiar to actions pursued in the lead-up to 
the invasion of Iraq, and which, as we know, were for appearances only. 
Similarly, advocating international sanctions against Iran through the 
Security Council is for appearances only. This administration has 
apparently made up its mind it wants to attack Iran. There is evidence 
that the U.S.

[[Page H1761]]

military is already inside Iran, and I ask to include at this point in 
the debate an article from the New Yorker by Seymour Hirsch which 
asserts just that.
  Including this section in the bill that I just referred to is simply 
an attempt to cover the President's slap in the face of the 
international community with respect to Iran.
  Second, H.R. 282 also promotes regime change in Iran as opposed to 
behavior change, regime change as a solution to the stand-off regarding 
Iran's nuclear program. By advocating regime change, we indicate our 
priority is not, in fact, to encourage Iran to adhere to its 
nonproliferation treaty obligation, but to remove the leadership in 
Iran even if it were to make some concessions.

                              {time}  1145

  This communicates to the world community that, to the U.S., Iran has 
passed the point of no return, which completely undermines any efforts 
towards diplomacy and negotiations. Furthermore, while this bill makes 
the point of so-called not authorizing the use of force against Iran, 
be assured this is a stepping stone to the use of force, the same way 
that the Iraq Liberation Act was used as a stepping stone.
  Third, H.R. 282 supports antigovernment advocates in Iran promoting 
regime change. Now this is highly problematic. While an important 
amendment offered by my friend Congressman Blumenauer was adopted in 
this bill during markup to prohibit U.S. assistance to groups that are 
on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations or have been 
on the list for the last 4 years, there are ways around this.
  For example, according to a Newsweek article from February 14, 2005 
that the U.S. has been recruiting individuals from the MEK, a group 
currently labeled as terrorists by the State Department, who have 
agreed to form a new group with the same mission as the MEK, regime 
change in Iraq.
  I will insert this article from Newsweek in the Record at this point.

                     [From Newsweek, Feb. 14, 2006]

                      Looking for a Few Good Spies

       (By Christopher Dickey, Mark Hosenball and Michael Hirsh)

       This is a terrorist cultleader? Maryam Rajavi is dressed in 
     a Chanel-style suit with her skirt at midcalf, lilac colored 
     pumps and a matching headscarf. Over a dinner of kebab, rice 
     and French pastries, Rajavi smiles often and laughs easily. 
     She's at once colorful and demure, like many an educated 
     woman in the Middle East. Indeed if George W. Bush--who 
     relies on powerful females for counsel--were pressed to 
     identify a Muslim model of womanhood, this 51-year-old 
     Iranian would look very much the part.
       But of course that's exactly the impression Rajavi seeks to 
     give. Behind her smile is a saleswoman's savvy--and a 
     revolutionary's zeal to prove that she and her mysterious 
     husband, Massoud Rajavi, are neither cultists nor terrorists. 
     Maryam Rajavi is demanding that the exile groups they lead 
     together, centered on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy 
     Warriors) or MEK for short, should be taken off the State 
     Department's list of terrorist organizations, their assets 
     unfrozen and their energies unleashed. The MEK, Rajavi says, 
     is the answer to American prayers as Tehran continues to 
     dabble defiantly in both terrorism and nuclear arms. ``I 
     believe increasingly the Americans have come to realize that 
     the solution is an Iranian force that is able to get rid of 
     the Islamic fundamentalists in power in Iran,'' she told 
     Newsweek in a rare interview at her organization's compound 
     in the quiet French village of Auvers sur Oise. The group's 
     own former role in terrorist attacks dating back to its 
     support for the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979, Rajavi 
     insists, is ancient history. And the MEK is not a Jim Jones-
     like cult as critics allege, with forced separation between 
     men and women and indoctrination for children, all overseen 
     by the Rajavis' autocratic style. Instead, she insists, it is 
     ``a democratic force.''
       Whatever Rajavi's true colors, Newsweek has learned that 
     her role may be growing in the calculations of Bush 
     administration hard-liners. At a camp south of Baghdad--it's 
     called Ashraf, after Massoud Rajavi's assassinated first 
     wife--3,850 MEK members have been confined but gently treated 
     by U.S. forces since the invasion of Iraq (once they were 
     allies of Saddam against their own country in the 1980s Iran-
     Iraq war). Now the administration is seeking to cull useful 
     MEK members as operatives for use against Tehran, all while 
     insisting that it does not deal with the MEK as a group, 
     American government sources say.
       Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are 
     hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK 
     prisoners, then split away from the movement and given 
     training as spies, U.S. officials say. After that, the 
     thinking goes, they will be sent back to their native Iran to 
     gather intelligence on the Iranian clerical regime, 
     particularly its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Some 
     hawks also hope they could help to reawaken the democratic 
     reform movement in Iran, which the mullahs have silenced. 
     ``They [want] to make us mercenaries,'' one MEK official told 
     Newsweek.

  These individuals have been conducting military activity in Iran with 
United States support. I just wanted to remind everyone that the MEK 
was the group responsible for the U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran in 
1979. This group also had a camp in Iraq where Osama bin Laden's first 
fighters were reportedly trained. The MEK also trained and supported 
Taliban fighters. Now we are recruiting help from members of the MEK 
which makes a total mockery of the so-called war on terror.
  Fourth, H.R. 282 states that it is U.S. policy to focus attention to 
stopping cooperation, stopping cooperation, between Iran, Russia, China 
and Pakistan. Considering Russia and China have the strongest leverage 
with Iran, yet are also opposed to Iran's violations of the 
Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, the U.S. should try to work with 
Russia and China to try to find a path to diplomacy, not to isolate 
Russia and China.
  In the end we are only isolating ourselves and setting our country on 
another unilateral path of war. Our troops are already extended in 
Iraq, and they are in a vulnerable position. Starting a war in Iran is 
the last thing we should be doing.
  I urge a vote against this dangerous bill. Stop this unilateralism. 
Work with diplomacy and work towards peace.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of the Iran Freedom Support Act. This legislation 
received strong bipartisan support when it was passed in the 
International Relations Committee last month.
  I commend my colleague from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for 
introducing this bill and working both sides of the aisle to produce 
this strong bipartisan piece of legislation.
  I would also like to thank my ranking member, Tom Lantos, for his 
continued leadership on ensuring that Iran does not gain access to 
nuclear weapons. This legislation is not the first step towards war, 
like I have heard some contend, but I believe a tightening of the 
current restrictions on Iran. We must use every tool we have, whether 
it be diplomatically or economically, to limit the development of 
Iran's nuclear weapons. Iran has shown time and time again that they do 
not respect the international community, or the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog.
  Iran made a deal with the international community when they designed 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that was to not seek nuclear 
weapons in exchange for civilian nuclear technology. Iran broke this 
deal 18 years ago when they began to pursue a secret nuclear program 
with the aim of producing enough material to create nuclear weapons to 
threaten the stability of the region and of the world. We cannot allow 
a terrorist state like Iran to attain such deadly weapons.
  On Monday of this week, Iranian President Ahmadinejad vowed to press 
ahead with uranium enrichment and boasted how he did not expect the 
United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on this terrorist 
state. This legislation is needed to let our allies know that the House 
of Representatives and the United States are serious about using 
economic means to isolate Iran and ensure they end their nuclear 
weapons ambitions. The permanent five members of the Security Council 
have all declared they are opposed to Iran gaining the knowledge to 
develop nuclear weapons, but words are sometimes not enough.
  When the IAEA presents its report to the Security Council on Friday, 
the members of the Security Council must be prepared to move forward 
with sanctions if Iran chooses to remain in noncompliance of the IAEA. 
I hope this House speaks with a unified voice today to let our allies 
know we are serious about stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

[[Page H1762]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority 
whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 282, the 
Iran Freedom Support Act, and I particularly want to join in thanking 
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her efforts on this bill. The 
United States and the international community should hold the current 
regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior. We do need to 
encourage the Government of Iran to change.
  We need to focus on the danger of allowing the President of Iran, a 
man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is 
willing to support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and others, to 
be in control of the most dangerous weapons in the world. This is a 
serious test for the international community. Passing this bill alone 
will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, it will 
send a message that the United States considers any person or entity 
that helps Iran develop weapons of mass destruction to be an obstacle 
to peace and security.
  This bill also encourages the forces of democracy in Iran. Among all 
nations of the world, Iran has one of the longest and strongest 
national heritages, and many Iranian Americans join in these efforts to 
strengthen the potential for an Iran that proudly embraces freedom and 
proudly embraces the idea of the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is essential to the 
well-being and safety of our country, and the entire international 
community that the Iranian regime does not possess nuclear weapons to 
hold the world hostage, and that the Iranian people are allowed to move 
proudly toward freedom.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our chief deputy majority whip.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  I too rise today in strong support of the Iran Freedom Support Act, 
and I would like to also commend the leadership of Chairman Ros-
Lehtinen for her leadership on this bill and all those that she 
continues to fight for in the defense of freedom around the world.
  The world is clearly at a critical juncture. We are in the midst of 
waging a global war on terrorism to defend the free world from 
terrorists who seek not only to kill us, but to destroy our way of 
life. Make no mistake about it; the very essence of the rights and 
freedoms for which our forefathers fought are at stake.
  This bill that stands before us today is a key component of our war 
on terror. Iran is one of the largest state sponsors of terror in the 
world. They have funneled money and arms to terrorist cells throughout 
the Middle East, and have American blood on their hands. Iran, without 
a doubt, is one of the most dangerous threats to our national security 
and to world stability.
  Now Iran stands on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, yet 
another tool in its arsenal of terror and violence. Iran's President 
Ahmadinejad is a maniacal dictator who thrives on his hatred for the 
United States and its desire to destroy our freedom. The world cannot 
and will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
  It is not only the United States which is at risk, but our allies as 
well. President Ahmadinejad has made clear his intentions to wipe off 
the map Israel, our longest-standing democratic ally in the Middle 
East.
  This week, Madam Speaker, we commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust 
Memorial Day. We remember with great reverence and respect the victims 
of another maniacal dictator who threatened to wipe an entire people 
off the map and who wanted to impose his theory of a perfect society on 
the rest of the world.
  We must learn from our mistakes of the past to take these threats 
seriously and act hastily.
  The Iran Freedom Support Act is an important step in neutralizing the 
threat Iran poses to the world. I must stress, however, that passage of 
this bill should be the first step, not the last. God forbid we stand 
on this floor 60 years from now memorializing the victims of yet 
another Holocaust.
  Let us fulfill our pledge to never forget. Let us learn from the 
lessons of our history and continue to strengthen our tools to fight 
this global war on terror and preserve our freedoms.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to 
the gentleman from Iowa.
  I want to quote from Article IV of the NonProliferation Treaty of 
which Iran is a signator: ``Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted 
as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to 
develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful 
purposes without discrimination.''
  Our position is that they do not have the right to enrich. Those who 
deny the right to enrich are more in violation of the NPT Treaty than 
Iran itself.
  What do we do for those who are totally in defiance to international 
law in the NPT Treaty, like India and Pakistan? We reward them and 
subsidize them. At the same time, there is no proof that there has been 
any violation of this treaty by Iran, and yet the rewards go to those 
who are in total defiance.
  Madam Speaker, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach).
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I know of no circumstance in the world in 
which more options are all bad than this particular one. We all have to 
be clear-headed about the challenge of Iran. It is a more difficult 
society to deal with, a more difficult government than Iraq.
  It is absolutely clear that Iran does seek nuclear capacity. It is 
absolutely clear that Iran has been the greatest State promulgator of 
terrorist activity in the Middle East. Those are bases that we all have 
to understand.
  Then we have to think through what is our response and what are the 
kinds of strategies that the United States should develop and are there 
lessons that exist today that might lend to this circumstance.
  One of the lessons is that some things we do as a society can be 
counterproductive. All of us are concerned with the security and the 
fate of the State of Israel as well as the American national security, 
but if we think it through, does our policy in Iraq advance the 
security of Israel? Does a preemption of Iran advance the security of 
Israel? Does it advance the security of the United States?
  If the United States acts militarily, for instance, in Iran, do we 
spark and ensure the great prediction, that none of us want to come to 
pass, that we will enter into one of these clashes of civilization made 
inevitable by another war of the West against another Muslim State? 
Muslims would view this as a circumstance that the Judeo-Christian 
world is attacking the world of Muslim culture. We have to think deeply 
and seriously about this.
  Then when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is bad for Iran to have a 
nuclear weapon, but there are things that are worse. One of the things 
that is worse is to give them reason to use that nuclear weapon, 
whether it be against ourselves or an ally of the United States.
  The administration has informed the committee of jurisdiction that it 
profoundly opposes this piece of legislation and that it prefers a tack 
of stressing international diplomacy, and it is suggested to the 
committee in the strongest possible terms that this type of legislation 
undercuts their effort to be multilateral.

                              {time}  1200

  And so, while many Members of this body, many members of the public 
have objected to this administration for being too unilateral, this 
Congress is saying, with this kind of legislation, that we will be more 
unilateral than the administration wishes to be. In other words, with 
an administration that no one of any stripe would argue is not 
muscular--it is a very muscular administration--this Congress is trying 
to out-macho the muscular. That is something we should all think very 
seriously about.
  Then we ought to think through what it means if we go forth in a 
given kind of direction, which words like ``regime change'' imply. What 
does preemption mean? It is clear that if we

[[Page H1763]]

move in a muscular direction and, for example, preemptively strike 
Iraq, that that will slow down the capacity of Iraq to develop a 
nuclear weapon. But will it stop it? Not necessarily, partly because of 
the capacities Iran has to develop WMD capacity in a more decentralized 
way than Iraq once did, but there are other ways of getting nuclear 
weapons. One can get nuclear weapons through the ``loose nuke'' dilemma 
of purchase or theft. And if one gives Iran reason to attack, it will, 
and it will in many ways that are now available in the world through 
decentralized terrorist activities, but also potentially through 
nuclear. And the potential of nuclear use increases if they are 
attacked.
  Now we have the other option which is stressed in this bill--but the 
first, force being implied, but what is stressed is economic sanctions. 
So our two options are to shoot Iran or to shoot ourselves in the foot 
economically. And I will tell you that I can't think of anything that 
is more outrageous in logic. So I think we have to think through new 
types of approaches involving new ways of dialogue, new ways of 
international pressure of a very different nature than are proposed by 
this committee at this time.
  While I have enormous respect for the proponents of this legislation, 
particularly the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle 
East and Central Asia (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and our distinguished ranking 
member on the full committee (Mr. Lantos), I am convinced that in its 
present form the approach brought before this body complicates ongoing 
diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve the building crisis with Iran.
  Indeed, it is for this reason that the Department of State indicated 
that the Administration would be unable to support the legislation. As 
noted in a letter to Chairman Hyde, the bill would ``narrow in 
important ways the President's flexibility in the implementation of 
Iran sanctions, create tensions with countries whose help we need in 
dealing with Iran, and shift the focus away from Iran's actions and 
spotlight differences between us and our allies. This could play into 
Iran's hands, as it attempts to divide the U.S. from the international 
community as well as to sow division between the EU-3, China, and 
Russia. It would also create dissension among UNSC members, as the 
Council considers the Iran nuclear dossier.''
  There are few areas of the world with a more troubling mix of 
geopolitical problems than the Middle East. The irony is that the war 
in Iraq which has consumed so much of our country's political and 
economic capital may hold less far-reaching consequences than 
challenges posed in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.
  To the West, the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off remains the sorest 
point in world relations, complicated by the incapacitation of Ariel 
Sharon and the rise of a Hamas-led government in the occupied 
territories. To the East, the sobering prospect of Iran joining the 
nuclear club stands out.
  In life, individuals and countries sometimes face circumstances in 
which all judgments and options are bad. The Iranian dilemma is a case-
in-point. But it is more than just an abstract bad-option model because 
at issue are nuclear weapons in the hands of a mullah-controlled 
society which has actively aided and abetted regional terrorists for 
years.
  Indeed, the issue has become even more acute with the election in 
Iran of its hard-line, populist President, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, who 
suggested late last year that the murder of six million European Jews 
by the Nazis did not occur and called for Israel to be wiped off the 
map.
  In reference to recent disclosures of enhanced Iranian efforts to 
develop nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems to carry 
such weapons, concerned outside parties are actively reviewing options.
  The Europeans have led with diplomatic entreaties; neo-con 
strategists in the U.S. with open-option planning--including, if 
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is to be believed--the possible 
use of nuclear weapons.
  In the background are references to the 1981 preemptive strike by the 
Israeli Air Force against Iraq's Osirak reactor.
  At issue is the question of whether preemption is justified; if so, 
how it should be carried out; and, if carried out, whether intervention 
would lead to a more conciliatory, non-nuclear Iran or whether the 
effects of military action would be short-term, perhaps pushing back 
nuclear development a year or two, but precipitating a new level of 
hostility against the U.S. and Israel in Iran and the rest of the 
Muslim world which could continue for decades, if not centuries.
  Since the American hostage crisis which so bedeviled the Carter 
Administration in the late 1970s, we have had a policy of economic 
sanctions coupled with comprehensive efforts to politically isolate 
Iran.
  Six years ago, Senator Arlen Specter and I invited Iran's U.N. 
Ambassador to Capitol Hill, the first visit to Washington by a high-
level Iranian representative since the hostage crisis.
  On the subject of possible movement toward normalization of relations 
with Iran, I told the ambassador that while many would like to see a 
warming of relations, it would be inconceivable for the U.S. to 
consider normalizing our relationship so long as Iran continued its 
support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador forthrightly 
acknowledged that Iran provided help to both these terrorist 
organizations, but also noted, in what for some might be considered the 
most optimistic thing he said that day, that his government was 
prepared to cease support to anti-Israeli terrorist groups the moment a 
Palestinian state was established with borders acceptable to 
Palestinians.
  For decades in the Muslim world, debate has been on-going whether to 
embrace a credible two-state (Israel and Palestine) approach or advance 
an irrevocable push-Israel-to-the-sea agenda. The implicit Iranian 
position, as articulated by the ambassador, was support for a two-state 
approach, but if the U.S. on its own, or Israel as a perceived 
surrogate, were to attack Iran, the possibility that such a compromise 
can ever become possible deteriorates.
  While angst-ridden, the Muslim world understands the rationale for 
our intervention in Afghanistan where the plotting for the 9/11 attack 
on the U.S. occurred. It has no sympathy for our engagement in Iraq, 
which had nothing to do with 9/11, but if these two interventions were 
followed by a third in Iran, the likelihood is that such would be 
perceived in the vocabulary of the Harvard historian, Samuel 
Huntington, as an all-out ``clash of civilizations,'' pitting the 
Judeo-Christian against the Muslim world. In the Middle East it would 
be considered a war of choice precipitated by the United States. We 
might want it to be seen as a short-term action to halt the spread of 
nuclear weapons, but the Muslim world would more likely view it as a 
continuance of the Crusades: a religious conflict of centuries' 
dimensions, with a revived future.
  If military action is deemed necessary, the U.S. broadly has only 
three tactical options: (a) full-scale invasion a la Iraq; (b) surgical 
strikes of Iranian nuclear and missile installations; or (c) a 
surrogate strike by Israel, modeled along the lines of Osirak.
  The first can be described as manifestly more difficult than our 
engagement in Iraq, particularly a post-conflict occupation. The second 
presents a number of difficulties, including the comprehensiveness of 
such a strike and the question of whether all aspects of a program that 
is clandestine can be eliminated. The third makes the U.S. accountable 
for Israeli actions, which themselves are likely to be more physically 
destructive but less effective than the 1981 strike against Osirak.
  In thinking through the consequences of military action, even if 
projected to be successfully carried out, policymakers must put 
themselves in the place of a potential adversary. A strike that merely 
buys time may also be a strike that changes the manner and rationale of 
Iranian support for terrorist organizations. It may also change the 
geo-strategic reason and methodology for a country like Iran to garner 
control of nuclear weapons. ``Loose nukes'' abound. Countries with 
money and will can garner almost anything in the world despite efforts 
by the U.S. and others to make theft or sale difficult.
  It is presumed that the major reasons that Iran currently seeks 
nuclear weapons relates to: (1) Pride: a belief that a 5,000 year-old 
society has as much right to control the most modern of weapons systems 
as a younger civilization like America or its neighbors to the west, 
Israel, and to the east, Pakistan; (2) Power: the implications of 
control of nuclear weapons with regard to its perceived hegemony as the 
largest and most powerful country in the Persian Gulf, particularly 
with regard to its nemesis, Iraq, which not only once attacked Kuwait, 
but Iran itself using chemical weapons; (3) Politics: the concern that 
Israeli military dominance is based in part on the control of weapons 
that cannot be balanced in the Muslim world, except by a very distant 
Pakistan.
  The issue of the day from an American perspective is weapons of mass 
destruction, their development and potential proliferation to nation-
states and non-national terrorist groups. The question that cannot be 
ducked is whether military action against Iran might add to the list of 
reasons Iran may wish to control such weapons: their potential use 
against the United States. Perhaps as significantly, American 
policymakers must think through the new world of terrorism and what 
might be described as lesser weapons of mass destruction.
  Any strike on Iran would be expected to immediately precipitate a 
violent reaction in the

[[Page H1764]]

Shi'a part of Iraq, where the U.S. has some support today. With ease, 
Iranian influence on the majority Shi'a of Iraq could make our ability 
to constructively influence the direction of change in Iraq near 
hopeless.
  And there should be little doubt that in a world in which ``tit for 
tat'' is the norm, a strike on Iran would increase the prospect of 
counter-strikes on American assets around the world and American 
territory itself. The asymmetrical nature of modem warfare is such that 
traditional armies will not be challenged in traditional ways. Nation-
states which are attacked may feel they have little option except to 
ally themselves with terrorist groups to advance national interests.
  We view terrorism as an illegitimate tool of uncivilized agents of 
change. In other parts of the world, increasing numbers of people view 
terrorist acts as legitimate responses of societies and, in some cases, 
groups within societies who are oppressed, against those who have 
stronger military forces.
  If Afghanistan, an impoverished country as distant from our shores as 
any in the world, could become a plotting place for international 
terrorism, such danger would increase manifoldly with an increase in 
Iranian hostility, especially if based on an American attack.
  If there exists today something like a one-in-three chance of another 
9/11-type incident or set of incidents in the U.S. in the next few 
years, a preemptive strike against Iran must be assumed to double or 
triple such a prospect.
  And Iran, far more than Osama bin-Laden, has within its power the 
ability not only to destabilize world politics, but world economies as 
well. Oil is, after all, the grease of economic activity, and an 
Iranian-led cutback in supply precipitated by us or them cannot be 
ruled out.
  Given the risk, if not the untenability, of military action, 
policymakers are obligated to review other than military options. One, 
which has characterized our post-hostage taking Iranian policy for a 
full generation, is isolation of Iran. This policy can be continued, 
but as tempting as it is, there is little prospect of ratcheting it up 
much more, except in ways, such as a naval embargo on Iranian oil, that 
would be difficult to garner international support for and would, in 
any regard, damage us more than Iran.
  The only logical alternative is to consider increasing dialogue 
without abandoning the possibility of future sanctions with this very 
difficult government.
  Iran--its government and people--has to be fully engaged, and I am 
pleased that U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad in Baghdad has been authorized 
to talk to the Iranians about the situation in Iraq. The Iranians 
played a stabilizing role regarding Afghanistan just several years ago, 
and logically they have a stake in a stable Iraq. I would urge the 
leadership in Tehran to re-think its apparent decision to close the 
door on this potentially productive avenue for dialogue.
  With respect to the Iranian nuclear program, however, it is difficult 
to see how confrontation can be avoided if we will not talk directly 
with Tehran in appropriate foras about this and other matters. The 
stakes could not be higher. If diplomacy fails, there is a credible 
prospect that Iran will follow the North Korean model of rapid crisis 
escalation, including the cessation of international inspections, with 
a wholly unsupervised nuclear program leading in time to the production 
of nuclear weapons and the dangerously unpredictable regional 
consequences that might flow from that; or a perilous move to an Iraq-
like preventive military strike, with even more far-reaching and 
alarming consequences both regionally and world-wide.
  A proposal that might be suggested is negotiation of a Persian Gulf 
nuclear-free zone, which would reduce, although given the high 
possibility of cheating, not eliminate entirely one of the reasons Iran 
presumably seeks nuclear weapons--fear that it may be at a disadvantage 
in a conflict with an oil-rich neighbor. In this context, Iran, the EU 
and Russia, with U.S. support, might agree on a proposal under which 
Iran would indefinitely and verifiably suspend domestic enrichment 
activity in exchange for an internationally guaranteed fuel supply, 
U.S.-backed security assurances, and a gradual lifting of sanctions by 
and resumption of normal diplomatic relations with the U.S., including 
expanded country-to-country cultural ties.
  Here, it should be stressed, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have 
been educated in the United States. The people, although not the 
government of Iran, have democratic proclivities. While real power in 
Iran is controlled by the mullahs. Few societies in the world have if 
given a chance more potential to move quickly in a democratic direction 
than Iran. And just as it is hard to believe that outside military 
intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of 
authoritarian mullah rule, a bettering of U.S. relations with Iran 
provide a greater prospect of progressive change in Iranian society.
  There is nothing the new government of Iran, or for that matter Osama 
bin Laden and his al Qaeda movement, benefit more from than an 
aggressive, interventionist U.S. policy toward Iran.
  Finally, a note about arms control. If the U.S. wishes to lead in 
multilateral restraint, we might want to consider joining rather than 
rebuking the international community in development of a comprehensive 
test ban (CTB). All American administrations from Eisenhower on favored 
negotiation of a CTB. This one has taken the position the Senate took 
when it irrationally rejected such a ban seven years ago. The Senate 
took its angst against the strategic leadership of the Clinton 
Administration out on the wrong issue. This partisan, ideological 
posturing demands reconsideration. We simply cannot expect others to 
restrain themselves when we refuse to put constraints on ourselves.
  We are in a world where use of force can not be ruled out. But we are 
also in a world where alternatives are vastly preferable. They must be 
put forthrightly on the table.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished majority leader of 
the House of Representatives and an original cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for yielding, 
and I want to congratulate Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of 
the International Relations Committee, as well as Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for 
her work on this issue, and I rise strongly today to support H.R. 282, 
the Iran Freedom Support Act. The Iran Freedom Support Act sends, I 
think, a strong message: the United States expects Iran to be a 
responsible member of the international community.
  Iran has repeatedly asserted its rights to nuclear power, but its 
government has remained silent on their international obligations. Iran 
must be transparent in meeting its international nuclear obligations. 
In particular, Iran's refusal to answer the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's questions about critical elements of its nuclear power program 
is of deep concern to me.
  In addition, Iran's sponsorship of terrorism raises troubling 
questions about its true intentions and its long-term goals. It is 
impossible to have faith in a regime which spreads fear, violence, and 
disruption through its support of terrorist organizations and networks.
  I support President Bush's efforts to work with the United Nations 
Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to compel 
the Iranian regime to be a responsible member of the international 
community.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank Mr. Crowley for yielding time, Madam Speaker, 
and I rise in strong support of the Iran Freedom Support Act. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation and ask 
for its immediate passage.
  It would be difficult to overstate the danger Iran represents. 
Unchecked Iranian nuclear proliferation, combined with increasing 
support for international terrorism, will help to further destabilize 
the entire region.
  Iran currently possesses ballistic missiles capable of striking 1,200 
miles away. This places U.S. forces in this region, moderate Islamic 
Arab countries located in the region, as well as the State of Israel in 
grave danger. Imagine, if you will, if these missiles had nuclear 
delivery capability.
  For over two decades, the Iranian regime has been pursuing a covert 
and now overt nuclear program. It has manufactured centrifuges, sought 
completion of heavy-water reactors, and experimented with uranium 
enrichment. According to one weapons inspector, it has already 
converted 45 tons of uranium into gas, enough to build more than one 
nuclear bomb.
  In a perfect world, we should be able to rely on the United Nations 
to curb Iranian nuclear proliferation. In a perfect world, the eight 
reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iran's 
violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be enough to 
motivate action. In a perfect world, all of the members of the Security 
Council would appreciate the seriousness and catastrophe of a nuclear 
Iran. But since we cannot count on the international community, China 
and Russia are far too interested in Iranian oil and Iranian trade 
money, the

[[Page H1765]]

United States must step up the pressure and do what is right.
  This bill, in my opinion, accomplishes that goal. U.S. sanctions 
would dramatically increase the pressure on the Iranian regime to give 
up their nuclear ambitions and allow international inspections of their 
facilities. Since the President of Iran was elected last summer, Iran's 
stock market has lost 40 percent of its value, there has been a capital 
flight of more than $200 billion, and Iran's manufacturing sector is 
increasingly dependent on imports. Iran is struggling financially. This 
legislation will further squeeze Iran and deny it the financial 
resources to continue its path towards nuclear armament.
  There is no debate, not anywhere, not in this body, that Iran is a 
radical and fundamentalist country headed by a President who is willing 
to share nuclear technology with the most unstable countries in the 
world, and by mullahs who raise religious fanaticism to a new art form. 
Every pronouncement this President makes further dramatizes how 
mentally unstable and unbalanced and dangerous he is. The United States 
must act quickly and decisively if we are to counter the continuing 
threat posed by the Iranian regime. We must deny Iran the technology 
and assistance and financial resources it needs to pursue this 
unacceptable behavior.
  I have no illusions. I can't guarantee that the sanctions contained 
in this bill will have the desired effect, but I do know that it is a 
far better alternative to invading Iran or bombing Iran. And unlike the 
Iraq Freedom Act, which many people have cited today as a reason not to 
pass this particular piece of legislation, there is nothing in this act 
that we are debating today, there is nothing in this legislation that 
can be construed as authorizing use of force against Iran, and none of 
the assistance should be used to support covert action that is 
contained in the legislation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Indiana, and I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I 
want to compliment Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Lantos 
for this bill. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I 
condemn the actions and statements of the Iranian Government.
  I believe this is one of the greatest crises since the end of the 
Cold War, and we have to be up to the challenge. Under the guise of 
saying it needs to meet its own energy needs, Iran has, for years, been 
engaged in secret efforts to develop nuclear technology that has 
weapons capability.
  Let us be very clear. Iran is lying when she says she wants to use 
this for peaceful purposes. Iran is a major oil exporter and doesn't 
need nuclear power for peaceful purposes. She is doing this for one 
reason and one reason only: to be hostile; defying and misleading the 
international community.
  Iran's President Ahmadinejad has gone to extremes to stir up anti-
American and anti-Israel sentiment in Iran and throughout the Arab 
world. Not only, as was stated before, has he publicly declared his 
hope for ``a world without America,'' he has also stated his desire 
``to wipe Israel off the map.''
  These remarks demonstrate a gross disregard for the rule of law, 
human life, and the core principles of the United Nations. I 
wholeheartedly support the United Nations Security Council's looking 
into taking swift and strong action to counter Iran's growing threat, 
and I urge prompt adoption of H.R. 282.
  This is a commonsense resolution. This has nothing to do with Iraq, 
to my colleagues who were talking about Iraq. There is no analogy here. 
This is another threat, and we have to stand up to the threat. If the 
world had stood up to Hitler in the 1930s, maybe the Holocaust wouldn't 
have happened. Maybe World War II wouldn't have happened. Every time 
there is a chance, society and the world has to stand up to prevent 
worse things from happening in the future. I don't want to be around if 
Iran detonates a nuclear weapon and say I stood here in Washington and 
was afraid to act.
  As Ms. Berkley pointed out, this resolution doesn't say anything 
about any kind of military action. We hope this can be resolved 
diplomatically, but, frankly, I believe that all options should be on 
the table. The military should be an absolute, absolute, ultimate last 
resort, but we have to tell these thugs in Iran that we are not going 
to stand idly by and allow them to be destructive, allow them to make 
threats, allow them to kill people, or allow them to have another 
Holocaust.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, there has been talk in the media and 
elsewhere about the necessity of bombing Iran, and we are talking today 
about regime change, which is an act of force, yet some of us believe 
we are acting too hastily. Others deny that; that something imminently 
is going to happen. But I want to read a little quote here from John 
Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. He says, ``Our 
assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is 
determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, we believe that it is still a 
number of years before they are likely to have enough fissile material 
to assemble into or put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next 
decade. So I think it is important that this issue be kept in 
perspective.'' This is John Negroponte. And I think those who are so 
eager to pass this legislation and move toward regime change are moving 
in the wrong direction too hastily, and there are a lot of analogies to 
this and to Iraq, so we caution you about that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I do think this is an important 
conversation for us to have on this floor. I am pleased that the debate 
time was extended, and I hope our colleagues will take the time to 
scroll through the information that is available and think of the 
consequences.
  For instance, I would enter into the record, a letter from Under 
Secretary of State Nick Burns to Chairman Hyde. I will just quote a 
little and then insert the rest in the Record.

       We have enormous concerns about this proposed legislation, 
     particularly title II. These provisions would impair our 
     ability to continue working closely and successfully with our 
     allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses.

  Nobody here, nobody here, apologizes for this regime. And my good 
friend from Indiana is correct, there is a lot of shared interest and 
deep concern. The notion that this despotic regime would have control 
of nuclear weapons is terrifying, absolutely terrifying.
  We long for the day that the Iranian people are free, in no small 
measure because the United States' history with the Iranian people over 
more than half a century is one where we have not always been on the 
side of democracy for the Iranian people, overthrowing their 
democratically elected regime in 1953. That was not a proud moment in 
our history when we helped install a dictator, but we called him the 
Shah.
  We are united in our commitment to deal meaningfully with this 
problem. This legislation, as the administration has made clear, falls 
short of the mark. It is not tightening our sanctions against Iran.

                              {time}  1215

  We have done that.
  There have been administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who 
have maybe not been as zealous in implementing those sanctions; but 
that is on the books. We have done it.
  What this talks about doing is extending sanctions against the very 
people whose cooperation we need to solve this problem. We are 
confusing our goals. Is it more important to threaten a regime change 
and thereby consolidate it? This Government of Iran by all indications 
is not monolithic. There are people who disagree with the sad and 
repulsive face of the current leader. There are a vast number of young 
people in Iran who are not at this point violently anti-American. They 
are pro-Western. There is interest in the United States. If we misplay 
this, we can end up turning another generation against us in Iran.
  We have had empty threats against North Korea that did not stop them 
from going full speed ahead developing nuclear weapons, in fact, we are 
probably less safe today because we have not been focused and 
effective.
  I do strongly identify with the words of my friend, the gentleman 
from Iowa

[[Page H1766]]

(Mr. Leach). I have been one who has been somewhat critical of this 
administration in its actions in the past. I would find it absolutely 
inappropriate to not reinforce when I think they are trying to 
reposition themselves vis-a-vis Iran. There are many people on our side 
of the aisle who were against the rush to war in Iraq and many more who 
have found that it was a mistake to do so. We have supported more 
diplomatic initiatives, and this is the opportunity we have now.
  This legislation is not each-handed. It is not focused. The 
administration does not want it. It sanctions our allies. I strongly 
urge that we do things that are coming down the pike now that we in 
Congress can do that will make a difference in Iran. Think about how we 
deal with India and nuclear weapons. This is a decision that is looming 
ahead of us that will make a difference for China and other countries 
that have nuclear technology about how we treat them in that situation.
  And for heaven's sake, when people have suddenly discovered $3-a-
gallon gasoline and that we are addicted to foreign oil, which is part 
of Iran's strength right now, maybe we in Congress can forget the goofy 
energy bill we passed and get serious about conservation, alternative 
energy, increasing fuel standards and giving full value to the American 
public for our oil and gas resources. These are things that we can do 
now that will make a difference. Let the administration do its job 
diplomatically; provide oversight, but do not go over the edge with 
this legislation.


                                          Department of State,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to comment on HR 282, the 
     ``Iran Freedom Support Act of 2005,'' that currently is 
     pending before your Committee.
       We have serious concerns about this proposed legislation, 
     particularly Title II, which would amend the Iran and Libya 
     Sanctions Act (ILSA). These provisions would impair our 
     ability to continue working closely and successfully with our 
     allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses.
       The Iran issue is sensitive and critically important. The 
     September 24 IAEA resolution, tabled by the EU-3 (Germany, 
     the UK, and France), was an important step forward. We are 
     going to have to continue working with our international 
     partners to isolate Iran and to build and maintain an 
     international coalition to ensure that Iran does not acquire 
     a nuclear weapons capability. In doing so, the President 
     needs the flexibility that HR 282 would impede.
       I note that one portion of the bill, Title IV, regarding 
     support for democracy in Iran, could, with relatively minor 
     modifications, make a positive contribution to our Iran 
     objectives, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with 
     Congress in developing this approach.
           Sincerely,
                                                R. Nicholas Burns,
                   Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There have been repeated assertions by several of my colleagues today 
about the administration's position on the bill we are considering 
today. In fact, it has been characterized repeatedly by several 
colleagues that the administration ``strongly opposes'' this 
legislation.
  With great respect to my colleagues, they are referring specifically 
to an administration letter that expressed an opinion to the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations before the bill provided 
further flexibility to the President, and it is not a response to the 
text of the bill we are considering today. The administration has not 
taken a position on the legislation, as amended, that we are 
considering today.
  In specific reference to the concerns that were addressed, I would 
like to address title II of the legislation before I recognize the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Title II of the bill was the focus of the administration's letter, 
and it had to do in particular with that section concerning the ability 
of the President of the United States to waive certain provisions of 
this act in the national interest. The legislation that we consider 
today states that the President may on a case-by-case basis waive for a 
period of not more than 6 months with respect to national security the 
certifications required in this bill if such a waiver is ``vital to the 
national security interests of the country'' and the country of the 
national has undertaken substantial measures to prevent the acquisition 
and development of weapons of mass destruction.
  What we in effect did here is we lowered the threshold significantly 
for the President's waiver in this case. It is significant that the 
administration has not expressed opposition to the legislation, as 
amended. For the sake of clarity of the record, I wanted to add that to 
our debate today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon), the distinguished vice chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and the leaders for bringing this bill forward.
  I just want to refresh the memories of my colleagues who say we 
should not take any action. It was in 1997 when we had evidence that 
Iran was getting cooperation on developing a missile system that we 
brought a bill before this body called the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. 
For my colleagues who were not here, 398 Members voted ``yes,'' 98 
Senators voted ``yes,'' the White House opposed the bill, and President 
Clinton vetoed the bill that year because he said we did not need it.
  Last summer, Iran paraded the Shabab III missile system down the 
streets of Tehran. It is completed. It is the most capable offensive 
system in the Middle East. We could have stopped it and we didn't.
  Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years I have been feeding the CIA 
information about Iran's efforts to undermine Iraq, the Middle East, 
and to foment terrorism around the world. It got so uncomfortable that 
I had to write a book. Everything that I said that I gave to the CIA 
for the past 3 years is now true: the support for Bani Sadr, the 
efforts for taking two teams up into North Korea to acquire nuclear 
technology, the attempts to assassinate Mullah al-Sastani. All of those 
things are now verified, and all of them I told the CIA and they 
ignored.
  We do need to be aggressive with Iran and we need an approach that 
does not call for war. I am not for war with Iran. The people of Iran 
are not our enemy. It is a young nation. The people there want to be 
back as friends with America and the West. We need to work with those 
Iranians in exile, and that is what this legislation calls for.
  Madam Speaker, 2 months ago I was out in California where I spoke to 
the 13 largest Iranian radio and television stations that beamed by 
satellite into Iran. For 2 hours I spoke directly to the Iranian people 
by satellite, 12 million households. I came back 8 hours later and took 
calls from people inside of Iran.
  Madam Speaker, 400 Iranians called through the satellite and through 
cell phones to issue their recommendations and their questions to me 
live.
  Madam Speaker, only 1 of 400 supported the regime of Ahmadinejad and 
Ayatollah Khomeini, who really runs the government there. Every other 
caller said we need your help, we need to do what you did with Ukraine, 
you need to help us take back our government. You need to do what they 
did in Georgia, to have an internal revolution, to bring about change 
so we truly can be friends with the West. That is what this legislation 
calls for.
  But there is one other point this legislation does not focus on that 
I feel strongly about, and this was mentioned by my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). The closest nation 
to Iran is Russia, and what we have to do is renew our efforts 
diplomatically to have Russia play a significant role to peacefully 
convince the people of Iran to get their government to back off of this 
nasty rhetoric and of this effort to build up this offensive capability 
using WMD, including nuclear weapons. This is of vital urgency for us. 
This is the number-one threat we face in the world.
  While this legislation may not be perfect, it certainly sends a 
signal that we are not going to do what we did back in 1997. We are not 
going to allow any administration to back us off from stopping the 
development of technology like the missile system that Iran currently 
possesses.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me 
this time.

[[Page H1767]]

  Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the comments that have been made 
on this floor about the dilemma we have now in Iran as a result of our 
policies in Iraq. I opposed the U.S. involvement in Iraq. I thought it 
was wrong. And as one of the consequences, it has caused us to lose 
focus on our war against terror and to make it more difficult for us to 
deal with Iran.
  Having said that, I think this is an important bill that we need to 
move forward. It is an important effort to make it clear that Iran 
cannot be permitted to become a nuclear weapons power.
  Madam Speaker, let me point out some of the proudest moments in U.S. 
history have been the use of sanctions. I think back about U.S. 
leadership and imposing sanctions basically against the Soviet Union 
which allowed people to be able to leave that country.
  I think back about the U.S. leadership in South Africa when it was an 
apartheid country and how we imposed sanctions against South Africa and 
were accused of causing problems in doing that. But what we did was 
bring down the apartheid Government of South Africa without the 
necessary use of force.
  So I think it is critically important that we stand united in our 
efforts to impose sanctions against Iran to make it clear that we 
cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. Make no mistake 
about it, Iran is trying to do that. We know Iran is trying to do that. 
We know about the vote of the IAEA of 27-3 that referred Iran to the 
Security Council, that they are enriching uranium clearly to develop a 
nuclear weapon, that they have supported terrorist organizations, the 
Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad. The Iranian President has made it 
clear that he wants a world without the United States and he wants to 
wipe Israel off the face of the map. These are serious threats that we 
need to take seriously.
  Therefore, we need effective sanctions against Iran so they change 
their way. This legislation is an effort to strengthen the sanctions 
against Iran by removing the sunset, by taking away some of the 
discretion and removing the sanctions unless Iran changes its way.
  Madam Speaker, I look at this as a way to engage the international 
community to work with us. We did not do that in Iraq, and that was one 
of the fatal flaws of our policy in Iraq is that we did not engage the 
international community.
  This legislation says, look, we have a chance with Iran to get them 
to change their ways through the imposition of sanctions and isolating 
the country, but we do need the help of our friends around the world. 
We do need them to work with us. It is in the interest of the civilized 
world to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. We need 
their help. Working with them, we can add another proud history to 
America in its international leadership of saying yes, we are going to 
use our international power, our diplomatic skills, to change the 
direction of a country that otherwise would become even a more 
dangerous risk to the United States and the civilized world. I urge my 
colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk here about what this bill 
is doing and that it does not authorize the use of force. As a matter 
of fact, the language in the bill says this does not authorize the use 
of force. But my contention is it is a contradiction to the bill itself 
because the bill itself does authorize the use of force. No, not tanks 
and airplanes and bombs yet, but we know that all these options are 
still on the table.

                              {time}  1230

  But what it does authorize is something that is equivalent to force, 
and that is sanctions. Sanctions are used as an act of war.
  Also, this bill has money in it, and it is open-ended, an 
authorization of appropriation. There is authorized to be appropriated 
to the Department of State such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
this section. And what is this section talking about? Subsidies and 
funding of dissident groups to go in there and undermine the Iranian 
government.
  Yes, we quote Ahmadinejad about his vitriolic statements, and they 
are horrible, but how do you think they interpret other statements when 
we say we are going to wipe their regime off the face of the Earth? We 
are going to have regime change. So from their viewpoint we are saying 
the same thing, and we should not be blinded to that and pretend, 
because our language is not quite as violent. We are saying the same 
thing, because look at the result of the violence in Iraq as a result 
of our efforts of regime change.
  Now, one of the major authors of the Iraqi war, a leader of the 
neoconservative movement, came before the committee when this 
resolution was debated and when we had hearings on it. I want to read a 
quote from him because it clarifies this issue. The quote comes from 
Michael Ledeen, and he wants regime change. This is what he had to say. 
``There is much that is praiseworthy in the Iran Freedom Support Act. I 
think it can be improved by more openly embracing a policy of regime 
change in Iran and allocating an adequate budget to demonstrate our 
seriousness in this endeavor. I know some Members would prefer to dance 
around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this 
country, but anyone looking closely at the language, and that is what I 
have done, and content of the Iran Freedom Support Act and its close 
relative in the Senate can clearly see that it is, in fact, the essence 
of the matter. You can't have freedom in Iran, that is, we can't have 
our way, without bringing down the mullahs.''
  That is an outright threat. That is the testimony of a 
neoconservative who led us and promoted and pushed the war in Iraq, and 
nothing would please him and others who are behind this type of 
resolution to see regime change. There is no denial of that.
  The question is how do we do it? Are we going to do it pussyfooting 
around? Or are we going to use force and violence? We did, we used 
bombs for a long time against Iraq. But we had a bill in 1998 that said 
explicitly we are going to get rid of the Iraqi government, and it took 
a few years to get the war going.
  Both parties are involved in this. It is not just this administration 
that has promoted this type of foreign policy, which, quite frankly, I 
see is not in the best interest of our country. This is why I am a 
strong advocate of minding our own business. Don't get involved in 
nation building. Don't police the world. Don't get involved in the 
internal affairs of the other nations. Otherwise, we have a big job 
ahead of us.
  What about the fact that Kim Jong Il is still in power? We are 
talking to him. We talked to Qadaffi. Mao was in power, and he had 
nuclear weapons. What did we do; did we attack him? No. What did we do 
with Stalin? Stalin and Khrushchev had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Were we 
ready to use force and intimidation and yelling and screaming? And 
Khrushchev was ready to wipe us off the face of the Earth also.
  But I am asking you to reconsider the fact that moving in this 
direction is the same thing as we did against Iraq, and it won't do us 
any good. It is going to cost us a lot of money, and it is going to 
cost a lot of lives, and it is un-American. It is not constitutional. 
It is not moral. We should not pursue this type of foreign policy. We 
should take care of ourselves, and we should be more friendly with 
nations. We should be willing to trade. And if you are concerned about 
the world, why not set a good example? When our house is clean, when we 
have a good democracy and a worthy Republic, and we do well, believe 
me, they will want to emulate us.
  But attacking and intimidating other nations, the way we go at it 
now, literally backfires on us. What is it doing to the dissidents, 
those who would love to overthrow the Islamic radicals in Iran right 
now? It unifies them. Did we become unified in this country when we 
were attacked on 9/11? Do you think Republicans and Democrats were 
divided on 9/11 and 9/12? No, it brings them together. So this policy 
does exactly the opposite of what you pretend that you want to do, and 
that is encourage those people who don't like their government. But by 
doing it this way, you literally are doing the very opposite.
  So I just plead with you to be more cautious. Negroponte says there 
is no rush. Take some time. They are not about to have a nuclear 
weapon. And

[[Page H1768]]

whether or not that is their plan or not probably at this moment is 
irrelevant. I mean, if we stood down all these nations and all these 
nuclear weapons in the past, why can't we practice more diplomacy to 
resolve our differences. I was talking to somebody the other day and 
they said, well, maybe in 10 years they might have a nuclear weapon, so 
we must act now. Get the bombs ready. They are talking about a nuclear 
attack on Iran in order to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. It 
is time to step back and look at the policy. The policy of 
nonintervention and peaceful relations with the world and peaceful 
trade is the American way to go, and it will lead to peace and 
prosperity.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his very 
calm and patient approach to this. I don't think the American people 
want our Nation set on a path of war with Iran, and I believe the 
American people are very concerned about the steps which set us on a 
path to war against Iraq. There are questions that have to be answered 
by this administration before Congress should rightfully even vote on 
this.
  You know, it has been reported recently that U.S. troops are 
conducting military operations in Iran. In Iran. Now, if that is true, 
then apparently the administration has made a decision to commit U.S. 
military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct 
or indirect negotiations with the Government of Iran have been 
attempted, without U.N. support and without authorization from this 
Congress.
  First things first here. Where are we right now? Are we already 
inside Iran? According to Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker, there is 
evidence that suggests that we are. The presence of U.S. troops in Iran 
would constitute a hostile act against that country.
  Now, put that in the context of this particular bill. At a time when 
diplomacy is urgently needed, this bill would escalate an international 
crisis that is already percolating by the probability or at least the 
possibility that this administration has already committed troops to 
Iran. What we are seeing here is an undermining of any attempt to 
negotiate with the Government of Iran, and we are seeing the 
undermining of any diplomatic efforts at the U.N.
  I said this before and I will say it again. Any kind of saber 
rattling against Iran puts our troops in Iraq at jeopardy. The 
achievement of stability in transition to Iraqi security control will 
be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the 
administration.
  I am sure that many Americans are saying, you know, it is hard to 
believe that the United States could have already taken such an 
imprudent decision as committing troops to Iran, but we have had a 
number and variety of sources confirming this. Over a week ago Air 
Force Colonel Sam Gardner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to 
the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that Iranians have 
captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. 
troops in Iran. Earlier that week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. 
source told him that U.S. Marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri 
and Kurdish regions of Iran.
  Now, any kind of military deployment in Iran would and should 
constitute an urgent matter of national significance. And I think that 
the administration has an obligation to this Congress, before Congress 
would vote on this kind of a bill, to tell us exactly what is going on 
with the activities of American forces with regard to Iran.
  Also, there are reports that the U.S. is fomenting opposition and 
supporting military operations in Iran among insurgent groups and 
Iranian ethnic minority groups, some of whom are operating from Iraq. 
The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, PEJAK, is one such group, and 
the other group is called the MEK, the Mujahedin e-Khalq. It is an 
Iranian antigovernment group which was listed as a terrorist group by 
the State Department since 1997. An article by Jim Lobe, published in 
antiwar.com, on February 11, 2005, claims that the Pentagon civilians 
in Vice President Cheney's office are among those in the U.S. 
Government who support MEK. We also know from the Hersh article in the 
New Yorker which confirms that U.S. troops are establishing contact 
with antigovernment ethnic minority groups in Iran.
  Now, U.S. support for insurgent activity in Iran would not be 
tolerable. The administration has claimed numerous times that the 
object of the so-called war on terrorism is to target lawless insurgent 
groups. It would be a breach of trust if the administration is involved 
in this. Iran does not present an imminent threat. Any setting the 
stage for an attack on Iran is setting the stage for a unilateral act 
of war.
  I think that this country needs to move very slowly anytime we are 
setting the stage for conflict with another nation. Don't we have 
enough problems in Iraq to clean up without setting the stage for 
another conflict in Iran? We must use diplomacy. We must use our 
relationships with Russia and China and other nations in order to avert 
a conflict with Iran.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I heard our colleague thank Mr. Paul of Texas for 
being calm and patient. I don't know how much more patient we can be 
with a country that supports international terrorism as Iran does.
  Let me point out, this bill does not authorize the use of force. It 
does not authorize the use of force. We can say it over and over again. 
That is clearly not getting through. But this country, we are talking 
about Iran, is bent on the destruction of our ally Israel, bent on the 
destruction of our ally Israel and the interests of the United States 
in that region.
  This is a peaceful way to help resolve this issue. It will restrict 
access to reserves by the mullahs in Iran to pursue development of 
weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. So, Madam Speaker, 
once again, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the wisdom of this 
legislation that is seen as well in the Senate, and the President 
understands the wisdom of this legislation and signs it into law.
  I yield the balance of my time to my friend, Mr. Pence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding and for 
his strong leadership on the international stage today and at other 
times in his career.
  To the gentlewoman from Florida who is in our thoughts and prayers 
today, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who authored the Iran Freedom Support Act, 
I express gratitude.
  Mr. Crowley of New York just said it best. The bill we will consider 
today codifies U.S. sanctions on Iran and requires that they remain in 
place until Iran has verifiably dismantled its chemical, biological and 
nuclear weapons program. It does not, this legislation today does not 
authorize the use of force against Iran. It does a host of other things 
that represent economic sanctions. It supports independent human rights 
and peaceful prodemocracy forces within Iran.
  But the Iran Freedom Support Act is the right bill at the right time. 
It is a strong diplomatic measure. The potential consequences of 
inaction could be catastrophic. Congress and this administration must 
act before it is too late, before our options are severely limited, and 
this diplomatic measure today, the Iran Freedom Support Act, is such a 
measure.
  I ask my colleagues to render their overwhelming support of this 
legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, Iran is the full ticket--a defiant 
rogue state, defined by the State Department as the world's most 
active--state sponsor of terrorism. Its ambition to develop weapons of 
mass destruction capabilities has been deliberate, deceptive, and long 
in the making.
  U.S. policy has to date pursued a patient course of diplomacy 
including working with our allies, heeding the findings of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, and accepting ineffectual 
incentives.
  However, diplomacy does not mean surrender and of the ``constructive 
engagement'', incentives, and inducements of the Iranian regime have 
been no more effective than Neville Chamberlain's famous failed 
policies of appeasement during World War II.

[[Page H1769]]

  It is time for the U.S. and our allies to undertake the sacrifices 
required to deny Iran the political legitimacy, technology, materials, 
and financial resources to pursue its destructive policies--policies 
that threaten U.S and global security.
  It is our hope that H.R. 282 will serve as leverage for cooperation 
from those allies who claim to be concerned about the growing Iranian 
threat but who continue to invest billions in Iran's energy sector and 
continue to assist Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
  Ten years ago, the U.S. called on our European allies to take steps 
to deny Iran the financial resources to nuclear capabilities.
  The U.S. also called on Russia and China to cease their support for 
Iran's nuclear and missile program.
  These calls were ignored.
  Then, four years ago, the Iran saga within the context of the IAEA 
begins.
  According to multiple IAEA reports Iran's deceptions and breaches of 
its international obligations have dealt with the most sensitive 
aspects of the nuclear cycle.
  By September of 2004, as Iran resumed large-scale uranium conversion, 
then Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the Iran case to be 
referred to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions to be 
imposed.
  That was not to be. The response from the international community was 
to offer Iran yet more incentives and to increase its investments in 
Iran's energy sector.
  Every step along the way, Iran has demonstrated contempt for the IAEA 
and has mocked the international community.
  In fact, Iran's former nuclear negotiator recently boasted: ``When we 
were negotiating with the Europeans in Tehran we were still installing 
some of the equipment at the Isfahan site . . . In reality, by creating 
a same situation, we could finish Isfahan.''
  That is but a microcosm of how concessions and inaction--inaction 
including the failure to implement U.S. laws such as the Iran-Libya 
Sanctions Act--have only served to embolden the Iranian regime and 
increase the threat Iran poses to U.S. national security interests and 
global stability.
  Just in the last few months, Iran: Resumed its nuclear efforts, 
removing the IAEA seals on uranium conversion plants; announced it 
could successfully use biotechnology for its nuclear program, thereby 
improving its capacity to build nuclear weapons; called for Israel to 
be wiped off the map; Iran's Defense Minister said that it is ``Iran's 
absolute right to have access to nuclear arms . . .''; Iran is 
identified by U.S. military commanders as the source of some of the 
IEDs being used in terrorist attacks in Iraq; Iran's leader announces 
that Iran would inflict ``harm and pain'' on the U.S.
  Just over a week ago, Iran's so-called president announces that Iran 
has an indigenous capability to enrich uranium and that it continues to 
pursue a more sophisticated technology, P-2 centrifuges, that could 
speed Iran's path to nuclear weapons.
  Just yesterday, Iran's Grand Ayatollah underscored that Iran would 
share nuclear technology with other Islamic nations.
  This announcement was made during a meeting with Sudan's brutal 
leader where the Ayatollah praised the Sudanese regime's policies.
  This clearly indicates that the Iranian threat is more than just 
about its nuclear pursuits. This is a repressive regime that denies the 
Iranian people the most fundamental freedoms.
  It is a regime that, since the infamous day in November 1979 when the 
U.S. embassy was overrun by Iranian radicals and Americans were taken 
hostage and held for 444 days, has increasingly viewed terrorism as a 
legitimate means to further its ideological and strategic aims.
  Iran provides Hezbollah with funding, safe haven, training, and 
weapons that have been estimated by some at more than $80 million per 
year.
  Hezbollah has been linked to the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Marine 
barracks in Lebanon.
  Hezbollah has also been linked to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and 
the Embassy annex, in Beirut in 1984.
  Iran is directly linked to the June 1996 truck bombing of the Khobar 
Towers U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia.
  Iran has used Hezbollah to assert a global reach that has extended 
into the Western Hemisphere. We witnessed the 1992 bombing of the 
Israeli embassy in Argentina and the July 1994 bombing of the AMIA 
Jewish Community Center, also in Buenos Aires.
  In December 2001, Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counter-terrorism 
official, detailed the beginning of al-Qaeda's links with Iran.
  Levitt noted: ``According to U.S. intelligence reports, Osama bin 
Laden's operatives approached Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and 
Security, MOIS, agents in 1995 and again in 1996, offering to join 
forces against America.''
  He added: ``In fact, phone records obtained by U.S. officials 
investigating the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 
revealed that 10 percent of the calls from the Compact-M satellite 
phone used by bin Laden and his key lieutenants were to Iran. ``
  Testimony from defendants in the Kenya and Tanzania U.S. embassy 
bombings, indicate that Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, with Iranian 
assistance, have had strategic meetings throughout the years in Sudan 
and elsewhere.
  This is just the tip of the iceberg.
  There is still time to contain the threat posed by Iran and adopt 
short and long-term policies that will compel Iran to change its 
unacceptable behavior.
  H.R. 282 provides such a response.
  Briefly, this bill: Codifies U.S. sanctions on Iran and requires that 
they remain in place until Iran has verifiably dismantled its chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons programs; amends the Iran-Libya 
Sanctions Act, ILSA, including by enlarging the number of entities that 
would be subject to sanctions, limiting its application to Iran, and 
eliminating the expiration date of the law; requires that the names of 
all individuals, governments and companies that have invested a total 
of at least $20 million in Iran's energy sector be published in the 
Federal Register; denies U.S. assistance to countries that are invested 
in Iran's energy sector; authorizes the President to provide U.S. 
assistance to peaceful prodemocracy and human rights groups in Iran and 
for independent broadcasts into Iran.
  We must use all available political and economic means to truly make 
Iran pay for its behavior, and to leverage for cooperation from our 
allies and convince them to deny Iran the resources to continue along 
this track.
  We must act before it is too late and our options are severely 
limited.
  I ask my colleagues to render their overwhelming support to this 
legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National 
Foreign Trade Council, Coalition for Employment Through Exports and 
USA*Engage yesterday distributed to members a very cogent description 
of some of the reasons to oppose H.R. 282. I recommend that members 
review it.
     Hon. Jim McDermott,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 282, Iran Sanctions Act.

       Dear Congressman McDermott: Our organizations write in 
     opposition to the Iran Sanctions Act, H.R. 282, which has 
     been placed on the House suspension calendar for this week. 
     While we recognize the serious concerns raised by the current 
     regime in Iran, we are concerned that the changes which have 
     been proposed to the U.S. sanctions program would hinder, not 
     help, our efforts to address the situation. Specifically, 
     these changes would remove the vital flexibility of U.S. 
     sanctions policy, drive a wedge between U.S. and our allies 
     in the on-going joint efforts to influence the Iranian 
     regime, increase the involvement of courts in U.S. foreign 
     policy, and discourage foreign investment in the United 
     States. We urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 282 when it 
     comes up under suspension of the rules this week to allow for 
     fuller and more informed consideration over the negative 
     consequences of these changes to U.S. law.
       In particular, we note the following concerns with the 
     current bill as it was ordered reported by the House 
     International Relations Committee on March 15:
       The bill would remove the extremely useful periodic review 
     of the Iran sanctions regime by removing the sunset provision 
     included in the earlier Iran Libya Sanctions Act. Sunset 
     provisions are vital to creating an effective sanctions 
     regime as they permit Congress to review sanctions to ensure 
     that they are effective and useful over time. Congress 
     engaged in a useful debate over reforms in Iran when 
     sanctions up for renewal in 2001 and it is important that 
     Members allow for such a debate in the future.
       H.R. 282 would make the United States more vulnerable to 
     international commercial complaints and damage U.S. global 
     financial leadership by greatly expanding the entities 
     subject to sanctions to include insurers, creditors and 
     foreign subsidiaries. The United States would undoubtedly 
     face complaints and lawsuits from our trading partners 
     questioning their legality. It would also stoke ``economic 
     nationalism,'' which may seriously disrupt vital U.S. 
     business overseas.
       The capital market sanctions contained in H.R. 282 would 
     discourage foreign investment in the United States and could 
     potentially damage U.S. business interests abroad. By 
     requiring publication of the names of entities that have 
     investments in violation of the sanctions, ordering a report 
     by an office of the Security and Exchange Commission, and 
     encouraging divestment of stocks, H.R. 282 sends a negative 
     signal to foreign companies interested in investing in the 
     United States. This bill encourages global companies to avoid 
     investments in the United States by leaving them exposed to 
     potential capital market sanctions. Foreign governments may 
     also seek to retaliate against U.S. firms abroad based on 
     their own political motivations.
       H.R. 282 would hinder the flexibility of the President to 
     conduct foreign policy. The bill would require the President 
     to direct the Treasury Department to initiate investigations 
     into the potential for sanctioning firms investing in Iran 
     and would require the President to determine to impose 
     sanctions

[[Page H1770]]

     on such entities within 360 days. This provision would also 
     apply retroactively, requiring sanctions determinations on 
     pending investigations of prior investments within ninety 
     days of enactment. If the President chose to waive the 
     sanctions, which is possible under an inadequately narrow 
     provision in this bill, he would be required to renew that 
     waiver every six months. This policy of requiring 
     investigations and sanctions determinations on each and every 
     past and future investment in Iran by a person described in 
     the Act would severely restrict the Administration's 
     flexibility to conduct foreign policy in ways that can adapt 
     to complex, changing circumstances.
       Finally, we encourage Congress and the House International 
     Relations Committee to rethink the sanctions regime in light 
     of their serious unintended impact on the people of Iran 
     and our own ability to forge vital international 
     alliances. When we hear of reports like those raised in 
     the March 15 hearing of the Committee on International 
     Relations--about the difficulties that humanitarian 
     organizations have had operating to relieve suffering by 
     earthquake victims--it seems appropriate to take a closer 
     look at whether there might be a better way for the United 
     States to address the serious concerns raised by the 
     policies of the Iranian government.
       At the very least, we hope that there will be an 
     opportunity to hold a fuller debate over the proposed radical 
     changes to the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, and therefore 
     respectfully request that you vote against H.R. 282.
           Respectfully submitted,
       USA*Engage.
       Coalition for Employment Through Exports.
       National Foreign Trade Council.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, several years ago we discovered that Iran 
was operating a secret program to enrich uranium and carry out other 
sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities.
  Iran's failure to report these activities to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency was a blatant violation of its obligations under the 
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
  The more we have learned about Iran's nuclear program in the 
intervening months, the more obvious it's become that Tehran's true 
intention is not peaceful power generation, but the development of a 
nuclear arsenal that could threaten the United States, our allies in 
the Middle East, and any other part of the world within the range of 
Iran's increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles.
  Any seeds of doubt on the purpose of Iran's nuclear activities were 
dispelled once and for all by their outright rejection of a sensible 
proposal offered by our European allies and, more recently, Iran's 
resumption of uranium enrichment in defiance of the international 
community.
  The election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made the urgency of 
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that much greater.
  His messianic world view, vocal support for ``wiping Israel off the 
map,'' and close ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist 
organizations make the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran truly 
unimaginable.
  Everyone hopes we can find a diplomatic solution to this crisis, and 
the IAEA's recent decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council 
was a long-overdue step in the right direction.
  But tough words must be backed by tough action, and we have got to 
keep the pressure on Russia and China to support meaningful measures 
that will cause the Iranian regime to reevaluate the wisdom of its 
current course.
  And, through this legislation before us today, we must push our own 
Executive Branch to enforce the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, legislation 
passed by Congress back in 1996 to deter investment in Iran's oil and 
gas sector.
  By requiring the President to impose sanctions on foreign firms that 
continue to invest in Iran, we hoped to starve the Iranian regime of 
hard currency necessary to pursue nuclear weapons and support 
terrorism.
  In the months after ILSA was signed into law, there were strong 
indications that it was having the intended deterrent effect.
  But then, in an effort to avoid offending our allies, the Clinton 
Administration made a decision not to enforce the law--a shortsighted 
policy continued by President Bush.
  H.R. 282 would close a legal loophole that has allowed the State 
Department to sit on investigations for years without making a 
determination, one way or the other, if a foreign firm has in fact made 
an investment in Iran.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation won't make Iran's nuclear program go 
away, but it is an important step in the right direction, and--with 360 
cosponsors--sends a clear signal that Congress is extremely concerned 
about this critical matter.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join 
me today in supporting H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act.
  I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Lantos for drafting this 
bill that has gathered great support from our colleagues to address the 
urgent and problematic situation in Iran.
  This bill will extend and strengthen existing sanctions designed to 
cut off funds Iran could use for its illicit atomic programs.
  Inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the 
past three years have turned up evidence that Iran has been pursuing 
nuclear technology for nearly two decades. Despite recent rulings by 
the IAEA Board of Governors that found Iran to be in noncompliance with 
its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards agreement, and a 
presidential statement last month by the United Nations Security 
Council that called upon Iran to reinstitute its voluntary suspension 
of enrichment and reprocessing, Iran has stated that it will continue 
development of its nuclear program.
  The U.S. and our allies cannot stand by and watch Iran develop 
nuclear capabilities, and this legislation is just a first step in what 
must be done to address this problem.
  A state that has vowed to continue supporting terrorist activity 
against the West and the U.S., has openly stated that Israel must be 
wiped off the map, and has threatened to retaliate to international 
pressure and sanctions by giving nuclear technology to other states, 
must be dealt with before it has a robust nuclear program.
  Iran's pursuit for weapons of mass destruction--and nuclear 
technology in particular--along with its outright support for 
international terrorism require a strong response from our government.
  Passing H.R. 282 is a first step in addressing this urgent situation, 
and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Ms. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 282, the Iran 
Freedom Support Act. For more than two decades the Iranian regime has 
displayed its contempt for the rule of law by willingly and 
aggressively breaching its international obligations, in pursuit of 
nuclear weapons.
  The incendiary remark made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, that 
Israel is a ``fake regime [that] can not logically continue to live,'' 
underscores the importance of this measure.
  H.R. 282 denies technical assistance and financial resources to the 
regime of President Ahmadinejad, and strengthens sanctions against 
those who would facilitate the development of a covert nuclear program 
in Iran. This bill sends a clear and unambiguous message to Iran that 
their behavior is unacceptable.
  The overwhelming 37-3 vote by which this measure passed the 
International Relations Committee exemplifies the bipartisan nature of 
the issue.
  Madam Speaker, with the proliferation of nuclear weaponry at issue, 
there is neither room for error, nor for mixed signals. The price to be 
paid for inaction or indecision is beyond consideration. This 
legislation is a measured, responsible demonstration of our commitment 
to ensuring the freedom of Iranians and Americans alike.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am attaching an exchange of 
letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairmen Davis, Thomas, McKeon and 
Oxley concerning the bill H.R. 282 ``The Iran Freedom Support Act'' for 
printing in the Record.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2006.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 282, the 
     Iran Freedom Support Act, which the Committee on 
     International Relations ordered reported on April 13, 2006. 
     In the bill as ordered reported by your Committee, section 
     206, specifically the provisions providing Senses of Congress 
     urging U.S. government pension plan and thrift savings plan 
     managers to take certain actions (section 206(c) and (d)) and 
     the provision requiring certain disclosures by managers of 
     U.S. government pension plans and thrift savings plans 
     (section 206(e)) are within the jurisdiction of the 
     Government Reform Committee.
       I thank you for your agreement to support the removal of 
     section 206(e) from the bill and to modify sections 206(c) 
     and (d) with the addition of language recognizing the 
     fiduciary duties of U. S. government pension plan managers, 
     as you work to move this important legislation forward. Given 
     the importance and timeliness of the Iran Freedom Support 
     Act, and your willingness to work with us regarding pension 
     issues, I will not request a sequential referral of this 
     legislation to the Committee on Government Reform. However, I 
     only do so with the understanding that this procedural route 
     should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on 
     Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives 
     on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will 
     not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters 
     of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. 
     Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered 
     in a conference with the Senate, I would expect Members of 
     the Committee on Government Reform be appointed to the 
     conference committee on these provisions.

[[Page H1771]]

       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and 
     in the Congressional Record during the consideration of this 
     bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on International 
           Relations,
                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. I concur with your 
     assessment that Section 206 of the bill, as ordered reported 
     by the Committee on International Relations, which deals with 
     United States Pension Plans, falls within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform--
     specifically Section 206(e), which requires certain 
     disclosures by managers of U.S. government pension plans. In 
     addition, the Senses of Congress contained in Sections 206 
     (c) and (d), urging U.S. government pension plan managers to 
     take certain actions, are also within the jurisdiction of 
     your Committee.
       I thank you for your agreement to support moving this 
     important legislation forward. Based on our discussions, this 
     Committee will remove Section 206(e) from the bill, modify 
     Sections 206 (c) and (d), and add language recognizing the 
     fiduciary duties of pension plan managers. I appreciate your 
     willingness to forego seeking a sequential referral of this 
     legislation. I understand your willingness to do so does not 
     in any way prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's 
     jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on these provisions 
     or any other similar legislation and will not be considered 
     as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 
     interest to your Committee in the future. Should these or 
     similar provisions be considered in a conference with the 
     Senate, I will urge the Speaker to appoint members of the 
     Committee on Government Reform to the conference committee.
       As you requested, I will include a copy of our exchange of 
     letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and in the 
     Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2006.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing regarding H.R. 282, the 
     ``Iran Freedom Support Act,'' which the Committee on 
     International Relations marked up on March 15, 2006.
       As per the agreement between our Committees, to be included 
     in a manager's amendment to H.R. 282, the amended bill would 
     modify the language in Section 101(a) so that the import 
     sanctions contained in Executive Order 12959 may remain in 
     effect under the terms of the Executive Order but would not 
     be codified by this bill, In addition, Sections 202(a) and 
     202(b) of the reported bill will remain in the amended 
     version. These sections would change current law by striking 
     the statutory option the President currently has to ban 
     imports against both Iran and Libya.
       Because all of these provisions have the effect of 
     modifying and altering the application of an import ban, they 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. However, in order to expedite this legislation for 
     floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this 
     bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does 
     not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confinning 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 282, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in your Committee report.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on International 
           Relations,
                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2006.
     Hon. William M. Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 282, the 
     ``Iran Freedom Support Act,'' which the Committee on 
     International Relations marked up on March 15, 2006.
       As per the agreement between our Committees, I will include 
     in the manager's amendment to H.R. 282 language which would 
     modify the text in Section 101(a) so that the import 
     sanctions contained in Executive Order 12959 may remain in 
     effect under the terms of the Executive Order but would not 
     be codified by this bill. In addition, Sections 202(a) and 
     202(b) of the reported bill will remain in the amended 
     version. These sections would change current law by striking 
     the statutory option the President currently has to ban 
     imports against both Iran and Libya.
       I concur that these provisions have the effect of modifying 
     and altering the application of an import ban and, therefore, 
     they fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. I appreciate your willingness to assist in 
     expediting this legislation by foregoing action on this bill. 
     This is being done with the understanding that it does not in 
     any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with 
     respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       As you requested, I will be pleased to include a copy of 
     this exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 
     and in the Congressional Record during the consideration of 
     this bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, 
     please do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2006.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 282, 
     the Iran Freedom Support Act. This bill was ordered reported 
     by the Committee on International Relations on March 15, 
     2006. Section 206, ``United States pension plans'', and 
     section 207, ``Report by Office of Global Security Risks'', 
     of the bill as ordered reported by your committee are within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services under 
     clause l(g) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.
       Ordinarily, the Committee on Financial Services would be 
     entitled to receive a sequential referral of the bill. 
     However, I thank you for your agreement to support in moving 
     this important legislation forward the removal of section 
     206(e) and section 207 from the bill and to modify section 
     206(b) by inserting the Secretary of State in lieu of the 
     President. Given the importance and timeliness of the Iran 
     Freedom Support Act, and your willingness to work with us 
     regarding these issues, I will not seek a sequential referral 
     of this legislation. However, I do so only with the 
     understanding that this procedural route should not be 
     construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest of the 
     Committee on Financial Services on these provisions or any 
     other similar legislation and will not be considered as 
     precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 
     interest to my committee in the future. Furthermore, should 
     these or similar provisions be considered in a conference 
     with the Senate, I would expect members of the Committee on 
     Financial Services be appointed to the conference committee 
     on these provisions.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and 
     in the Congressional Record during the consideration of this 
     bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael G. Oxley,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         House of Representatives, Committee on International 
           Relations,
                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2006.
     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. I concur that the 
     bill, as ordered reported by the Committee on International 
     Relations on March 15, 2006, contains language which falls 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial 
     Services. Specifically, Section 206, ``United States Pension 
     Plans,'' and Section 207, ``Report by Office of Global 
     Security Risks,'' of the bill are within your Committee's 
     jurisdiction.
       Our two committees have reached agreement that, in the 
     interest of moving this important legislation forward, the 
     text of the bill which we will place in the manager's 
     amendment will remove Section 206(e) and Section 207 from the 
     bill and will modify Section 206(b) by inserting the 
     ``Secretary of State'' in lieu of ``the President.'' Given 
     the importance and timeliness of the Iran Freedom Support 
     Act, I appreciate your willingness to work with us regarding 
     these issues and to forego sequential referral of this 
     legislation. I understand that by doing so, it should not be 
     construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest of the 
     Committee on Financial Services on these provisions or any 
     other similar legislation and will not be considered as 
     precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 
     interest to your Committee in the future. Furthermore, should 
     these or similar provisions be considered in a conference 
     with the Senate, I will request the Speaker to name members 
     of the Committee on Financial Services to the conference 
     committee.
       As you requested, I will be pleased to include a copy of 
     this exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 
     and in the Congressional Record during the consideration of 
     this bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, 
     please do not hesitate

[[Page H1772]]

     to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the 
           Workforce,
                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2006.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 282, 
     the Iran Freedom Support Act. Section 206, United States 
     Pension Plans, of the bill as ordered reported by your 
     committee is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Education and Workforce--specifically, section 206 (e), which 
     requires certain disclosures by managers of private pension 
     plans. In addition, the Senses of Congress contained in 
     sections 206 (c) and (d) urge private pension plan managers 
     to take certain actions and are also within the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       I thank you for your agreement to support the removal of 
     section 206 (e) from the bill and to modify sections 206 ( c) 
     and (d) with the addition of language recognizing the 
     fiduciary duties of pension plan managers, as you work to 
     move this important legislation forward. Given the importance 
     and timeliness of the Iran Freedom Support Act, and your 
     willingness to work with us regarding pension issues, I will 
     not seek a sequential referral of this legislation. However, 
     I do so only with the understanding that this procedural 
     route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional interest and 
     prerogatives on these provisions or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     committee in the future. Furthermore, should these or similar 
     provisions be considered in a conference with the Senate, I 
     would expect members of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce be appointed to the conference committee on these 
     provisions.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and 
     in the Congressional Record during the consideration of this 
     bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on International 
           Relations,
                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2006.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. I concur with your 
     assessment that Section 206 of the bill, as ordered reported 
     by the Committee on International Relations, which deals with 
     United States Pension Plans, falls within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Workforce--
     specifically Section 206(e), which requires certain 
     disclosures by managers of private pension plans. In 
     addition, the Senses of Congress contained in Sections 206 
     (c) and (d), urging private pension plan managers to take 
     certain actions, are also within the jurisdiction of your 
     Committee.
       I thank you for your agreement to support moving this 
     important legislation forward. Based on our discussions, this 
     Committee will remove Section 206(e) from the bill, modify 
     Sections 206 (c) and (d), and add language recognizing the 
     fiduciary duties of pension plan managers. I appreciate your 
     willingness to forgo seeking a sequential referral of this 
     legislation. I understand your willingness to do so does not 
     in any way prejudice the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on these 
     provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be 
     considered as precedent for consideration of matters of 
     jurisdictional interest to your Committee in the future. 
     Should these or similar provisions be considered in a 
     conference with the Senate, I will urge the Speaker to 
     appoint members of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce to the conference committee.
       As you requested, I will include a copy of our exchange of 
     letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 282 and in the 
     Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 282, the 
Iran Freedom Support Act. This bill strengthens U.S. sanctions on Iran, 
and requires that they remain in place until Iran has dismantled its 
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.
  Iran is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, which poses a 
threat to the national security of the United States and to the world. 
Iran has repeatedly violated its obligations to the international 
community, specifically the 1973 Safeguards Agreement with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 2002 the world learned 
that Iran was illegally continuing to develop a secret nuclear program, 
which has led to years of negotiations with the international 
community. Last August, however, the Iranian government resumed its 
conversion of uranium. In February the IAEA voted 27 to 3 to report 
Iran to the United Nations Security Council for further action. In 
March the U.N. Security Council directed Iran to its nuclear 
activities. Iran defied the United Nations, and made an announcement 
that it had enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels, which is a 
precursor to the development of a nuclear bomb. This week the U.N. 
Security Council is meeting to evaluate Iran's behavior, and I urge the 
Security Council to use all the tools at its disposal to pressure Iran 
to meet its commitments to the IAEA.
  I am pleased that the legislation today establishes mandatory 
sanctions for contributions to development of weapons, limits the 
President's flexibility to waive sanctions, authorizes funding to 
promote democracy activities in Iran, and supports efforts to 
strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Finally, this bill 
eliminates the sunset of sanctions against Iran, and requires them to 
remain in place until the President certifies that Iran has dismantled 
its WMD programs.
  I am pleased that the United States has continued to work closely 
with the international community--including the European Union, Russia, 
and China--on this urgent matter. I urge the President to keep Congress 
fully and current informed on this matter, as called for in this 
resolution. I urge the international community to impose economic 
sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
  We cannot allow a rogue nation such as Iran to obtain nuclear 
weapons. Iran has actively supported terrorist groups, such as 
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran has funded 
suicide bombers in Israel and militant organizations elsewhere. Many of 
these terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD) so 
that they can kill or injure thousands or even millions of people. The 
Iranian President has publicly expressed his hope for a world without 
America, his desire to wipe Israel off the map, and has denied the 
existence of the Holocaust.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, although not a perfect bill, I plan to 
support H.R. 282 based on several important decisions I authored and 
that were included in the committee-passed bill. First, and most 
importantly, this bill includes my language explicitly stating that 
this bill in no way constitutes an authorization to use military force 
against Iran. Additionally, it includes my provision clarifying that 
none of the funds authorized for democracy promotion should be used to 
fund destabilizing activities against Iran. Moreover, in the report 
accompanying this legislation, I was able to include language aimed at 
ensuring that none of the funds authorized in this legislation are 
channeled to democracy promotion organizations that may in turn 
bankroll covert action against Iran.
  My vote today in no way detracts from my vigilance regarding this 
administration and its reported interest in another preemptive strike--
this time against Iran. I have and will continue to strongly oppose the 
so-called doctrine of preemption and believe we must engage Iran in 
smart and tough diplomacy regarding its nuclear programs.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about Iran's nuclear 
power program. I am extremely opposed to any attempts by the 
Administration to preemptively strike Iran. We must work multilaterally 
to bring Iran back to the negotiation table and into compliance with 
the Nonproliferation Treaty.
  While the government of Iran continues to defy international pressure 
to conform to the NPT, unilateral military action against Iran is not 
the solution. The repercussions and unintended consequences of a U.S. 
military attack on Iran are terrifying to contemplate. I personally do 
not believe that a military strike on Iran would advance U.S. or 
regional security. I am afraid it could create a backlash against the 
U.S. that would be a more serious threat than a nuclear Iran. Congress 
has the constitutional responsibility to debate the commitment of 
troops or military action, and the obligation to the American people to 
have an up or down vote before the Administration takes any steps 
towards military engagement.
  The solution to the Iranian problem lies in diplomacy. The 
Administration needs to work with other members of the U.N. Security 
Council and gain a strong coalition of support for a diplomatic 
solution. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the 
Administration to find peaceful means of ensuring Iran's compliance 
with the NPT.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Iran 
Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282. I am a cosponsor of this important 
legislation because I remain deeply troubled by the current regime and 
situation in Iran.
  It is long past time for the House to address the security challenge 
posed to the world community and our allies in the Middle East by the 
current regime in Iran. The hateful and threatening comments made by 
the President of Iran against Israel cannot be tolerated. Further, the 
provocative actions taken by Iran to

[[Page H1773]]

further their nuclear weapons program must be stopped. A nuclear Iran 
would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our 
allies. We must use every tool at our disposal today to end Iran's 
nuclear ambitions. Iran must change its way.
  This important legislation would codify bilateral U.S. sanctions 
against Iran and strengthens third-party sanctions through amendments 
to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. H.R. 282 would make the removal of 
these sanctions contingent upon a Presidential certification that Iran 
no longer poses a threat to the national security of the United States, 
its interests, or allies. It would also require the Administration to 
report to Congress on countries cooperating (or not) with U.S. efforts 
to forge a multilateral Iran sanctions regime. The bill would also 
provide U.S. assistance to pro-democracy groups in Iran and to 
independent broadcasts into Iran from abroad.
  I was troubled when I read the recent reports about the 
Administration seriously considering a nuclear attack on Iran. While I 
strongly oppose Iran's efforts to create a nuclear weapons program, it 
would be unconscionable to use nuclear weapons in an attempt to 
eliminate their program. The President must reassure the world that 
America remains a responsible world power. He must state unambiguously 
that the United States will never use nuclear weapons in a first strike 
against Iran or any other sovereign nation.
  H.R. 282 is in keeping with United States priorities to address the 
multiple threats posed by the Iranian regime, as well as with our goal 
to bring peace and stability the people of the Middle East. I support 
this important legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I would like to include the following 
article, which I referenced on the floor, in the Record of the debate 
on H.R. 282, the ``Iran Freedom Support Act.''

                 [From the Asia Times, March 30, 2006]

                Neo-Con Cabal Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks

                           (By Gareth Porter)

       Washington.--The George W. Bush administration failed to 
     enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in 
     May 2003 because neo-conservatives who advocated 
     destabilization and regime change were able to block any 
     serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to 
     former administration officials.
       The same neo-conservative veto power also prevented the 
     administration from adopting any official policy statement on 
     Iran, those same officials said.
       Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of 
     state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran 
     policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a ``secret 
     cabal'' of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by 
     Vice President Dick Cheney.
       ``The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with 
     Tehran,'' Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service 
     (IPS). The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the 
     State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in 
     Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S. 
     concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no 
     specific concession in advance of the talks, according to 
     Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior 
     director for Middle East Affairs.
       Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off 
     Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting 
     Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, 
     according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to 
     Powell's demand in late March that Iran ``end its support for 
     terrorism''.
       In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the U.S. 
     to address security questions, the lifting of economic 
     sanctions and normalization of relations, including support 
     for Iran's integration into the global economic order.
       Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted 
     with the blessing of all the major political players in the 
     Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali 
     Khomeini.
       Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, 
     were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. 
     Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State 
     Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed 
     on the offer.
       Exactly how the decision was made is not known. ``As with 
     many of these issues of national security decision-making, 
     there are no fingerprints,'' Wilkerson told IPS. ``But I 
     would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. 
     Bush.''
       As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of 
     what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's ``grand 
     bargain'' initiative was a result of the administration's 
     inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.
       A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran 
     calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of 
     interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a 
     source who asked to remain unidentified.
       But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, 
     the source recalled, because officials in Cheney's office and 
     in under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's 
     Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and 
     kept trying to amend it.
       Opponents of the neo-conservative policy line blame 
     Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, for the 
     failure of the administration to override the extremists in 
     the administration. The statutory policymaker process on 
     Iran, Wilkerson told IPS in an e-mail, was ``managed by a 
     national security adviser incapable of standing up to the 
     cabal . . .''
       In the absence of an Iran policy, the two contending camps 
     struggled in 2003 over a proposal by realists in the 
     administration to reopen the Geneva channel with Iran that 
     had been used successfully on Afghanistan in 2001-02. They 
     believed Iran could be helpful in stabilizing postconflict 
     Iraq, because the Iraqi Shi'ite militants whom they expected 
     to return from Iran after Saddam Hussein's overthrow owed 
     some degree of allegiance to Iran.
       The neo-conservatives tried to block those meetings on 
     tactical policy grounds, according to Leverett. ``They were 
     saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't 
     want to owe them,'' he recalled.
       Nevertheless, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay 
     Khalilzad (now envoy in Iraq) was authorized to begin meeting 
     secretly in Geneva with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq. 
     The neo-conservatives then tried to sandbag the talks by 
     introducing a demand for full information on any high-ranking 
     al-Oaeda cadres who might be detained by the Iranians.
       Iran regarded that information as a bargaining chip to be 
     given up only for a quid pro quo from Washington. The Bush 
     administration, however, had adopted a policy in early 2002 
     of refusing to share any information with Iran on al-Oaeda or 
     other terrorist organizations.
       On May 3,2003, as the Iranian ``grand bargain'' proposal 
     was on its way to Washington, Tehran's representative in 
     Geneva, Javad Zarif, offered a compromise on the issue, 
     according to Leverett: if the U.S. gave Iran the names of the 
     cadres of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) who were being held by 
     U.S. forces in Iraq, Iran would give the U.S. the names of 
     the al-Oaeda operatives they had detained.
       The MEK had carried out armed attacks against Iran from 
     Iraqi territory during the Hussein regime and had been named 
     a terrorist organization by the U.S. But it had capitulated 
     to U.S. forces after the invasion, and the neo-conservatives 
     now saw the MEK as a potential asset in an effort to 
     destabilize the Iranian regime.
       The MEK had already become a key element in the alternative 
     draft NSPD drawn up by neo-conservatives in the 
     administration.
       The indictment of Iran analyst Larry Franklin on Feith's 
     staff last year revealed that, by February 2003, Franklin had 
     begun sharing a draft NSPD that he knew would be to the 
     liking of the Israeli Embassy.
       (Franklin eventually pleaded guilty to passing classified 
     information to two employees of an influential pro-Israel 
     lobbying group and was sentenced to 12 and a half years in 
     prison.)
       Reflecting the substance of that draft policy, ABC News 
     reported on May 30, 2003, that the Pentagon was calling for 
     the destabilization of the Iranian government by ``using all 
     available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including 
     backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services 
     of the Mujahideen-e Khalq . . .''
       Nevertheless, Bush apparently initially saw nothing wrong 
     with trading information on MEK, despite arguments that MEK 
     should not be repatriated to Iran. ``I have it on good 
     authority,'' Leverett told IPS, ``that Bush's initial 
     reaction was, `But we say there is no such thing as a good 
     terrorist.' '' Nevertheless, Bush finally rejected the 
     Iranian proposal.
       By the end of May, the neo-conservatives had succeeded in 
     closing down the Geneva channel for good. They had hoped to 
     push through their own NSPD on Iran, but according to the 
     Franklin indictment, Franklin told an Israeli Embassy officer 
     in October that work on the NSPD had been stopped.
       But the damage had been done. With no direct diplomatic 
     contact between Iran and the U.S., the neo-conservatives had 
     a clear path to raising tensions and building political 
     support for regarding Iran as the primary enemy of the United 
     States.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of the Iran Freedom Support Act.
  Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for 
international terrorist organizations, and abhorrent human rights 
practices pose one of the greatest threats to global security.
  Further, the Iranian government has made clear its intentions toward 
the United States. Six months ago, Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad stated that a world without the United States is a 
``possible goal and slogan''. This is not a veiled threat and we must 
take him seriously.
  Our greatest responsibility is the safety and security of the 
American people. As such, we must employ every option at our disposal 
to ensure that Mr. Ahmadinejad's stated goals remain unattainable.
  The Iran Freedom Support Act takes a responsible and sensible 
approach--tightening and codifying economic sanctions against the 
Iranian regime. It will hinder Iran's ability to acquire nuclear 
weapons and fund terrorist groups and it will send a clear signal to 
the

[[Page H1774]]

Iranian regime that it will be held accountable for its threatening 
behavior.
  The United States must also continue to push the United Nations 
Security Council for strong action to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. 
In the meantime, it is our job to take meaningful steps to eliminate 
the threats posed by Iran. And that is why I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Miss. McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 282, 
the Iran Freedom Support Act. I applaud this bi-partisan effort by 
Congress to address the increasing threat posed to our country and 
world by Iran.
  Many defense experts have predicted that we face no greater threat 
from a single country than from Iran. Iran's leaders, including Iranian 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have continuously called for the 
destruction of Israel, rejected overtures from the world community, 
including the United Nations, supported international terrorism, and 
continued to advance their nuclear program with the announcement on 
April 11 that Iran had successfully enriched fuel-grade uranium.
  All of these actions are unacceptable. We would be remiss to ignore a 
country that perilously threatens our allies and the security of the 
world while simultaneously seeking to advance its unsupervised nuclear 
capabilities. We must not allow Iran to bully the world or our allies 
or fail to show Iran that we will take their irresponsible and careless 
behavior seriously.
  H.R. 282 will help support democracy while taking a firm stance 
against the radical and reckless leaders of Iran and those that would 
support them. At this time, supporting democracy in Iran is an 
important ingredient to resolving this situation peacefully. One of my 
top priorities in Congress is to ensure our national security, and I 
support H.R. 282 as an important step in combating the rising risk of 
Iran.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 282, the Iran sanction bill. If this bill was only about imposing 
targeted sanctions against the Iranian regime, or companies and 
countries who invest in Iran, I could support it. In fact, I voted in 
favor of the original Iran sanctions bill when it was approved in 1996, 
and I voted to extend the bill when it came up for renewal in 2001.
  Unfortunately, the bill on the floor today does not just extend or 
expand sanctions against Iran and those doing business with that 
country; it also establishes a U.S. policy in favor of regime change in 
Iran. Therefore, I am extremely concerned that H.R. 282 is the first 
step in taking our country down the same misguided path that was taken 
with Iraq. The Iranian exile groups that would likely benefit from the 
provisions in this bill to support groups seeking regime change in Iran 
eerily echo Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. You may recall 
that Chalabi's INC worked with the Bush administration to mislead 
Congress and the American people about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass 
destruction in order to gain support for toppling Saddam Hussein using 
U.S. forces.
  It is my hope that as this bill continues through the legislative 
process, it will be amended to focus on sanctions and diplomacy rather 
than U.S. sponsored regime change. I believe that sanctions should be 
targeted at foreign investment in Iran, which would force Iranian 
leaders to choose between a growing economy and their desire for 
nuclear weapons. Sanctions could also be targeted at Iran's leaders by 
freezing their assets and imposing travel bans. Targeted sanctions can 
ratchet up the pressure on Iran's leaders without harming or alienating 
the Iranian people.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, when Iran will have a nuclear weapon is not 
the right question. Rather, we need to focus on when Iran will have the 
indigenous capability to produce nuclear fissile materials. This is the 
point of no return and should be our benchmark regarding the urgency of 
addressing Iran's behavior.
  It is an undisputed fact Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities. It is 
a fact Iran is the world's must egregious exporter of terrorism. And we 
all heard for ourselves when Iran's president threatened to ``wipe 
Israel off the map'' and when Ayatollah Khamenei, just yesterday, told 
another one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran 
would gladly transfer nuclear technology. When one considers these 
points together, it becomes clear how important it is we act today.
  Some residents of Connecticut's Fourth Congressional district have 
already expressed concern to me about the United States' consideration 
of the use of force against Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons 
program and end its state support of terrorism. Such action, while not 
off the table, must be an absolute last resort. That is why it is so 
critical our government utilize the tools at our disposal including 
economic and diplomatic sanctions and the appropriate distribution of 
foreign aid as suggested in this bill, to deter the threat Iran poses 
to global security. It is also appropriate for us impose pressure on 
the other nations of the world who prop up the Iranian government and 
the extremists at its helm by investing heavily in that nation.
  While I understand the concern the Administration has expressed that 
by passing this bill we are tying its hands to conduct foreign policy, 
I would be more sympathetic if it were doing more to enforce the laws 
Congress has already passed.
  The International Relations Committee states in the report 
accompanying this legislation that, ``the laws which have been enacted, 
as enforced, and other steps taken by current and past Administrations, 
have proven inadequate . . . Specifically with respect to ILSA, the 
Committee is deeply dismayed that the current Administration, like the 
prior Administration, has not acted to sanction a single enterprise for 
investing in Iran, but has delayed its decisions on `alleged' 
investments well past the point of failing the `laugh test.' ''
  Given the extreme rhetoric of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, I do not 
expect this legislation will bring an immediate change to Iran's 
aggressive and ill-advised march to acquire nuclear capabilities. It 
does send an important message, however, that the United States will 
not stand by as Iran pursues its nuclear ambitions and threatens 
international security.
  The bottom line is, in defiance of its assurances to the contrary, 
Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States 
must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions.
  I urge support of this legislation and appreciate the leadership of 
Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos to bring it to the floor today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 282, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________