[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11191-H11195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT OF 2009

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 1327) to authorize State and local governments 
to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with 
investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1327

       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 Sanctions Enabling Act 
     of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) There is an increasing interest by States, local 
     governments, educational institutions, and private 
     institutions to seek to disassociate themselves from 
     companies that directly or indirectly support the Government 
     of Iran's efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.
       (2) Policy makers and fund managers may find moral, 
     prudential, or reputational reasons to divest from companies 
     that accept the business risk of operating in countries that 
     are subject to international economic sanctions or that have 
     business relationships with countries, governments, or 
     entities with which any United States company would be 
     prohibited from dealing because of economic sanctions imposed 
     by the United States.

[[Page H11192]]

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIVEST 
                   FROM CERTAIN COMPANIES INVESTED IN IRAN'S 
                   ENERGY SECTOR.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to support the decision of State governments, local 
     governments, and educational institutions to divest from, and 
     to prohibit the investment of assets they control in, persons 
     that have investments of more than $20,000,000 in Iran's 
     energy sector.
       (b) Authority to Divest.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a State or local government may adopt and 
     enforce measures that meet the requirements of subsection (d) 
     to divest the assets of the State or local government from, 
     or prohibit investment of the assets of the State or local 
     government in, any person that the State or local government 
     determines, using credible information available to the 
     public, engages in investment activities in Iran described in 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Investment Activities in Iran Described.--A person 
     engages in investment activities in Iran described in this 
     subsection if the person--
       (1) has an investment of $20,000,000 or more in the energy 
     sector of Iran;
       (2) provides oil or liquified natural gas tankers, or 
     products used to construct or maintain pipelines used to 
     transport oil or liquified natural gas, for the energy sector 
     in Iran; or
       (3) is a financial institution that extends $20,000,000 or 
     more in credit to another person, for 45 days or more, if 
     that person will use the credit to invest in the energy 
     sector in Iran.
       (d) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
     subsection (b) that a measure taken by a State or local 
     government must meet are the following:
       (1) Notice.--The State or local government shall provide 
     written notice to each person to whom the State or local 
     government, as the case may be, intends to apply the measure, 
     of such intent.
       (2) Timing.--The measure shall apply to a person not 
     earlier than the date that is 90 days after the date on which 
     the person receives the written notice required by paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Opportunity for hearing.--The State or local government 
     shall provide each person referred to in paragraph (1) with 
     an opportunity to demonstrate to the State or local 
     government, as the case may be, that the person does not 
     engage in investment activities in Iran described in 
     subsection (c). If the person demonstrates to the State or 
     local government that the person does not engage in 
     investment activities in Iran described in subsection (c), 
     the measure shall not apply to the person.
       (4) Sense of the congress on avoiding erroneous 
     targeting.--It is the sense of the Congress that a State or 
     local government should not adopt a measure under subsection 
     (b) with respect to a person unless the State or local 
     government has made every effort to avoid erroneously 
     targeting the person and has verified that the person engages 
     in investment activities in Iran described in subsection (c).
       (e) Notice to Department of Justice.--Not later than 30 
     days after adopting a measure pursuant to subsection (b), a 
     State or local government shall submit to the Attorney 
     General of the United States a written notice which describes 
     the measure.
       (f) Nonpreemption.--A measure of a State or local 
     government authorized under subsection (b), or described in 
     subsection (i), is not preempted by any Federal law or 
     regulation.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Investment.--The ``investment'' of assets, with respect 
     to a State or local government, includes--
       (A) a commitment or contribution of assets;
       (B) a loan or other extension of credit; or
       (C) the entry into or renewal of a contract for goods or 
     services.
       (2) Assets.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``assets'' refers to public monies and includes any 
     pension, retirement, annuity, or endowment fund, or similar 
     instrument, that is controlled directly or indirectly by a 
     State or local government.
       (B) Exception.--The term ``assets'' does not include 
     employee benefit plans covered by title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et 
     seq.).
       (h) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection and subsection (i), this section shall apply 
     to measures adopted by a State or local government on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Notice requirements.--Subsections (d) and (e) apply to 
     measures adopted by a State or local government on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (i) Authorization for Prior Enacted Measures.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State or local 
     government may enforce a measure (without regard to the 
     requirements of subsection (d)) adopted by the State or local 
     government before the date of the enactment of this Act that 
     provides for the divestiture of assets of the State or local 
     government from, or prohibits the investment of the assets of 
     the State or local government in, any person that the State 
     or local government determines, using credible information 
     available to the public, engages in investment or business 
     activities in Iran (determined without regard to subsection 
     (c)) identified in the measure.

     SEC. 4. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   ASSET MANAGERS.

       Section 13(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
     U.S.C. 80a-13(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Solely for purposes of this subsection, 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State 
     law, no person may bring any civil, criminal, or 
     administrative action against any registered investment 
     company, or any employee, officer, director, or investment 
     adviser thereof, based solely upon the investment company 
     divesting from, or avoiding investing in, securities issued 
     by persons that the investment company determines, using 
     credible information that is available to the public, conduct 
     or have direct investments in business operations in Sudan 
     described in section 3(d) of the Sudan Accountability and 
     Divestment Act of 2007 or engage in investment activities in 
     Iran described in section 3(c) of the Iran Sanctions Enabling 
     Act of 2009. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to 
     create, imply, diminish, change, or affect in any way the 
     existence of a private cause of action under any other 
     provision of this Act.''.

     SEC. 5. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS.

       Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) No person shall be treated as breaching any of the 
     responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon 
     fiduciaries by this title for divesting plan assets from, or 
     avoiding investing plan assets in, persons that are 
     determined by such person, using credible information that is 
     available to the public, to be engaged in investment 
     activities in Iran described in section 3(c) of the Iran 
     Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009. Any divestiture of plan 
     assets from, or avoidance of investing plan assets in, 
     persons that are so determined to be engaged in such 
     investment activities shall be treated as in accordance with 
     this title and the documents and instruments governing the 
     plan.''.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Energy sector.--The term ``energy sector'' refers to 
     activities to develop petroleum or natural gas resources or 
     nuclear power.
       (2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     14(5) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 
     50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
       (3) Iran.--The term ``Iran'' includes any agency or 
     instrumentality of Iran.
       (4) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) a natural person, corporation, company, business 
     association, partnership, society, trust, or any other 
     nongovernmental entity, organization, or group;
       (B) any governmental entity or instrumentality of a 
     government, including a multilateral development institution 
     (as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3))); and
       (C) any successor, subunit, parent company, or subsidiary 
     of, or company under common ownership or control with, any 
     entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (6) State or local government.--The term ``State or local 
     government'' includes--
       (A) any State and any agency or instrumentality thereof;
       (B) any local government within a State, and any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof;
       (C) any other governmental instrumentality; and
       (D) any public institution of higher education within the 
     meaning of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 
     et seq.).

     SEC. 7. SUNSET.

       This Act shall terminate 30 days after the date on which 
     the President has certified to the Congress that--
       (1) the Government of Iran has ceased providing support for 
     acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies the 
     requirements for designation as a state-sponsor of terrorism 
     for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, or any other 
     provision of law; or
       (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and 
     development of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and 
     ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I am somewhat encouraged by what appears to be some progress in 
negotiations between the United States and

[[Page H11193]]

many other nations and Iran. I believe, as do I think, almost everybody 
in the House, perhaps not everybody, but almost everybody, that nuclear 
weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime would be a terrible thing 
for the world to have to deal with, and I am very supportive of our 
efforts to mobilize the necessary multinational coalition to impose the 
kind of sanctions that will stop this.
  In that context, I have worked closely with the Chair of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, on 
sanctions legislation, and I believe that he is correctly coordinating 
closely with the administration on the timing of broader sanctions 
legislation.
  The bill we are discussing right now is one that has previously been 
passed by this House. It was blocked in the Senate in the previous 
administration because the State Department argued against it, and I 
think the time has come for us to do it.
  It does not in itself impose any sanctions. What it does is to make 
it very clear that Americans who are deeply concerned about the 
prospect of Iranian nuclear power and other aspects of Iranian 
governance, that they are able to act on those. In particular, this 
bill says that no one in this country ought involuntarily to have his 
or her money put to the support of the Iranian economy.
  It has two provisions. First, it would protect States which have 
decided to divest from companies that are invested in Iranian energy 
operations from being preempted by the Federal Government.
  The State of Massachusetts, my home State, some years ago passed a 
bill saying not that no one in Massachusetts could do business with 
Myanmar, as the dictatorial rulers of that country now call what was 
once Burma; they said that they did not want State money, money from 
the State of Massachusetts, to be involved in ways that would be 
supportive of that regime. The State Department challenged that on the 
grounds of Federal supremacy in foreign policy, and the Supreme Court 
upheld it.
  What we do today is to say not that States can make foreign policy, 
but that States have the right to control their own funds. The staff 
has given me a list of about 20 States that have enacted legislation to 
divest from Iran and several other States that have adopted policies of 
divesting from Iran.
  Part of this bill today protects those States which have made the 
decisions by their own democratic processes from having the Federal 
Government come in and say, no, we are the Federal Government, we are 
in charge of foreign policy, and you must continue to invest in Iran.
  Secondly, we have had a movement of citizens that say to various 
investment vehicles, we do not want our money invested in Iran. What 
this says is that if people who are contributors to an investment fund 
go to that investment fund, whatever it is, and say, we don't want our 
money helping to bolster the economy of that regime in Iran, withdraw 
our funds from those companies, that the company can't be sued.
  What we have had is the investment vehicles have often said, I think 
sometimes frankly not entirely meaning that this is the real reason, 
oh, well, we can't do that, because we are mandated to get you the best 
possible dollar return, and if we withdraw here, we will be accused of 
having used other criteria.
  Now, in fact it has been, I think, fairly clear that when you have a 
very large entity investing broadly, withdrawal from no one cause is 
going to cause a problem. But that is still the fear that was cited. So 
what this bill does is to give a very narrowly drafted protection to 
the investment managers against being sued because they respond to a 
claim from their own contributors to that fund who don't want to be 
supporting Iran.
  As I said, it does not mandate any divestiture. It does protect State 
governments from having their money put where they don't want it to be, 
and it protects entities that do investments from being sued if they 
were to give in to the moral argument that their funds should not go 
for this or that country.
  There are a couple of technical changes to the bill as introduced 
which provide that the exceptions are very narrowly drafted just to 
this. It is, in fact, about the Iranian energy section, and I believe 
those in America who want to make these decisions should be protected 
in doing so.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong support for 
H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009. The author of this 
legislation, Chairman Frank, deserves a great deal of credit for 
helping shepherd this legislation through committee in a very strong 
bipartisan basis and for his tenacious work in bringing it to the House 
floor today in a bipartisan manner. I also want to commend my colleague 
from Illinois, who I know could not be here today, Mr. Kirk, who also 
has been a champion of this legislation in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, with the recent disclosure of a second site for 
enriching uranium in Iran, our relations with that country continue to 
be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. The Iranian regime has made 
no secret of its ambitions to acquire nuclear technology while it 
continues to engage in human rights violations and suppressing dissent.
  The U.S. can and should demand that Iran take specific actions, 
concrete actions, in the near term. This legislation today is going to 
help in that effort. The Iranian government will be more responsive if 
the United States can isolate the regime and apply some distinct 
pressure that will help force Tehran to deliver on its commitments and 
not merely to do what it has done in the past, and that is use 
negotiations to merely run out the clock.
  This legislation increases the economic pressure that is placed on 
Iran by permitting State governments, local governments and educational 
institutions to divest from investments related to Iran's energy 
sector.
  In addition, the legislation would extend to private actors the 
ability to consider U.S.-Iran relationships in their investment 
calculus. This means that registered investment advisors are provided a 
safe harbor, allowing them to divest from or elect not to invest in 
securities of companies that invest in Iran's energy sector.
  Many States, as the chairman had noted, including my own State of 
Minnesota, have already moved in that direction. But today we have the 
opportunity to push this important initiative a step closer at the 
Federal level, and in doing so we can help leverage and we can help 
slow down Iran's nuclear program and move one step closer to helping 
diminish this major security threat to the Middle East and the rest of 
the world.
  With the recent revelation of the second enrichment site, passage of 
this legislation is imperative, and it is even more important than it 
has been in the past.
  So I would urge immediate passage of H.R. 1327, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and express appreciation for his leadership. I seldom 
find myself in disagreement with the gentleman from Massachusetts, but 
I want to take exception to this particular legislation.
  In 1996, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which 
sanctioned foreign investment in Iran's energy sector. There are those 
who have said that there was not that much accomplished from that 
particular sanction act, and there are those who are saying now that if 
we move forward with sanctions, that it will be actually undermining 
the business interests of people on the Security Council that the 
United States needs to work with to try to bring Iran into the 
international community in a way that promotes international security, 
and that would be China and Russia.
  The fact is that U.S. policy towards Iran for the last three decades 
has consisted of pressure primarily in economic sanctions, threats, and 
isolationism.

                              {time}  1545

  While U.S. economic sanctions have hurt Iran's economy, U.S. policy 
over the last 30 years has not created any meaningful change in the 
behavior of the Iranian Government. On October

[[Page H11194]]

1st, there was a change. For the first time in the recent past, high 
level delegations from Iran and the U.S. and other industrialized 
nations sat down to diplomatic talks. There was significant progress.
  Among the steps forward was an agreement by Iran to allow access by 
the International Atomic Energy Agency to the recently revealed planned 
enrichment facility. Yet, with signs of progress in these highly 
sensitive talks, we're proposing to set the stage to punish Iran. I 
think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that diplomacy and 
that President Obama's efforts here succeed.
  I think when we talk about sanctions, we're saying sanctions before 
the talks, sanctions before any hope for agreements. I don't think the 
sanctions are going to help with the talks. I don't think sanctions are 
going to assist us in our efforts to try to bring Iran into a new 
position in the world community.
  I reluctantly oppose this bill, and I'm hopeful that our nuclear 
posture review will come to an understanding that the United States 
cannot be in a position of picking nuclear winners and losers. 
Ultimately, we are going to have to get everyone involved in nuclear 
abolition.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to an 
active supporter of this administration and a strong approach towards 
Iran, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman in support of the 
resolution.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of H.R. 1327, the Iran 
Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, which aims to put a stop to Iran's 
pursuit of nuclear weapons. It cannot be overstated. A nuclear armed 
Iran is an urgent and deadly threat to peace and stability in the 
Middle East and at home.
  The anti-Western rhetoric of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has only 
intensified in recent years. His regime supports terrorism in all its 
forms, a travesty worsened by the fact that Iran continues to pursue 
nuclear weapons against the will of the international community. If 
Iran continues its plans for nuclear buildup, we can expect that 
nuclear proliferation will increase throughout the region and around 
the globe. That is why it is critical for Congress to pass the Iran 
Sanctions Enabling Act.
  This legislation would authorize State and local governments to 
divest from companies investing in Iran's petroleum and natural gas 
sector. With Tehran importing nearly 40 percent of its gas and diesel 
needs, this legislation would have a dramatic effect on Iran's economy 
and is an important step forward in convincing Iran to suspend its 
nuclear program. It strikes a careful balance between the 
administration's diplomatic outreach and the need for us to make sure 
that we can tighten the noose around Iran's neck in the event that 
those diplomatic efforts are not successful.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, in closing for this side, I yield myself as 
much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of last month, Iran finally got around to 
notifying the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency of a 
previously undisclosed nuclear enrichment facility located on a 
military base. This additional enrichment facility will allow Iran to 
make more enriched uranium and make it faster.
  Now, what this means is that previous estimates on when Iran could 
potentially achieve a nuclear weapons breakout are now inaccurate and 
unreliable. What is especially disconcerting to many of us in Congress 
is that this is supposed to be a civilian facility but it's located on 
a military base. This raises quite a few red flags, and we must make 
sure and not allow the Iranian regime to buy even more time.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is another violation of Iran's obligation 
under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which requires all members 
to declare all nuclear facilities and allow inspection.
  Mr. Speaker, it is high time we begin to act on the threat of a 
nuclear Iran by demanding action, and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act 
is one more tool in the toolbox, an important step in moving that 
direction forward. I ask for its passage, and I commend the leadership 
again of the chairman for moving this bill in a bipartisan manner 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume to make one final point.
  It is the fantasy of the President of Iran, among many fantasies, 
most of them malign, that somehow it's the American Government that's 
been opposed to them and that the broad reach of the American people 
would be more sympathetic. The important point to stress here is that 
this bill does not do anything at the Federal level. This bill empowers 
State governments and private citizens to give vent to their own 
understandable extreme dislike and fear of the Iranian Government.
  So let's be very clear. This is a bill that will have effect to the 
extent that the activities of the Iranian Government increase the 
revulsion many Americans feel at those actions; not at the people of 
Iran, but at the Government of Iran. If, in fact, some of the hopeful 
signs were to look better, then this bill will not have much of an 
impact.
  So, to the great extent, whether or not this bill has a real impact 
will depend very much on what the Iranians do. And so I appreciate the 
cooperation we've gotten on both sides. And I stress again, this is a 
bill that empowers American citizens, American local and State 
governments, and whether or not this leads to action will depend very 
much on future actions by the Government of Iran.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it is none too soon that the House 
is considering what I hope will be the first of several pieces of 
legislation to sanction Iran for its illegal nuclear program.
  Despite Iran's agreement on October 1 to allow IAEA inspectors to 
visit its newly disclosed nuclear site near Qom, the regime continues 
to enrich uranium. Iran grows more and more dangerous each day 
enrichment is allowed to continue. A nuclear-armed Iran is an 
existential threat to Israel; would threaten the safety of American 
troops in the region; would likely embolden terrorist groups Hamas and 
Hezbollah; and could lead to a dangerous nuclear arms race in the 
Middle East. We must not allow this to happen.
  I strongly support the legislation before us today. H.R. 1327, the 
Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, would allow state and local governments to 
divest the assets of their pension funds and any other funds under 
their control from companies investing $20 million or more in Iran's 
energy sector. By allowing states and local governments to withdraw 
their investments in companies doing business in Iran, we can increase 
pressure on the Iranian regime to change course and abandon its pursuit 
of nuclear weapons. Only when Iran feels pressured, is it likely to 
make concessions.
  Unfortunately, the leaders of Iran seem to feel fairly secure despite 
all the talk of tough sanctions. On Friday, October 9, Ayatollah Ahmad 
Khatami, a member of Iran's Assembly of Experts, said the October 1 
talks between Iran, the U.S. and other world powers were a ``great 
victory'' for Iran, suggesting Iran had been successful in putting off 
any sanctions.
  By passing this legislation today, though, Congress can send Iran a 
clear and powerful message. While the President and other world leaders 
gauge whether Iran is truly serious about complying with its 
obligations, Congress will back the negotiations with sanctions to show 
Iran that it must act in good faith and not delay as it usually does.
  Passage of this legislation is important, but it is only the 
beginning of what needs to be done to address the Iranian nuclear 
threat. Congress must pass additional legislation, including H.R. 2194, 
the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, to put sufficient pressure on 
Iran to fully suspend all enrichment and work on its nuclear program.
  No government that calls for the complete destruction of another 
should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The Iran Sanctions Enabling 
Act is a first step to take in order to prevent Iran's leaders from 
acquiring the means to do what they say they will.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1327, the 
Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, and I commend my friend Mr. Frank 
for his leadership on this important issue.
  This bill will allow state and local governments and educational 
institutions to divest from companies that invest $20 million or more 
in Iran's energy sector. I am hopeful that the threat of divestment 
will persuade companies not to do business with Iran, and that this 
additional economic pressure will help deter Iran from pursuing a 
nuclear weapons capability or supporting terrorism.

[[Page H11195]]

  Several states and localities have already begun the process of 
divestment, and I expect that a divestment bill will soon be introduced 
in the state legislature in my home state of California. The 
legislation before us, H.R. 1327, will provide federal legal protection 
for these actions, allowing them, in the case of Iran, to place their 
moral sensibilities ahead of their fiduciary responsibilities. As such, 
this is not a sanctions bill per se--it creates no new sanctions on 
Iran or on companies that invest in Iran.
  The reasons that states and localities divest may vary--whether in 
response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for 
terrorism, its abysmal disregard for human rights, or its fraudulent 
elections and their brutal aftermath. The timing of this bill, just a 
few short months after the elections and the subsequent crackdown--and 
in the midst of the ongoing crisis of regime legitimacy--certainly 
makes it an appropriate response to those ugly events.
  I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to 
do likewise.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Iran admitted the 
existence of a secret enrichment facility in the holy city of Qom. This 
development has set in motion a renewed commitment on the part of the 
international community to pursue more aggressive penalties against 
Iran for its nuclear enrichment activities. Today, as Secretary of 
State Hilary Clinton arrives in Moscow to solicit Russian support for 
more stringent sanctions against Iran, the U.S. House of 
Representatives considers legislation that will enable ordinary 
Americans to express their opposition to Iran's illegal nuclear 
activities.
  The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009 helps to weaken Iran's vital 
petroleum industry by cutting off its access to global investment. The 
legislation enables State and local governments to divest from entities 
that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. Though Iran 
possesses large oil reserves, it has little refining capacity and the 
lack of refined petroleum products has often been a source of tension 
between its government and its people.
  It is clear that arresting Iran's illegal nuclear enrichment program 
will require a comprehensive approach that targets Iran's important 
energy sector, truncates its access to the global financial system and 
engages its people. This legislation can help to achieve these goals. I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. McMahon. Mr. Speaker, Iran's nuclear program has been an issue of 
serious concern for the international community since the Islamic 
Revolution of 1979.
  Since that time, Iran has been steadily advancing towards the nuclear 
threshold necessary to develop nuclear weaponry.
  Ahmadinejad already has 8,000 centrifuges that have produced enough 
uranium to build two nuclear weapons and the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, IAEA, has evidence of an Iranian uranium enrichment 
program coupled with explosives testing and development of devices to 
fire nuclear weapons.
  Furthermore, every day Iran's nuclear stockpile grows by 4\1/2\ 
pounds.
  It would be an absolute disaster for the United States and its allies 
if Iran enriched uranium even further.
  Israel, in particular, sees the face of Iran's blind aggression every 
day.
  Iran has not only threatened the very existence of the one true 
democracy in the Middle East, but encourages other hostile governments 
to do the same through a complex network of nuclear and arms 
cooperation.
  Given these facts and undoubtedly an immeasurable amount of 
undisclosed information, the United States finds itself at a 
crossroads.
  Negotiations with the Iranians will conclude in Vienna on October 19.
  But, recent revelations of a previously undisclosed nuclear facility, 
not to mention the increasingly atrocious treatment of opposition 
supporters, have illustrated that unfortunately, Iran has already 
failed the test and it is time for Plan B.
  For this reason, I commend the House on the passage of the Iran 
Sanctions Act, H.R. 1327, a bill which I am a proud cosponsor of.
  The future of nuclear nonproliferation, international security and 
the well-being of young Iranians lies in the administration's ability 
to steer Iran away from it dangerous ambitions.
  Fortunately, H.R. 1327 opens the door to this diversion by uniquely 
complementing the administration's forward-thinking strategy of 
dialogue with strict credit sanctions.
  Sans sanctions, engagement can be and historically has been 
manipulated by Iran as a mere tactic for delay.
  Without the foreign capital investments to modernize its petroleum 
infrastructure, Ahmadinejad will soon have no choice but to change 
course.
  I would like to conclude by noting that Iran's deficient refining 
capacity calls for targeted sanctions on refined petroleum and 
increased international cooperation to enforce these measures with our 
partners in the EU, Russia and China.
  The threat from Iran demands an effective policy response--and our 
European allies are well-placed to formulate one.
  Germany, for example, has already taken notable steps to reduce its 
business with Iran.
  But despite a 90 percent decline between 2006 and 2008 in the German 
Government's issuance of export credit guarantees to Iran, exports to 
Iran have increased.
  These sorts of disturbing trends coupled with Iran's thriving black 
market, underpin the premise that more must be done to curtail foreign 
investment and ultimately, Iran's nuclear weapons pursuit.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with both my colleagues in the 
House and the Foreign Affairs Committee to increase the 
administration's options when dealing with Iran.
  Once again, the passage of the Iran Sanctions Act is a momentous step 
towards not only effectively dealing with Iran, but towards replacing a 
troubling network of nuclear cooperation with a newfound movement 
towards international cooperation for the sake of world peace.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1327, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 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 motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________