[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14921-H14942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
              IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance 
United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding 
economic sanctions against Iran, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2194

       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 Refined Petroleum 
     Sanctions Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS; STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of 
     Iran--combined with its development of unconventional weapons 
     and ballistic missiles, and support for international 
     terrorism--represent a serious threat to the security of the 
     United States and U.S. allies in Europe, the Middle East, and 
     around the world.
       (2) The United States and other responsible nations have a 
     vital interest in working together to prevent the Government 
     of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
       (3) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has 
     repeatedly called attention to Iran's unlawful nuclear 
     activities, and, as a result, the United Nations Security 
     Council has adopted a range of sanctions designed to 
     encourage the Government of Iran to suspend those activities 
     and comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-
     Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (commonly known as the 
     ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'').
       (4) As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Obama stated 
     that additional sanctions, especially those targeting Iran's 
     dependence on imported refined petroleum, may help to 
     persuade the Government of Iran to abandon its illicit 
     nuclear activities.
       (5) On October 7, 2008, then-Senator Obama stated, ``Iran 
     right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil producer, 
     because its oil infrastructure has broken down. If we can 
     prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and 
     the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their 
     cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on 
     them.''.
       (6) On June 4, 2008, then-Senator Obama stated, ``We should 
     work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf states to find every 
     avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime--from 
     cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial 
     sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to 
     Iran.''.
       (7) Major European allies, including the United Kingdom, 
     France, and Germany, have advocated that sanctions be 
     significantly toughened should international diplomatic 
     efforts fail to achieve verifiable suspension of Iran's 
     uranium enrichment program and an end to its nuclear weapons 
     program and other illicit nuclear activities.
       (8) The serious and urgent nature of the threat from Iran 
     demands that the United States work together with U.S. allies 
     to do everything possible--diplomatically, politically, and 
     economically--to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear 
     weapons capability.
       (9) The human rights situation in Iran has steadily 
     deteriorated in 2009, as punctuated by the transparent fraud 
     that occurred on June 12, 2009, the brutal repression and 
     murder, arbitrary arrests, and show trials of peaceful 
     dissidents, and ongoing suppression of freedom of expression.
       (10) The Iranian regime has been unresponsive to, and at 
     times contemptuous of, the Obama Administration's 
     unprecedented and serious efforts at engagement, revealing 
     that Tehran is not interested in a diplomatic resolution, as 
     made clear, for example, by the following:
       (A) Iran's apparent rejection of the Tehran Research 
     Reactor plan, generously offered by the United States and its 
     partners, of potentially great benefit to the Iranian people, 
     and endorsed by Iran's own negotiators in October, 2009.
       (B) Iran's ongoing clandestine nuclear weapons program, as 
     evidenced by its work on the secret uranium enrichment 
     facility at Qom, its subsequent refusal to cooperate fully 
     with IAEA inspectors, and its announcement that it would 
     build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities.
       (C) Iran's ongoing arms exports and support to terrorists 
     in direct contravention of United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions.
       (D) Iran's absurd claims that the West, and specifically 
     the United States, have fomented the waves of anti-regime 
     protests that followed the June 12, 2009, election in Iran.
       (E) Iran's July 31, 2009, arrest of three young Americans 
     on spying charges.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) international diplomatic efforts to address Iran's 
     illicit nuclear efforts, unconventional and ballistic missile 
     development programs, and support for international terrorism 
     are more likely to be effective if the President is empowered 
     with the explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on 
     the Government of Iran;
       (2) the concerns of the United States regarding Iran are 
     strictly the result of the actions of the Government of Iran;
       (3) the revelation in September 2009 that Iran is 
     developing a secret uranium enrichment site on an Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps base near Qom, which appears to 
     have no civilian application, highlights the urgency for Iran 
     to fully disclose the full nature of its nuclear program, 
     including any other secret locations, and provide the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unfettered access 
     to its facilities pursuant to Iran's legal obligations under 
     the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and 
     Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA;
       (4) because of its involvement in Iran's nuclear program 
     and other destabilizing activities, the President should 
     impose sanctions, including the full range of sanctions 
     otherwise applicable to Iran, on any individual or entity 
     that is an agent, alias, front, instrumentality, 
     representative, official, or affiliate of the Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps or is an individual serving as a 
     representative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or 
     on any person that has conducted any commercial transaction 
     or financial transaction with such entities;
       (5) Government to Government agreements with Iran to 
     provide the regime with refined petroleum products, such as 
     the September 2009 agreement under which the Government of 
     Venezuela committed to provide 20,000 barrels of gasoline per 
     day to Iran, undermine efforts to pressure Iran to suspend 
     its nuclear weapons program and cease all enrichment 
     activities; and
       (6) the people of the United States--
       (A) have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran; and
       (B) hold the people of Iran, their culture, and their 
     ancient and rich history in the highest esteem.
       (c) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the 
     United States--
       (1) to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make 
     nuclear weapons, including by supporting international 
     diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program;
       (2) to fully implement and enforce the Iran Sanctions Act 
     of 1996 as a means of encouraging foreign governments to--
       (A) direct state-owned entities to cease all investment in, 
     and support of, Iran's energy sector and all exports of 
     refined petroleum products to Iran; and
       (B) require private entities based in their territories to 
     cease all investment in, and support of, Iran's energy sector 
     and all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran;
       (3) to impose sanctions on--
       (A) the Central Bank of Iran, and any other financial 
     institution in Iran that is engaged in proliferation 
     activities or support of terrorist groups, and
       (B) any other financial institution that conducts financial 
     transactions with the Central Bank of Iran or with another 
     financial institution described in subparagraph (A),

     including through the use of Executive Orders 13224, 13382, 
     and 13438 and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 
     1737, 1747, 1803, and 1835;
       (4) to persuade the allies of the United States and other 
     countries to take appropriate measures to deny access to the 
     international financial system by Iranian banks and financial 
     institutions involved in proliferation activities or support 
     of terrorist groups;

[[Page H14922]]

       (5) to support all Iranian citizens who embrace the values 
     of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of 
     law; and
       (6) for the Secretary of State to make every effort to 
     assist United States citizens held hostage in Iran at any 
     time during the period beginning on November 4, 1979 and 
     ending on January 20, 1981, and their survivors in matters of 
     compensation related to such citizens' detention.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996.

       (a) Expansion of Sanctions.--Section 5(a) of the Iran 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Sanctions With Respect to the Development of 
     Petroleum Resources of Iran and Exportation of Refined 
     Petroleum to Iran.--
       ``(1) Development of petroleum resources of iran.--
       ``(A) Investment.--Except as provided in subsection (f), 
     the President shall impose 2 or more of the sanctions 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 6(a) if 
     the President determines that a person has knowingly, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, made an 
     investment of $20,000,000 or more (or any combination of 
     investments of at least $5,000,000 each, which in the 
     aggregate equals or exceeds $20,000,000 in any 12-month 
     period), that directly and significantly contributed to the 
     enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources 
     of Iran.
       ``(B) Production of refined petroleum products.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (f), the President shall impose the 
     sanctions described in section 6(b) if the President 
     determines that a person knowingly sells, leases, or provides 
     to Iran any goods, services, technology, information, or 
     support, or enters into a contract to sell, lease, or provide 
     to Iran any goods, services, technology, information, or 
     support, that would allow Iran to maintain or expand its 
     domestic production of refined petroleum products, including 
     any assistance in the construction, modernization, or repair 
     of refineries that make refined petroleum products, if--
       ``(i) the value of the goods, services, technology, 
     information, or support provided in such sale, lease, or 
     provision, or to be provided in such contract, exceeds 
     $200,000; or
       ``(ii) the value of the goods, services, technology, 
     information, or support provided in any combination of such 
     sales, leases, or provision in any 12-month period, or to be 
     provided under contracts entered into in any 12-month period, 
     exceeds $500,000.
       ``(2) Exportation of refined petroleum products to iran.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (f), 
     the President shall impose the sanctions described in section 
     6(b) if the President determines that a person knowingly 
     provides Iran with refined petroleum products or knowingly 
     engages in any of the activities described in subparagraph 
     (B), if--
       ``(i) the value of such products or of the goods, services, 
     technology, information, or support provided or to be 
     provided in connection with such activity exceeds $200,000; 
     or
       ``(ii) the value of such products, or of the goods, 
     services, technology, information, or support, provided or to 
     be provided in connection with any combination of providing 
     such products or such activities, in any 12-month period 
     exceeds $500,000.
       ``(B) Activities described.--The activities referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are the following:
       ``(i) Providing ships, vehicles, or other means of 
     transportation to deliver refined petroleum products to Iran, 
     or providing services relating to the shipping or other 
     transportation of refined petroleum products to Iran.
       ``(ii) Underwriting or otherwise providing insurance or 
     reinsurance for an activity described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) Financing or brokering an activity described in 
     clause (i).''.
       (b) Description of Sanctions.--Section 6 of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The sanctions to be imposed on a 
     sanctioned person under section 5 are as follows:'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The sanctions to be imposed on a 
     sanctioned person under subsections (a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of 
     section 5 are as follows:'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``section 5'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``subsections (a)(1)(A) and (b) of 
     section 5''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Additional Mandatory Sanctions.--The sanctions to be 
     imposed on a sanctioned person under paragraphs (1)(B) and 
     (2) of section 5(a) are as follows:
       ``(1) Foreign exchange.--The President shall prohibit any 
     transactions in foreign exchange by the sanctioned person.
       ``(2) Banking transactions.--The President shall prohibit 
     any transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or 
     to any financial institution, to the extent that such 
     transfers or payments involve any interest of the sanctioned 
     person.
       ``(3) Property transactions.--The President shall prohibit 
     any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, 
     withdrawal, transportation, importation, or exportation of, 
     dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with 
     respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which 
     the sanctioned person has any interest by any person, or with 
     respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Additional Measure Relating to Refined Petroleum 
     Products.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of each executive agency shall 
     ensure that each contract with a person entered into by such 
     executive agency for the procurement of goods or services, or 
     agreement for the use of Federal funds as part of a grant, 
     loan, or loan guarantee to a person, includes a clause that 
     requires the person to certify to the contracting officer or 
     other appropriate official of such agency that the person 
     does not conduct any activity described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     or (2) of section 5(a).
       ``(2) Exclusion.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a loan 
     or other program under title IV of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or to any payment of 
     educational assistance by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     under title 38, United States Code.
       ``(3) Remedies.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the head of the executive agency 
     determines that such person has submitted a false 
     certification under paragraph (1) after the date on which the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation is revised to implement the 
     requirements of this subsection, the head of an executive 
     agency may terminate a contract, or agreement described in 
     paragraph (1), with such person or debar or suspend such 
     person from eligibility for Federal contracts or such 
     agreements for a period not to exceed 3 years. Any such 
     debarment or suspension shall be subject to the procedures 
     that apply to debarment and suspension under the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation under subpart 9.4 of part 9 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Inclusion on list of parties excluded from federal 
     procurement and nonprocurement programs.--The Administrator 
     of General Services shall include on the List of Parties 
     Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs 
     maintained by the Administrator under part 9 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation issued under section 25 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421) each person 
     that is debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or 
     declared ineligible by the head of an executive agency on the 
     basis of a determination of a false certification under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--This subsection shall not be 
     construed to limit the use of other remedies available to the 
     head of an executive agency or any other official of the 
     Federal Government on the basis of a determination of a false 
     certification under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Implementation through the federal acquisition 
     regulation.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 
     2009, the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant to 
     section 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 421) shall be revised to provide for the 
     implementation of the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(5) Clarification regarding certain products.--Section 
     5(f)(2) applies with respect to the imposition of remedies 
     under paragraph (3) to the same extent as such section 
     applies with respect to sanctions under subsection (a) or (b) 
     of section 5.''.
       (c) Additional Mandatory Sanctions Relating to Transfer of 
     Nuclear Technology.--Section 5(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act 
     of 1996 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and moving such 
     paragraphs 2 ems to the right;
       (2) by striking ``The President shall impose'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The President shall impose'';
       (3) by striking ``section 6'' and inserting ``section 
     6(a)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Additional sanction.--
       ``(A) Restriction.--In any case in which a person is 
     subject to sanctions under paragraph (1) because of an 
     activity described in such paragraph that relates to the 
     acquisition or development of nuclear weapons or related 
     technology or of missiles or other advanced conventional 
     weapons that are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, then 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following 
     measures shall apply with respect to the country that has 
     jurisdiction over such person, unless the President 
     determines and notifies the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the government of such country has taken, or 
     is taking, effective actions to penalize such person and to 
     prevent a reoccurrence of such activity in the future:
       ``(i) No agreement for cooperation between the United 
     States and the government of such country may be submitted to 
     the President or to Congress pursuant to section 123 of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), or may enter into 
     force.
       ``(ii) No license may be issued for the export, and no 
     approval may be given for the transfer or retransfer, 
     directly or indirectly, to such country of any nuclear 
     material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, 
     or technology that would be subject to an agreement to 
     cooperation.
       ``(B) Construction.--The restrictions in subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply in addition to all other applicable procedures, 
     requirements, and restrictions contained in the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 and other laws.
       ``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `agreement 
     for cooperation' has the meaning given that term in section 
     11 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2014(b)).''.
       (d) Strengthening of Waiver Authority and Sanctions 
     Implementation.--

[[Page H14923]]

       (1) Investigations.--Section 4(f) of the Iran Sanctions Act 
     of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``should initiate'' and inserting ``shall 
     immediately initiate'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or 5(b)'' after ``section 5(a)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``as described in such section'' and 
     inserting ``as described in section 5(a)(1) or other activity 
     described in section 5(a)(2) or 5(b) (as the case may be)''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``should determine, 
     pursuant to section 5(a), if a person has engaged in 
     investment activity in Iran as described in such section'' 
     and inserting ``shall determine, pursuant to section 5(a) or 
     (b) (as the case may be), if a person has engaged in 
     investment activity in Iran as described in section 5(a)(1) 
     or other activity described in section 5(a)(2) or 5(b) (as 
     the case may be)''.
       (2) General waiver authority.--Section 9(c) of the Iran 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting after ``on a person described in section 
     5(c),'' the following: ``or on a country described in section 
     5(b)(2)(A) (if the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that the President is unable to make 
     the determination described in such section 5(b)(2)(A) with 
     respect to the government of that country),''; and
       (ii) by striking ``important to the national interest of 
     the United States'' and inserting ``vital to the national 
     security interest of the United States''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D), by striking ``or 
     (b)'' each place it appears and inserting ``or (b)(1)''; and
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) an estimate of the significance of the provision of 
     the items described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 5(a) 
     or section 5(b)(1) to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum 
     resources, to maintain or expand its domestic production of 
     refined petroleum products, to import refined petroleum 
     products, or to develop its weapons of mass destruction or 
     other military capabilities (as the case may be); and''.
       (e) Reports on United States Efforts To Curtail Certain 
     Business and Other Transactions Relating to Iran.--Section 10 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (4) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Iran's use in the Middle East, the Western 
     Hemisphere, Africa, and other regions, of Iranian diplomats 
     and representatives of other government and military or 
     quasi-governmental institutions or proxies of Iran, 
     including, but not limited to, Hezbollah, to promote acts of 
     international terrorism or to develop or sustain Iran's 
     nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile weapons 
     programs.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Reports on Certain Business and Other Transactions 
     Relating to Iran.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 
     2009, and every 6 months thereafter, the President shall 
     submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees 
     regarding any person who has--
       ``(A) provided Iran with refined petroleum products;
       ``(B) sold, leased, or provided to Iran any goods, 
     services, or technology that would allow Iran to maintain or 
     expand its domestic production of refined petroleum products; 
     or
       ``(C) engaged in any activity described in section 
     5(a)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Description.--For each activity set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1), the President 
     shall provide a complete and detailed description of such 
     activity, including--
       ``(A) the date or dates of such activity;
       ``(B) the name of any persons who participated or invested 
     in or facilitated such activity;
       ``(C) the United States domiciliary of the persons referred 
     to in subparagraph (B);
       ``(D) any Federal Government contracts to which the persons 
     referred to in subparagraph (B) are parties; and
       ``(E) the steps taken by the United States to respond to 
     such activity.
       ``(3) Additional information.--The report required by this 
     subsection shall also include a list of--
       ``(A) any person that the President determines is an agent, 
     alias, front, instrumentality, representative, official, or 
     affiliate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or is an 
     individual serving as a representative of the Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps;
       ``(B) any person that the President determines has 
     knowingly provided material support to the Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps or an agent, alias, front, 
     instrumentality, representative, official, or affiliate of 
     the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; and
       ``(C) any person who has conducted any commercial 
     transaction or financial transaction with the Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guards Corps or an agent, alias, front, 
     instrumentality, representative, official, or affiliate of 
     the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
       ``(4) Form of reports; publication.--The reports required 
     under this subsection shall be--
       ``(A) submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex; and
       ``(B) published in the Federal Register.
       ``(e) Reports on Global Trade Relating to Iran.--Not later 
     than one year after the date of the enactment of the Iran 
     Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 and annually 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report, with respect to the 
     immediately preceding 12-month period, on the dollar value 
     amount of trade, including in the energy sector, between Iran 
     and each country maintaining membership in the Group of 
     Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.''.
       (f) Clarification and Expansion of Definitions.--Section 14 
     of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13)(B)--
       (A) by inserting ``financial institution, insurer, 
     underwriter, guarantor, any other business organization, 
     including any foreign subsidiary, parent, or affiliate of 
     such a business organization,'' after ``trust,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, such as an export credit agency'' 
     before the semicolon at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (15) and (16) as paragraphs 
     (17) and (18), respectively; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (14) and inserting the following:
       ``(14) Knowingly.--The term `knowingly' means--
       ``(A) having actual knowledge; or
       ``(B) having the constructive knowledge deemed to be 
     possessed by a reasonable individual who acts under similar 
     circumstances.
       ``(15) Petroleum resources.--The term `petroleum resources' 
     includes petroleum, oil or liquefied natural gas, oil or 
     liquefied natural gas tankers, and products used to construct 
     or maintain pipelines used to transport oil or compressed or 
     liquefied natural gas.
       ``(16) Refined petroleum products.--The term `refined 
     petroleum products' means gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, 
     residual fuel oil, and distillates and other goods classified 
     in headings 2709 and 2710 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States.''.
       (g) Termination of Certain Provisions.--Section 8 of the 
     Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The requirement under section 5(a)'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Sanctions Relating to Investment.--The 
     requirement under section 5(a)(1)(A)'';
       (2) by striking ``with respect to Iran''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Refined Petroleum Products.--The requirements under 
     paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 5(a) and section 6(b) to 
     impose sanctions shall no longer have force or effect if the 
     President determines and certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that Iran--
       ``(1) has ceased its efforts to design, develop, 
     manufacture, or acquire a nuclear explosive device or related 
     materials and technology; and
       ``(2) has ceased nuclear-related activities, including 
     uranium enrichment, that would facilitate the efforts 
     described in paragraph (1).''.
       (h) Extension of Act.--Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions 
     Act of 1996 is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
     ``2016''.
       (i) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Multilateral regime.--Section 4 of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``(in addition to 
     that provided in subsection (d))''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating 
     subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), 
     respectively.
       (2) Reference to committee on foreign affairs.--Section 
     14(2) of such Act is amended by striking ``International 
     Relations'' and inserting ``Foreign Affairs''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 5(c)(1) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``or (b)'' and inserting ``or 
     (b)(1)''.
       (B) Section 9(a) of such Act is amended by striking ``or 
     5(b)'' each place it appears and inserting ``or 5(b)(1)''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, except that--
       (1) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(a), section 
     5(b)(2), and section 6(b), of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, 
     as amended by this Act, shall apply to conduct engaged in on 
     or after October 28, 2009, notwithstanding section 5(f)(3) of 
     the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and
       (2) the amendments made by subsection (d) of section 3 of 
     this Act shall apply with respect to conduct engaged in 
     before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--
       (1) Existing sanctions not affected.--The amendments made 
     by subsections (a) and (b) of section 3 of this Act shall not 
     be construed to affect the requirements of section 5(a) of 
     the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 as in effect before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and such requirements continue 
     to apply, on and after such date of enactment, to conduct 
     engaged in before October 28, 2009.
       (2) Waiver authority.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (d) of section 3 of this Act shall not be construed to affect 
     any exercise of the authority under section 4(f) or section 
     9(c) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

[[Page H14924]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman gentlewoman from Florida 
opposed to the motion?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No, I do not oppose the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio will control the 20 
minutes in opposition.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to split the time 
evenly, the 20 minutes, in support of the bill with my colleague, the 
ranking member from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Florida will control 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time 
of the debate on H.R. 2194 by an additional 20 minutes, with my control 
of 10 of those additional 20 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio's 
control in opposition of 10 of those 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, what we are 
saying is that in my friend's interest of making sure that there is an 
opportunity for Members to speak on the various sides here, you want to 
make sure the time is evenly divided for the underlying bill and also 
for the extension of time?
  Mr. BERMAN. Perhaps, more accurately, you want to make sure the time 
is divided, and I am prepared to say the rules require that; and the 
extension of time I have in mind of an additional 20 minutes--
  Mr. KUCINICH. The additional time is going to be evenly distributed.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further unanimous consent request: 
that the 10 additional minutes of time on behalf of the supporters of 
this legislation be split, 5 minutes for the majority and 5 minutes for 
the ranking member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Florida will control an additional 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BERMAN. Is it correct we are now in a situation where we will 
have a 1-hour debate on this bill in which I will have 15 minutes to 
yield, the ranking member will have 15 minutes to yield, and the 
gentleman from Ohio will have 30 minutes under his control?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has one overriding goal: to prevent Iran from 
achieving a nuclear weapons capability. The prospect of a nuclear-armed 
Iran is the most serious and urgent strategic challenge faced by the 
United States, and we must use all of the diplomatic means at our 
disposal--including tougher sanctions--to prevent that from becoming a 
reality.
  A nuclear-armed Iran would spread its influence by intimidating its 
neighbors; it would, with near impunity, continue to support terrorists 
and destabilize the Middle East; it would spark an arms race in the 
region that would tear the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to shreds; 
and, most frightening of all, it could, in the light of Iran's repeated 
threats to wipe another nation off the map, result in the actual use of 
nuclear weapons.
  When one considers the regime's ideological nature, the fact that it 
sent thousands of children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, and 
its current disregard for the human rights of its own citizens, it is 
clear the Iranian regime is anything but a rational actor, and we 
certainly cannot take the chance that a nuclear Iran would behave 
responsibly.
  With each passing day, the situation becomes more urgent as Iran 
takes additional steps to develop its nuclear weapons capability. By 
many estimates, it would have that capability by sometime next year, 
and even the predictions that they could not be ready to deliver a bomb 
within 5 years have to be reevaluated on a shorter time frame based on 
recent revelations about Iran's nuclear program.
  In September, Iran's efforts to construct a new secret uranium 
enrichment facility were exposed to the world. And what was Tehran's 
response when the international community rightly condemned it for that 
action? To declare that it will build 10 more.
  The Iranian nuclear issue could have been resolved without further 
sanctions. President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but 
regrettably Iran has not unclenched its fist. The regime has refused to 
endorse even a confidence-building measure--agreed to by its 
negotiators in Geneva--that would have seen Iran ship most of its low-
enriched uranium abroad to be further enriched for use in Iran's 
civilian nuclear medical research reactor. That deal would have bought 
everyone significant time, delaying Iran's nuclear-arms clock for up to 
a year as negotiators dealt with the heart of the issue: Iranian 
compliance with the U.N. Security Council requirement that it suspend 
its enrichment program altogether. By rejecting the deal, Iran retains 
its full stock of low-enriched uranium, enough to serve as the basis 
for one nuclear bomb, and it forces the world to respond urgently.
  The bill before us today is an important part of that response. It 
would take advantage of Iran's considerable dependency on refined-
petroleum imports. It would sanction foreign companies that sell 
refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its own domestic refining 
capacity, by depriving those companies of access to the United States 
market. And in so doing, we are asking no more of foreign companies 
than we currently demand of American firms. I believe the passage and 
implementation of this act would have a powerful effect on the Iranian 
economy, and I believe it would force unpalatable budgetary choices on 
the Iranian regime, vastly increasing the domestic political cost of 
pursuing its nuclear program.
  That said, I want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving 
forward with this legislation is to prevent Iran from developing a 
nuclear weapons capability. As we move toward a likely conference with 
the Senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration 
continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, I am 
open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as effective 
as possible in meeting that objective, including providing incentives 
to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral 
sanctions regime. One possibility would be to provide an exemption for 
companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in 
their national law.
  But for now, it is sufficient to say that Iran has had ample time to 
respond positively to President Obama's generous engagement offer. 
Regrettably, the response has been only one of contempt. It is time for 
this body to act.
  I urge the support of this legislation.

                                                December 14, 2009.
     Hon. Howard L. Berman,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the Iran Refined 
     Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (H.R. 2194, 111th Congress). 
     As you know, the bill was referred to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means based on the Committee's jurisdiction over 
     international trade.
       There have been some productive conversations between the 
     staffs of our Committees, during which we have proposed some 
     changes to H.R. 2194 that I believe help to clarify the 
     intent and scope of the bill, particularly with respect to 
     U.S. international trade obligations. I appreciate your 
     commitment to

[[Page H14925]]

     address the concerns raised by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means as this legislation moves forward.
       In order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee on Ways and Means will forgo 
     action on this bill and will not oppose its consideration on 
     the suspension calendar, based on our understanding that you 
     will work with the Committee on Ways and Means as the 
     legislative process moves forward in the House of 
     Representatives and in the Senate, to ensure that our 
     concerns are addressed. This is done with the understanding 
     between our Committees that it does not in any way prejudice 
     the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or the full exercise of its 
     jurisdictional prerogative on this bill or similar 
     legislation in the future.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     our understanding with respect to H.R. 2194, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
                                  ____

                                                December 14, 2009.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 1102 Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009.
       I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. I 
     agree that the inaction of your Committee with respect to the 
     bill does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and 
     Means regarding the appointment of conferees or the full 
     exercise of its jurisdictional prerogative on this bill or 
     similar legislation in the future.
       I also appreciate the strong concerns raised by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means regarding certain provisions of 
     the bill and the proposals your Committee has offered to help 
     to clarify the bill's intent and scope, particularly with 
     respect to U.S. international trade obligations. As to any 
     House-Senate conference on the bill, I understand that your 
     Committee reserves the right to seek the appointment of 
     conferees for consideration of portions of the bill that are 
     within the Committee's jurisdiction, and I agree to support a 
     request by the Committee with respect to serving as conferees 
     on the bill, consistent with the Speaker's practice in this 
     regard. As the bill moves through the legislative process, I 
     look forward to working with you to address the trade-related 
     concerns raised by the Committee on Ways and Means.
       I look forward to working with the Committee on Ways and 
     Means as this bill moves through the legislative process. I 
     will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in the 
     Congressional Record.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Howard L. Berman,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                 December 2, 2009.
     Hon. Howard L. Berman,
     Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Berman: I am writing in regards to H.R. 2194, 
     the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, which was 
     introduced into the House on April 30, 2009.
       I appreciate your efforts to work with the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform on the provisions of H.R. 
     2194 that fall within the Oversight Committee's jurisdiction. 
     These provisions include issues related to the federal 
     procurement process.
       In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 2194, 
     the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential 
     referral of this bill. I would, however, request your support 
     for the appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee 
     should H.R. 2194 be considered in conference with the Senate. 
     This letter should not be construed as a waiver of the 
     Oversight Committee's jurisdiction over subjects addressed in 
     H.R. 2194 that fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight 
     Committee.
       Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters 
     on this matter in the Foreign Affairs Committee Report on 
     H.R. 2194 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Edolphus Towns,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                 December 8, 2090.
     Hon. Edolphus Towns,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2194, the ``Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009.''
       I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this 
     legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions 
     that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform. I acknowledge that your 
     Committee will not formally consider the bill and agree that 
     the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill does 
     not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the matters 
     contained in the bill which fall within the Committee's Rule 
     X jurisdiction.
       Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, I 
     understand that your Committee reserves the right to seek the 
     appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of the 
     bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction, and I 
     agree to support a request by the Committee with respect to 
     serving as conferees on the bill, consistent with the 
     Speaker's practice in this regard.
       I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in 
     the Congressional Record, and I look forward to working with 
     you on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Howard L. Berman,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                 December 4, 2009.
     Hon. Howard Berman,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 2194, the 
     Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. This bill was 
     referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in 
     addition, to this Committee, among others.
       There is an agreement with regard to this bill, and so in 
     order to expedite floor consideration, I agree to forego 
     further consideration by the Committee on Financial Services. 
     I do so with the understanding that this decision will not 
     prejudice this Committee with respect to its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I request your 
     support for the appointment of conferees from this Committee 
     should this bill be the subject of a House-Senate conference.
       Please place this letter in the Congressional Record when 
     this bill is considered by the House. I look forward to the 
     bill's consideration and hope that it will command the 
     broadest possible support.
                                                     Barney Frank,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                 December 9, 2009.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2194, the ``Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009.''
       I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this 
     legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions 
     that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. I acknowledge that your Committee will 
     not formally consider the bill and agree that the inaction of 
     your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any 
     future jurisdictional claim over the matters contained in the 
     bill which fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.
       Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, I 
     understand that your Committee reserves the right to seek the 
     appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of the 
     bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction, and I 
     agree to support a request by the Committee with respect to 
     serving as conferees on the bill, consistent with the 
     Speaker's practice in this regard.
       I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in 
     the Congressional Record, and I look forward to working with 
     you on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Howard L. Berman,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for permitting me to 
speak on this.
  I have great respect for the Chair and ranking member, and I deeply 
share their concern about a nuclear-armed Iran. It is something that I 
think we are all deeply opposed to, we're deeply concerned about, in 
terms of the potential instability in that delicate region and frankly 
around the world. But I have a deep concern that the approach that is 
being offered here is not calculated to reach that objective.
  First and foremost, there is correspondence, a letter from the Deputy 
Secretary of State, Mr. Steinberg, talking about the problems of 
sanctions legislation on the Senate side, that talks about how we are 
entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant 
international pressure on Iran.
  It is not at all clear, Mr. Speaker, that moving forward right now 
with new sanctions on companies of other countries that are involved 
with the petroleum activities is actually going to be helpful at a time 
when the administration is ramping up its international efforts to deal 
with Iran; I think efforts that we all support and feel need to be as 
productive as possible.
  I think there is also a very real question about whether the focus of 
this legislation is going to have its intended

[[Page H14926]]

use, because there is nobody in the Iranian Government, in the 
Revolutionary Guard, in the inner circle of either the President or the 
Supreme Ruler that's not going to get their gasoline. The extent to 
which it is successful, and that remains questionable, it's going to be 
impactful on the people of Iran, common people who in the main are 
amongst the few Middle Eastern countries where they still have a 
favorable view of the United States. Sanctioning those people, not the 
leadership is not helpful.
  I found it interesting on the front page of today's Washington Post, 
they discuss the evidence of Iran's nuclear-armed being expedited, 
despite sanctions. In fact, there is evidence in this article that it 
is the sanctions themselves that have spurred the indigenous 
development of that capacity in Iran. One of them said, ``thank God for 
the sanctions'' against us.
  We need to be very careful about the application of sanctions and how 
they're going to be worked. I think we have a shortsighted view for 
dual use technology and dealing with export controls that have actually 
developed other countries' capacity, including those that aren't 
friendly to us, along with all companies from other competitor nations 
around the world. I think we need to be very careful here.
  Last but by no means least, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the 
United States is really the only major country in the world that 
doesn't have a thoughtful sanctions policy--when to impose them, how to 
impose them, and, most important, when to take them off. I would 
respectfully suggest that this is not the right time. This is an 
instrument that's not likely to be successful, and it may complicate 
our efforts against Iran. While I agree with the gentleman's objective, 
I don't agree with the legislation and urge its rejection.

                                The Deputy Secretary of State,

                                Washington, DC, December 11, 2009.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I wanted to follow up on our 
     conversations regarding Iran, and possible sanctions 
     legislation to be taken up by the Senate (S. 2799). We share 
     Congress's concerns on Iran and its nuclear program, and the 
     need to take decisive action. One of the top national 
     security priorities for the Obama Administration is to deny 
     Iran a nuclear weapons capability. As we discussed, we are 
     pursuing this objective through a dual track strategy of 
     engagement and pressure; and we are engaged in intensive 
     multilateral efforts to develop pressure track measures now. 
     It is in the spirit of these shared objectives that I write 
     to express my concern about the timing and content of this 
     legislation.
       As I testified before the Congress in October, it is our 
     hope that any legislative initiative would preserve and 
     maximize the President's flexibility, secure greater 
     cooperation from our partners in taking effective action, and 
     ultimately facilitate a change in Iranian policies. However, 
     we are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to 
     impose significant international pressure on Iran. This 
     requires that we keep the focus on Iran. At this juncture, I 
     am concerned that this legislation, in its current form, 
     might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and 
     support for our efforts. In addition to the timing, we have 
     serious substantive concerns, including the lack of 
     flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty 
     levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign 
     policy consequences.
       I have asked Department staff to prepare for and discuss 
     with your staff revisions that could address these concerns 
     on timing and content. I am hopeful that we can work together 
     to achieve our common goals.
       I hope that consideration of this bill could be delayed to 
     the new year so as not to undermine the Administration's 
     diplomacy at this critical juncture. I look forward to 
     working together to achieve our common goals, and I will stay 
     in close contact with you as our diplomatic efforts proceed.
           Sincerely,
                                               James B. Steinberg.

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Since its secret nuclear weapons program was publicly exposed in 
2002, Iran has manipulated nations, world leaders and the United 
Nations on its march toward possessing the capacity to unleash nuclear 
havoc on the world. Current and past regime leaders have made their 
intentions quite clear--the destruction of the State of Israel, the 
extinction of the Jewish people, a world without the United States.
  Iran has already produced over 1,400 kilograms of low-enriched 
uranium, which can easily be used for a so-called ``dirty bomb.'' New 
Iranian documents have been revealed reportedly detailing a program to 
produce and test the trigger for an actual nuclear weapon.

                              {time}  1515

  Nuclear experts note that there is no other possible use for such 
nuclear technology, except for a nuclear bomb. And in September of this 
year, media quoted international inspectors saying, they ``believe that 
Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is working to develop 
a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.'' And U.S. officials 
have calculated that Iran already has stockpiled enough uranium to 
produce one nuclear weapon, even as it expands its enrichment 
capabilities.
  We have arrived at the precipice, and we are staring into darkness. 
In February of 2006 the Congress adopted a concurrent resolution citing 
the Iranian regime's repeated violations of its nonproliferation 
obligations, underscoring that as a result of these violations Iran no 
longer had the right to develop any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle and 
urging responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny Iran 
the resources and the ability to develop nuclear capabilities. Three 
years later, the idea that we could rely on the so-called international 
community to handle this problem has been shown to be a mirage.
  But we, too, have failed to act quickly and decisively, failing to 
fully implement the range of U.N. sanctions that are already on the 
books. Now we must use the limited time remaining to impose sanctions 
so painful that they should threaten the Iranian regime's survival. 
Only when faced with the loss of power will the regime be compelled to 
abandon its destructive policies.
  The bill we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, the Iran Refined 
Petroleum Sanctions Act, which I joined Chairman Berman in introducing, 
ratchets up the pressure on the regime by targeting a key 
vulnerability, Iran's inability to produce sufficient gasoline and 
other refined petroleum products.
  In recent years, Iran has estimated to have imported gasoline 
directly or indirectly from at least 16 countries, including China, 
India, the Netherlands, France, and the UAE, as well as global oil 
companies such as TOTAL and Shell. To stop this trade, the sanctions 
we're considering today must also be adopted by our allies, who 
continue to talk about the need to act but hide behind the claim that 
the U.N. Security Council must act first. But the U.N. Security 
Council, due in part to Russian and Chinese opposition, has 
demonstrated that it will never impose meaningful costs on the Iranian 
regime.
  There is no shortage of measures available. What is lacking is the 
will. Beyond this bill today, Mr. Speaker, the broader question is 
whether we will be bystanders, complicit in our own destruction. As 
Churchill warned, ``If you will not fight for the right when you can 
easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory 
will be sure, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight 
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for 
survival.'' For our survival, and for that of our friend and ally, 
Israel, render your full support to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Ron Paul.
  Mr. PAUL. The chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is 
to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. That isn't even 
as powerful a statement as was made that enticed us into the Iraq war. 
There was the claim that they already had them. But now, this is a 
pretense, and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. My main 
reason for opposing this bill is that I think it's detrimental to our 
national security. There's no other reason. It doesn't serve our 
interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it.
  In the late 1930s and the early 1940s the American people did not 
want to go into war, but there were some that were maneuvering us into 
war, and they used the argument that you needed an event. So, in June 
of 1941, sanctions were put against Japan, incidentally and ironically, 
to prohibit oil products from going into Japan. Within 6 months there 
was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And there is now talk,

[[Page H14927]]

there's been talk in the media, and we've heard about it, we need to 
bomb Iran. And that's what the people hear.
  The sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is 
very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up 
with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off 
trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the 
dissidents. We'd like to encourage them to overthrow their government. 
But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in 
there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things 
happen. We've been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it 
doesn't serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us.
  One of the goals explicitly expressed by al Qaeda and their leaders 
has been they would like to draw us into the Middle East because it 
would cost us a lot of money and it could hurt us financially. And the 
second reason they want us over there is to get us bogged down in an 
endless war. And for the last decade, that is what we've been doing. We 
are bogged down to the point where it's very discouraging to the 
American people, very frustrating, no signs of victory, no signs of 
peace. But we're bogged down. These were the precise goals of the al 
Qaeda leadership.
  And also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being 
involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals 
who become violent against us. And this has been unbelievably 
successful. So we've been involved in Iraq. We've been involved 
in Afghanistan. We're bombing Pakistan and almost, this is like another 
bonus for those who want us to be attacked, is that we're over there 
and just fomenting this anger and hatred toward us.

  That is why I believe this is not in our best interest. It actually 
hurts us. Once we say that we're going to do something like using force 
and prevent vital products from going in, it means that we've given up 
on diplomacy. Diplomacy's out the window. And they're not capable of 
attacking us. You know, this idea that they are on the verge of a bomb, 
you know, our CIA said they haven't been working on it since 2003. And 
the other thing is, if you want to give them incentive to have a bomb, 
just keep pestering like this, just intimidate them. Provoke it. This 
is provocative. They might have a greater incentive than ever.
  They can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. I mean, they are 
not a threat. They don't have an army worth anything. They don't have a 
navy. They don't have an air force. They don't have intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. So it is not a threat to our national security. I 
see the threat to our national security with this type of policy which 
could come and backfire and hurt us.
  I want to read number 5 in the bill, that particular item, because it 
makes my case, rather than making the case for those who want these 
sanctions. I think this literally makes my case. Number 5 says, on 
October 7, 2008, then-Senator Obama stated Iran right now imports 
gasoline, even though it's an oil producer, because its oil 
infrastructure has broken down. If we can prevent them from importing 
the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that 
starts changing their cost-benefit analysis, that starts putting the 
squeeze on them.
  The squeeze on whom? On the people. This will unify the dissent. This 
will unify the Iranian people against us. If we want to encourage true 
dissent and overthrow that government, which is more spontaneous and 
honest, I would say this is doing exactly the opposite.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few unanimous consent requests. I first 
recognize the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of 
Appropriations, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill's 
expansion of economic sanctions against Iran and businesses and the 
refined petroleum and energy sectors collaborating with the regime.
  I strongly support this bill's expansion of economic sanctions 
against Iran and businesses in the refined petroleum and sectors 
collaborating with the regime.
  Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons technology and defiance 
of international law are a great threat to world stability. This bill 
sends a critical message: the American people and this Congress have 
little patience for Iran's foot-dragging, and there will be serious 
consequences for the Iranian government if its nuclear efforts are not 
halted.
  The 2010 foreign aid bill includes a measure to curtail Ex-Im's 
cooperation with foreign companies that significantly contribute to 
Iran's refined petroleum industry.
  And passage of H.R. 2194 will lay the groundwork for even tougher 
sanctions on Iran.
  I thank the Gentleman from California for his efforts, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize a distinguished 
member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for 
a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise expressing my strong support for 
H.R. 2194.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership 
on this issue. He has successfully navigated a very difficult terrain 
and I believe he has found the right moment to bring this bill forward.
  It is now abundantly clear once again that Iran is not serious about 
negotiation: a new U.S. president tried to take a different approach, 
extending his hand in friendship to the Iranian regime. In exchange, 
the Iranians continued to show their clenched fist of deception and 
dishonesty. All the while, evidence mounts that Iran gets closer each 
day to developing a nuclear weapon.
  A nuclear Iran poses as much of a threat to the U.S., to Europe, to 
the Middle East, as it does to Israel. With this bill today, we show 
the Iranians that we will use every tool we have to stop them from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon. We want to avoid war, but we must not take 
any option off the table.
  And to my colleagues I say: if you want to avoid war, support this 
bill. If it succeeds, the military option won't be necessary. But 
without this bill, without sanctions, and without an Iranian regime 
that is willing to negotiate, I fear a nuclear Iran will be inevitable 
as will a far stronger option to eliminate its threat.
  I thank the gentleman again.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a further unanimous consent 
request to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  (Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise voicing my strong 
support for H.R. 2194 because America's patience is not limitless.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to strengthen the hand of the Administration 
and our allies to address the threat of a nuclear Iran. I proudly 
cosponsored the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which gives the 
President the authority to impose stiffer economic sanctions targeting 
Iran's oil production. The bill adds such activities as selling refined 
gasoline or supplying equipment for construction of oil refineries to 
the list of prohibited activities under the Iran Sanctions Act.
  In January President Obama made a fundamental shift in our diplomatic 
strategy with Iran. He extended an olive branch with the hope of 
initiating the first serious talks with Tehran in decades, but that 
approach was conditioned on the Iran leaders being willing and equal 
partners.
  Unfortunately, those leaders have consistently rejected our overtures 
and continue to develop Iran's nuclear capabilities in defiance of 
repeated demands from the United Nations that it suspend such 
activities. Missile tests in the spring and fall of this year, coupled 
with the recent revelation of a secret enrichment facility brings new 
urgency--as evidenced by the growing support within the international 
community for further action. Just this week, we learn of yet another 
secretive program to develop the technological components for 
triggering a nuclear device.
  These new sanctions can and will bring additional pressure to bear on 
the Ahmedinejad regime. Iran's insistence on enrichment, along with its 
ties to groups like Hezbollah, is cause for great concern not just in 
the Middle East. This bill states firmly that U.S. patience is not 
limitless. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, someone who's 
has been very focused on this issue, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a sanctions 
bill

[[Page H14928]]

that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration's ability to 
conduct effective diplomacy. The world, and I mean both our allies and 
others, needs to know that the U.S. Congress is dead serious about 
sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about 
Iran's nuclear program. For those who worry that sanctions may lead to 
conflict, I would suggest that the opposite is true. With Iranian 
proliferation on the horizon, what is feckless is reckless. If you 
don't want war, it seems to me that you absolutely must back the 
toughest possible political and economic sanctions.
  It is true that sanctions alone are almost certainly not going to be 
sufficient to force the Iranian regime to change course. But if we are 
serious about stopping Iran's race for nuclear capability, we must 
apply the maximum possible pressure by enhancing our capacity for 
unilateral sanctions, as we're doing today, by implementing crippling 
multilateral sanctions, and by developing a strategy that applies more 
comprehensive pressure than just diplomatic engagement followed by 
sanctions.
  President Obama's offer of direct engagement with Iran already helped 
to heal a variety of political woes, but by itself, diplomacy and 
political and economic sanctions may still leave too much initiative in 
Iranian hands. If the Iranians remain recalcitrant and sanctions are 
applied, no matter how crippling--and I want to make it perfectly clear 
that I want them to be absolutely suffocating for the regime--the 
initiative is still left to the ayatollahs to decide when they've had 
enough.
  Tragically, I suspect President Obama is soon going to have to decide 
whether an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly unacceptable in the full 
meaning of that word and with the full knowledge of what that means. 
The best thing that we can do to help avoid that terrible moment of 
truth is to act affirmatively on the bill before us today.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I'll reserve the time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the esteemed minority whip 
and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a true leader who 
understands the clear and present danger that Iran presents for the 
State of Israel and for the United States.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady, as well as the gentleman from 
California, for their leadership, and bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, a nuclear Iran would be a game-changing development that 
poses irreparable damage to global security and stability. Yet, with 
each passing day, the regime in Tehran brazenly forges ahead to make 
this nightmare scenario a reality.

                              {time}  1530

  These are times of sharp partisan rancor in our Nation's Capitol. But 
today we have the chance to come together to take a major step forward 
in the interests of world peace. The time for decisive action to head 
off Iran's nuclear program is now. By passing the Iran Refined 
Petroleum Sanctions Act, we send the overdue message that the cost of 
doing business with Iran is too much to bear.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation leverages our economic muscle to punish 
any individual or company who sells or ships gasoline to Iran. It 
offers one of our best chances to convince Iran that it is firmly in 
its interest to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
  As Iran takes a more belligerent approach to its nuclear program, the 
United States will not fall asleep at the wheel. We must lead. With the 
passage of this bill, we must, and will, rally the international 
community in order to stop the Middle East from moving irreversibly 
toward nuclearization.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions 
Act.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch).
  MR. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. I also come here with enormous 
respect for Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and my friends. And if I 
thought for 1 minute that this bill would help the United States or 
protect Israel or undermine Mr. Ahmadinejad, I would support it. But I 
do not. I do, however, take great comfort in the chairman's and the 
chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference process he is 
open and willing to adjust the bill. And perhaps if these adjustments 
and improvements are made, I can support it at that time, but I am 
faced with the bill before me.
  And let me just say that I think that this bill will help 
Ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect as we have seen with 
other embargoes and other sanctions. I point to a couple of examples, 
one being the example in Cuba where we put in an embargo there, and 
ever since then, the Castro regime has been able to blame everything 
that has gone wrong in Cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, 
on the U.S. embargo. It has helped that regime stay in power. We see 
the same effect happening in Gaza. I have been there a couple of times. 
The fact that we've got an embargo there and a blockade has caused many 
in Gaza to rally around the flag--in this case, Hamas--and the blockade 
has helped them. That is the effect that this bill will have in Iran.
  We have watched very closely. This past week, tens of thousands of 
students in Iran in the Green Revolution have come to oppose and call 
for the ousting of Ahmadinejad and his regime. What this will do, 
however, is this will undermine that opposition. This bill is focused 
on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to 
the middle class and families, the very people who are supporting the 
revolutionary movement there to get rid of Ahmadinejad.
  We are, in a way, I think, substituting a plan that will not work for 
one that could very well work. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of 
victory with this bill. I hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this 
bill has indicated, the chairman, Mr. Berman, that there will be 
important changes perhaps made during the conference process. I hope 
that does happen, and I hope that I am able to support this bill when 
it comes back from conference based on those changes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs 
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Berman's Iran Refined 
Petroleum Sanctions Act, cosponsored by the ranking member, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, significantly ratchets up strong bipartisan pressure on Iran 
to end their nefarious quest for nuclear weapons.
  Given Ahmadinejad's extreme hostility toward Israel, his outrageous 
threats to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth, and his 
obsessive hatred of Jews worldwide, this bill strengthens penalties on 
those who not only sell, lease, or provide to Iran any goods, services, 
technology, information, or support that would allow Iran to maintain 
or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum resources, it 
has other sanctions as well.
  Mr. Speaker, any serious effort to peacefully stop Iran from 
acquiring weapons of mass destruction, which I believe they will use if 
they acquire them, requires the strongest political and economic 
pressure that we can muster. H.R. 2194 is a step, the right step in 
that direction.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This legislation obstructs the Obama administration's ongoing 
negotiations with Iran, amounts to economic warfare against the Iranian 
people, and brings us closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. 
I would like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill.
  First of all, I agree with Mr. Paul that the bill is opposed to our 
national security. I have a letter here, as Mr. Blumenauer submitted to 
the Record, from the Deputy Secretary of State which points out the 
``serious substantive concerns of the administration, including the 
lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty 
levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy 
consequences.'' This letter is from the Obama administration, December 
11, 2009. I would like it be included in the Record.
  Second, I would like to include an article from the National Journal 
Online, dated November 2, 2009, in the record of debate. In this 
article, it points out that a gas shortage will be created in Iran, 
that Iran subsidizes its gasoline,

[[Page H14929]]

and that the regime wants to shrink the program. So here the U.S. will 
be creating the gas shortage, and the regime, which wanted to shrink 
the program, is going to blame the U.S.
  Third, the Revolutionary Guard has already been able to build its 
coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. It's widely 
understood that these sanctions would put the Revolutionary Guard in a 
position where they can make more money selling oil on the black 
market.
  Number 4, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region 
into chaos, and the broader geopolitical landscape is thrown into 
chaos. Russia, Venezuela, and our European allies all come into play in 
ways at odds with stated U.S. policies.
  Number 5, it undermines our diplomacy. It isolates us from our 
allies. It isolates us from our trading partners.
  Number 6, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a 
back-channel role to try to help us with our diplomacy.
  Number 7, it undermines democracy in Iran. All of us have seen those 
pictures. They have been all over the TV and the Internet in the last 
few months about a growing democratic movement in Iran. This sanction 
will force all people to close around the Iran's leadership. It will 
strengthen the hard-liners and will undermine democracy.
  Next, it will make the U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
Pakistan even more dangerous for our troops.
  Number 9, it's a path to military escalation, and I will be 
discussing that later.

                                The Deputy Secretary of State,

                                    Washington, December 11, 2009.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I wanted to follow up on our 
     conversations regarding Iran, and possible sanctions 
     legislation to be taken up by the Senate (S. 2799). We share 
     Congress's concerns on Iran and its nuclear program, and the 
     need to take decisive action. One of the top national 
     security priorities for the Obama Administration is to deny 
     Iran a nuclear weapons capability. As we discussed, we are 
     pursuing this objective through a dual track strategy of 
     engagement and pressure; and we are engaged in intensive 
     multilateral efforts to develop pressure track measures now. 
     It is in the spirit of these shared objectives that I write 
     to express my concern about the timing and content of this 
     legislation.
       As I testified before the Congress in October, it is our 
     hope that any legislative initiative would preserve and 
     maximize the President's flexibility, secure greater 
     cooperation from our partners in taking effective action, and 
     ultimately facilitate a change in Iranian policies. However, 
     we are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to 
     impose significant international pressure on Iran. This 
     requires that we keep the focus on Iran. At this juncture, I 
     am concerned that this legislation, it its current form, 
     might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and 
     support for our efforts. In addition to the timing, we have 
     serious substantive concerns, including the lack of 
     flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty 
     levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign 
     policy consequences.
       I have asked Department staff to prepare for and discuss 
     with your staff revisions that could address these concerns 
     on timing and content. I am hopeful that we can work together 
     to achieve our common goals.
       I hope that consideration of this bill could be delayed to 
     the new year so as not to undermine the Administration's 
     diplomacy at this critical juncture. I look forward to 
     working together to achieve our common goals, and I will stay 
     in close contact with you as our diplomatic efforts proceed.
           Sincerely,
     James B. Steinberg.
                                  ____


            [From the National Journal Online, Nov. 2, 2009]

                 Could A Gasoline Embargo Bend Tehran?

                       (By David Gauvey Herbert)

       With Iran still refusing to play ball with the West over 
     its nuclear program, lawmakers are turning up the heat by 
     targeting oil companies that import gasoline to Iran. But 
     critics of new House and Senate legislation cite a laundry 
     list of reasons why targeting gas imports won't work--and why 
     it could even strengthen Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.
       Despite being the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil in 
     the world, Iran's limited refining capacity forces it to 
     import 40 percent of its gasoline. The government also 
     subsidizes the price of gasoline, driving demand even amidst 
     an economic downturn and making the country's reliance on 
     foreign imports even more costly.
       A new bill--the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which 
     passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday--looks 
     to exploit that weakness. It would bolster the Iran Sanctions 
     Act of 1996 and prohibit companies that import gasoline to 
     Iran from contracting with the U.S. government. Similar 
     sanctions are part of a larger Iran bill approved unanimously 
     Thursday by the Senate Banking Committee.
       Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who chairs the House 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs and sponsored the House bill, 
     defended the timing of the legislation against protests from 
     some lawmakers that the president be given more time to work 
     out a diplomatic solution. Tehran last week rejected a deal 
     with the International Atomic Energy Agency that would have 
     sent its uranium stockpile to Russia to enrich for medical 
     purposes.
       The bill, Berman said at a markup hearing Wednesday, ``will 
     take the first key step to ensure that President Obama is 
     empowered with the full range of tools he needs to address 
     the looming nuclear threat from Iran, even as he pursues 
     diplomacy and, if necessary, the multilateral sanctions 
     track. Given the length of time it ordinarily takes the House 
     and Senate to move a significant piece of legislation to the 
     president's desk, it is important that we initiate this 
     process today.''
       But critics warn that, timing aside, the proposed sanctions 
     could easily backfire.
       For starters, it's unclear whether the legislation will be 
     enough to dissuade Iran's main suppliers--Royal Dutch Shell, 
     France's Total, China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. and 
     Russia's Lukoil, among others--from continuing to import 
     gasoline. Tehran has said it will cut off any company that 
     complies with U.S. sanctions, a threat that will keep some 
     companies in line.
       And even if some gasoline exports to Iran can be curtailed, 
     Russia and Venezuela have the excess refining capacity to 
     plug the gap, according to Fariborz Ghadar, a trade expert at 
     the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Hugo 
     Chavez is already bringing Venezuela's considerable refining 
     capabilities to bear: In September, Caracas pledged to supply 
     Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day.
       And what will happen if the sanctions are successful and 
     oil majors stop selling Iran gasoline? The result might be 
     the worst scenario of all, Ghadar argued. Iranians currently 
     get 100 liters of discounted petrol every month, but at great 
     expense to the government. The ruling government has been 
     looking for ways to shrink the subsidy program and the U.S. 
     sanctions would give them cover to do so. That would hurt 
     everyday Iranians, cast Washington (once again) as a villain 
     and perhaps rally citizens around Ahmadinejad, who is still 
     politically weak after post-election rioting this summer.
       The idea that more expensive gas will spur average Iranians 
     to confront the government is misguided, Ghadar argued.
       ``The problems in June, July after the election had nothing 
     to do about them not being able to buy an HP printer or 
     gasoline,'' he said. ``It was about not being able to speak, 
     basically seeing that the system is not a meritocracy.''
       Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, echoed those worries at the hearing 
     Wednesday.
       ``The theory is, if we really punish the people, take their 
     gasoline from them, then they're going to get angry,'' he 
     said. ``And they will. They're going to get angry at us. 
     They're not going to get angry at the Ayatollah. What you're 
     doing is deliberately undermining the dissidents there.''
       Berman acknowledged that the legislation would likely have 
     ``a significant impact on the Iranian economy, including 
     quite possibly on average Iranians.''
       ``While that is a distasteful prospect, the urgency of 
     dealing with the Iranian nuclear project--and the immense 
     danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to tens, if not 
     hundreds, of millions of people who will fall within the 
     range of its missiles--compels us to go forward with this 
     legislation,'' he argued.
       The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was central in putting 
     down the summer protests, might benefit from the bill as 
     well. For one, they are well-situated to take advantage of 
     sanctions: The corps smuggled oil during the 1990s when Iraq 
     was under embargo, and it continues to be involved in the 
     underground economy, said Alireza Nader, an Iran expert with 
     the RAND Corporation. ``Any sort of sanctions regime 
     targeting fuel imports is going to be difficult to enforce 
     because thee is a black market, which the Revolutionary Guard 
     is very much involved in,'' he said.
       More fundamentally, Washington has struggled to sanction 
     energy-rich Iran in part because oil-hungry countries are 
     tough to corral into a unified front. American sanctions 
     against Sudan have been similarly ineffective, as Chinese 
     state-owned oil companies have been all too eager to fill the 
     void.
       Targeting gasoline imports is just one facet of the U.S. 
     assault on the Iranian economy. The Treasury Department has 
     spent the last three years blacklisting Iranian banks and 
     encouraging international banks to avoid doing business with 
     Iran. Ghadar argued that banking sanctions have worked well 
     and should continue, since they hurt Iranian elites more than 
     ``Average Joes.''
       The Treasury Department has also put Iran's national 
     maritime carrier in its cross hairs, citing the company's 
     ``denial and deception'' regarding its shipments of arms. And 
     the House last month passed the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, 
     which would allow state and local governments to divest from 
     companies doing business in Iran's energy sector, by a 414-6 
     vote.
       The Senate Banking Bill passed Thursday incorporates a 
     number of the above options, tightening sanctions on 
     financial transactions, targeting companies that export

[[Page H14930]]

     gasoline to Iran and authorizing state and local governments 
     to divest.
       Sanctions on investment and technology transfer have been 
     effective at crippling investment in Iran's natural gas 
     industry, according to Greg Priddy, an energy analyst with 
     the Eurasia Group. But keeping Iranian gas offline has meant 
     that the Nabucco pipeline, which would connect Iran to 
     Europe, may remain a pipe-dream--and make our Eastern 
     European allies more vulnerable to Russia's whims.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, could we get a little summary of the time 
remaining on this complicated issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 15 minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from Florida has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of 
the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee on our House 
Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), 
1 minute.
  Mr. SHERMAN. As one of the six original cosponsors of this 
legislation, I rise in support.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) attacks the whole concept of the 
use of sanctions saying that American sanctions against Japan led to 
our involvement in World War II. If you think that America should have 
remained neutral in World War II, you should vote with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Iran has been found to have violated the nonproliferation treaty and 
its commitments under that treaty by the United Nations Security 
Council with the votes of Russia and China, who also voted to impose 
some limited sanctions against Iran.
  My district contains, I believe, more Iranian Americans than any 
other in the country, and let me tell you that those who support the 
students and the effort for democracy in their homeland support the 
idea of sanctions. This bill is but one step that we need to take in 
ratcheting the economic power on the regime in Tehran. This bill amends 
the Iran Sanctions Act. It is important that that act be enforced both 
before and after we adopt these amendments.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I will yield to Mr. Paul 3 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman.
  If the gentleman from California didn't like my analogy about how we 
were maneuvered into war in World War II, I think it might be much more 
appropriate to compare it to the sanctions on Iraq. There were those in 
the 1990s that wanted us to go to war with Iraq. We were looking for an 
excuse, and we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their 
country and bombing. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of kids 
died because of those sanctions, and eventually they got their war. We 
ended up in the war.
  Anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person 
in Iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their Ayatollah--it's 
the Ayatollah that carries the power--that's not going to happen. It 
just does exactly the opposite. So this is why I believe this is a much 
greater threat to our national security. It does not help us. It 
doesn't achieve the goals that are set out.
  For instance, we now commonly say that the Iranians have no right to 
enrich. Well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty, and they have not 
ever been told that they are making a bomb. And what we are saying in 
this bill is that they can't enrich anymore. So in a way, you're 
violating international law by saying they can't enrich, period. So 
that is just looking for trouble.

  Now, what else this bill will do:
  It is going to push the support of the Iranians in another direction. 
It's going to push them towards India, China, and Russia, and these 
countries have special associations with Iran. So we are going to 
separate us. We will be isolated from that, and they are going to have 
a much closer alliance with these countries. That will not serve our 
interests.
  It's going to serve the interest of one country mostly, and that's 
China. China acts only almost like capitalists. They take our dollars 
they have earned from us and they are spending the dollars over there. 
They would like to buy the oil, refine the oil, and drill the oil. But 
here, we assume that we have to do it through force, through sanctions, 
threats, intimidation, and secret maneuvers to overthrow their regime. 
It just doesn't work. It sounds good. It sounds easy, but it does 
backfire on us. You get too many unintended consequences.
  And besides, our national security does not depend on what we do in 
the Middle East. Our national security is threatened by this. We are 
overstretched. We're broke. And this is part of the strategy, as I 
mentioned before. Our archenemies in that region want to bankrupt us. 
They want to stir up hatred toward us, and they want to bog us down. 
And they're achieving what their goals are.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and a cosponsor of this measure from early on.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Andrews and I are the two 
grandfathers of this bill and its policy. After 4\1/2\ years of working 
on this legislation, I strongly support this bill, especially its 
underlying policy, which is the last best hope for diplomatically 
ending Iran's nuclear weapons program.
  In January of 2005, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense with a 
comprehensive analysis of Iran's economy, discovering a critical 
weakness. Despite its status as a leading oil exporter, Iran has so 
mishandled her domestic energy supply that the regime relies on foreign 
sources of gasoline for 40 percent of its needs.
  In 2005 and again in 2006, Congressman Andrews and I introduced the 
congressional resolutions calling for a multilateral restriction of 
gasoline deliveries to Iran as the most effective sanction to bring 
their leaders into compliance with their commitments under the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

                              {time}  1545

  In 2007, we introduced the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act to extend 
current sanctions to the provision of gasoline to Iran. This year, 
Congressman Brad Sherman and I re-introduced the Iran Diplomatic 
Enhancement Act. This bill today is modeled after our bipartisan 
legislation.
  A restriction of gasoline deliveries to Iran administered through 
multilateral sanctions and enforced by the world's most powerful navies 
will pit our greatest strength against Iran's greatest weakness, all 
without a shot being fired. For the bill to succeed, the Iranians must 
believe also that it will be enforced, otherwise we will go down a 
failed policy of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions. My 
hope is that the Senate quickly takes up action on this bill, and then 
the administration provides needed enforcement.
  I want to truly thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
Chairman Berman; our ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Congressman 
Andrews and Congressman Brad Sherman for all working with me. This has 
been 5 years of my life working on this legislation. This is bipartisan 
legislation which offers the last best diplomatic hope to resolve this 
problem.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I would like to point out that the organization of Iranians in the 
United States known as the National Iranian American Council have 
issued a statement in a staff report dated Monday, the 14th of 
December, 2009 that this sanctions act ``will only contribute to the 
Iranian people's suffering by seeking to restrict Iran's supply of 
heating oil and gasoline. Prominent members of Iran's opposition 
movement, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, as well as 
human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, have all 
spoken out strongly against such sanctions that punish innocent 
Iranians.''
  I enter this report from the National Iranian Council into the 
Record.

   IRPSA Hurts Iranian People, Undermines International Unity on Iran

       NIAC released the following statement today in response to 
     yesterday's news that the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions 
     Act (H.R. 2194) will be brought up for a floor vote on the 
     suspension calendar within the next two weeks.
       The National Iranian American Council is deeply concerned 
     that the House of Representatives' plan to bring H.R. 2194, 
     the Iranian Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, IRPSA, to a vote 
     the week of December 14,

[[Page H14931]]

     2009, is a move in the direction of punishing the Iranian 
     people instead of the Iranian government.
       NIAC supports the Obama Administration's ongoing engagement 
     efforts and, though the Iranian government's response has 
     thus far been frustrating, the U.S. must remain committed to 
     working in concert with its international partners. 
     Considering unilateral sanctions at this time threatens to 
     preempt and undermine the President's multilateral efforts.
       A successful strategy for dealing with Iran must have 
     diplomatic engagement as its basis. Sanctions can play a 
     constructive role within that process, but in order to be 
     effective they must target the Iranian government and the 
     individuals responsible for the government's reprehensible 
     behavior, with a special emphasis on those guilty of human 
     rights violations.
       As Congress moves forward, NIAC encourages Congressional 
     action to meet the following standards:
       Do not harm the Iranian people--No one has suffered under 
     the repressive rule of the Iranian Government more than the 
     Iranian people. Unilateral sanctions such as those included 
     in IRPSA will hurt the people of Iran immensely and do little 
     to target the actions such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard 
     who have consolidated power under the shadow of outside 
     threats and profited under the sanctions economy.
       As the Iranian people continue to stand up to their 
     government, prominent members of Iran's opposition movement, 
     such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, along with 
     human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, 
     have all spoken out strongly against broad, untargeted 
     sanctions such as those contained in IRPSA.
       Do not undermine the President--The Obama Administration 
     has invested in a strategy of engagement with Iran because it 
     is the best option to change the Iranian Government's 
     behavior. While this process has been predictably difficult, 
     Congress must not rush to pass legislation that will 
     undermine multilateral efforts and tie the President's hands. 
     The President has been consistent in stating that he will 
     evaluate progress on the engagement process once the year has 
     ended. This commitment was reiterated on December 3 by White 
     House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who stated that the 
     Administration's deadline for Iran is the end of the year. If 
     the House passes IRPSA now, they send the world a signal that 
     the U.S. Congress does not support the President's plan and 
     is taking steps to preempt it.
       Do not undermine the unity among U.S. partners--On November 
     26, the IAEA voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution 
     censuring Iran. Significantly, all five veto-wielding members 
     of the Security Council voted in favor of the measure, which 
     opens up the potential for another round of Security Council 
     sanctions. The significant progress is uniting the Security 
     Council is attributable to President Obama's investment in 
     diplomacy. If Congress moves forward with sanctions that 
     target our allies, that unity will collapse. Trying to coerce 
     the support of the rest of the world with threats and 
     penalties will not isolate Iran; in fact, it may only isolate 
     the United States.

  I have here an analysis that has been done by Americans for Peace 
Now, which is a strong group in support of Israel. At the same time, 
they did an analysis and summary of concerns about H.R. 2194. One of 
the points that they make is that ``the focus on crippling refined 
petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the 
U.S. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the Iranian people 
in order to force them to put pressure on their government. It is an 
approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe 
could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and sow anger at the 
U.S., not the Iranian Government.''
  I will submit this analysis for the Record.

Proposed Amendments to H.R. 2194--The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions 
                           Act--December 2009

  For further information, go to www.peacenow.org.

 SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ABOUT H.R. 2194
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Section(s)                  Problem          Suggested remedy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section(s) 1: 2(b), 2(c),     The focus on          The focus of the
 3(a), 3(c).                   ``crippling''         bill should be
                               refined petroleum     enhanced sanctions
                               sanctions leads to    authority in
                               the very              general, not the
                               problematic           refined petroleum
                               conclusion that the   sector in
                               U.S. is seeking to    particular.---
                               inflict widespread
                               suffering on the
                               Iranian people in
                               order to force them
                               to put pressure on
                               their government.
                               It is an approach
                               that few believe
                               will achieve the
                               desired goal and
                               that many believe
                               could well
                               backfire, to the
                               benefit of the
                               regime and sow
                               anger at the U.S.,
                               not the Iranian
                               government.
Section 2(a)................  Obama statements      Quotes in the bill
                               quoted in the bill    should be updated
                               were made prior to    to correctly
                               the Iranian           represent the
                               elections and prior   Administration's
                               to the launch of      positions.
                               the current
                               negotiating effort.
                               As such, they have
                               clearly been
                               overtaken by
                               events. They should
                               be updated to
                               correctly represent
                               the
                               Administration's
                               positions.
Sections 3(a), 3(b), and      At the outset of      Textual changes
 3(d).                         H.R. 2194 is the      should be
                               finding that          incorporated to
                               ``international       bring the
                               diplomatic efforts    legislative impact
                               to address Iran's     of the bill into
                               illicit nuclear       conformity with the
                               efforts,              stated goal of the
                               unconventional and    legislation's i.e.,
                               ballistic missile     giving the
                               development           President
                               programs, and         additional
                               support for           authority to act.-
                               international
                               terrorism are-more
                               likely to be
                               effective if the
                               President is
                               empowered with the
                               explicit authority
                               to impose
                               additional
                               sanctions on the
                               Government of
                               Iran.''.
                              As written, these
                               sections do not
                               empower the
                               President with the
                               authority to impose
                               additional
                               sanctions--they dis-
                               empower him by
                               removing his
                               authority regarding
                               the imposition of
                               sanctions, in
                               effect limiting his
                               authority-.
Section 3(c)................  The restrictions      A clear national
                               laid out in this      security waiver
                               section have          should be added to
                               potentially far-      this section.
                               reaching
                               implications for
                               U.S. vital national
                               security interests.
                               It is unreasonable
                               and possibly
                               unconstitutional to
                               place such
                               restrictions on the
                               President's
                               relations with
                               other countries
                               without providing a
                               clear national
                               security waiver.
Section 3(g)................  This certification    Changes should be
                               requirement is so     made to make the
                               categorical that it   certification
                               would be difficult    requirement
                               if not impossible     reasonable and to
                               for a President to    take into account
                               make, under any       the possibility of
                               circumstances. It     an international
                               could also conflict   agreement with Iran
                               with a potential      on its nuclear
                               future agreement      program.
                               with Iran over its
                               nuclear program.
Section 3(h)................  The Iran Sanctions    This section should
                               Act (ISA) is major    be deleted and ISA
                               legislation in its    dealt with
                               own right. As such,   separately at an
                               it should be          appropriate time.
                               considered and
                               debated openly
                               before a decision
                               is made to extend
                               it for 5 years.
                               Moreover, the ISA
                               does not expire
                               until 2011--there
                               is no justification
                               for rushing through
                               its extension as
                               part of this bill.
New Section 3(x)............  At this juncture,     This new section
                               the absence of        offers constructive
                               positive measures     support for the
                               in what will be the   people of Iran.
                               single most
                               important piece of
                               Iran legislation in
                               years is striking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  In the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks to the 
purpose of H.R. 2194 as advancing along feelings of friendship for the 
Iranian people. We are telling the Iranian people, we have feelings of 
friendship for you, we like you so much, but we're going to cut off 
your home heating oil. So we are asking the people, when they're 
freezing, to remember these warm feelings of friendship. I think people 
will find that the expression of friendship isn't to be believed, and 
that, in fact, what's happening here is an effort to punish the people 
of Iran for the policies of their government, which the Obama 
administration is trying to still find a way to deal with 
diplomatically.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 1 minute to 
one of the great supporters of this legislation, the Speaker of the 
House, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I 
would like to acknowledge the great leadership of our chairman, 
Chairman Berman, and the ranking member, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, 
for their efforts and leadership to bring this legislation to the 
floor.
  All Members of Congress, regardless of party, agree a nuclear Iran is 
simply unacceptable; it is a threat to the region, to the United 
States, and to the world. The American people have great hopes for our 
friendship with the people of Iran. We look forward to a day when Iran 
is a much more productive member of the community of nations. Until 
that day, though, we must ensure that Iran is prevented from obtaining 
nuclear weapons that would threaten the security of the world.
  Iran must take the necessary steps to demonstrate its willingness to 
live as a peaceful partner in the international community. And we must 
use all of the tools at our disposal, from diplomacy to sanctions, to 
stop Iran's march toward nuclear capability.
  Today, with this legislation, we give the President a new option, a 
new tool, the power to impose sanctions against companies that supply 
Iran with or support its domestic production of gasoline and other 
refined petroleum products. By targeting Iran's ongoing dependence on 
largely imported refined petroleum, we reduce the chance that Iran will 
acquire the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
  A pillar, Mr. Speaker, of our national security is diplomacy; and in 
the case

[[Page H14932]]

of Iran, we must use it. We must exhaust every diplomatic remedy. I 
commend President Obama for standing with other U.N. Security Council 
leaders earlier this year to condemn Iran and to work toward an 
agreeable diplomatic solution to end Iran's proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  However, as we have seen, Iran has refused to accept a reasonable 
offer that was put on the table a couple of months ago. Instead, it has 
reiterated its resolve to continue its uranium enrichment program, the 
cornerstone of its nuclear program. The international community must, 
therefore, consider stronger options. We have that opportunity today to 
give the President the option with a waiver to use in the best possible 
way.
  Now, I have heard mention of the State of Israel in some of the 
debate here today, and Israel certainly has proximity to Iran. Iran is 
increasing its capability both to develop a weapon of mass destruction 
and the delivery system to deliver that bad news. But this isn't about 
Israel. Israel, again, is close, and this development of a weapon of 
mass destruction is a threat to the region. But the development of a 
weapon of mass destruction anyplace in the world is a threat to the 
entire world, and it is not in the national security interest of the 
United States. So while Israel may bear the brunt or be the closest 
target--or target of words, if, hopefully, not anything else--they have 
carried this fight, but it's not just their fight. The fight is all of 
ours.
  I mentioned diplomacy as a pillar of our national security. Another 
pillar of our foreign policy and of our national security is stopping 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Imagine what the 
reaction would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon, what that would evoke 
in the Arab world in terms of their interest in having weapons of mass 
destruction. It simply cannot happen. With this legislation today, we 
strengthen the President's hand to use or to withhold this particular 
sanction, but to have the capability to use diplomacy in a stronger 
way.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Iran Refined Petroleum 
Sanctions Act.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I talked to somebody today that will be voting for these, but 
admitted that they won't work and it is mere symbolism. So already they 
don't think these will do much good, even those who will vote for it. 
They're impossible to enforce, is one reason, and it will create a 
black market. And these particular sanctions are most difficult to 
enforce just because of the nature of the way it's written.
  One must understand a little bit about the pressures put on this 
country to act in a defensive way. They happen to be surrounded by a 
lot of nuclear bombs. And they don't have a history, the Iranians. As 
bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, 
they're not expansionists territorially. I mean, how many years has it 
been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over 
another country? It is just not in recent history at all. But the 
countries around them, India--India has nuclear weapons, China has 
nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Israel, the United States. I mean, they're 
all around them, so I'm sure they feel like a cornered rat.
  What I see here is propaganda, propaganda to build fear into people, 
to prepare the people for what is likely to come, just as we did in the 
1990s, fear that there were weapons of mass destruction, but this one 
is, well, someday they might get a weapon of mass destruction. 
Unfortunately, I am just really concerned that this is going to lead to 
hostilities because this is the initiation. The fear is building up. 
Too often in this country we talk of peace at the same time that we 
pursue war. We pursue war, and we use these efforts to push our 
policies on others.
  And quite frankly, we don't have any more money to pursue this 
policy, whether it's used by the militarism or even to try to buy 
friends by giving them a lot of money. It just doesn't work.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution in the interest of United 
States security.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few more points as to why I 
oppose this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another 
significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking 
that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a 
cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass 
legislation is a process generally reserved for ``non-controversial'' 
business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that 
this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post 
offices?
  This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United 
States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or 
otherwise enhances Iran's ability to import refined petroleum such as 
financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such 
sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that 
enhance Iran's ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of 
refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with 
enormous international economic implications.
  Recently, the Financial Times reported that, ``[i]n recent months, 
Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran's oil 
sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil 
company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and 
Shazand refineries--adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.''
  Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-
owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing 
business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who 
currently do business in Iran's petroleum sector or insure those who do 
so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect 
the US economy if it is actually enforced?
  As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. 
sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments 
who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime 
in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that 
sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any 
opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for 
regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put 
aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening 
external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen 
the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition 
continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert 
with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.
  This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international 
demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what 
is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself violates the Nuclear 
Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran 
are signatories. This section states that ``[i]t shall be the policy of 
the United States . . . to prevent Iran from achieving the capability 
to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international 
diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.'' Article 
V of the NPT states clearly that, ``[n]othing 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 and in conformity with 
articles I and II of this Treaty.'' As Iran has never been found in 
violation of the NPT--has never been found to have diverted nuclear 
materials for non-peaceful purposes--this legislation seeking to deny 
Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates 
the NPT.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war 
on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step 
short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S. demands. I would remind 
them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them 
are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately 
counterproductive legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the 
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. He 
deals with this issue every day.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. God bless you, my 
son.
  Let me just say that I have heard the arguments from the opponents of 
this legislation. And my question to them would be, well, what is the 
alternative? You mentioned one, two, three, four, five, six--seven 
reasons why we shouldn't do this, but Iran is developing a nuclear 
weapons system.
  If you look at The Times and the BBC, they say very clearly that 
confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times showed that 
Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb, and 
it is the

[[Page H14933]]

mechanism that explodes the nuclear bomb. Now, we've been waiting and 
waiting and waiting for years for them to stop the development of a 
nuclear weapon, and they keep giving us all these reasons why they 
shouldn't be stopped and why they're not doing it and all kinds of 
chicanery; but the fact of the matter is they continue on the path 
toward a nuclear weapon.
  Now, we get a large percentage of our energy from the Middle East. 
Israel is not going to sit by and let their country be threatened with 
annihilation. They're not going to let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, 
especially since Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe them off the face of 
the Earth. So if they develop a nuclear weapon and a detonating device, 
like they're working on right now, Israel is going to do something 
about it. Now, do we want a major conflagration in the Middle East that 
would threaten the energy that we get in this country? We get about 40 
percent of our energy from the Middle East. If you mess up the Persian 
Gulf, if you have that whole area explode, you're going to see all 
kinds of problems in getting oil from the Middle East. And we're not 
energy independent. Everybody in this country is going to suffer 
because it's going to hurt our economy from top to bottom.
  So I wish my colleagues would stop and think, do we let them just go 
on and not do anything about it, or do we start ratcheting up the 
pressure on them, put a little pressure on them, make them stop 
developing this nuclear weapon system? Because if they don't, the 
alternative is unthinkable.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Could I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 7 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Indiana has mentioned, what do the opponents of 
this resolution have in mind. If not these sanctions, then what, what 
do we do? I think you are hard pressed to find anyone who will 
rationally say that this measure will have any real effect. This is a 
statement resolution more than anything.
  And to the extent that it does bite, right now we don't export any 
refined petroleum products to Iran, but some of our allies do, those 
allies that we need for real sanctions that may or will bite. If we 
hope to get them on board, the last thing we want to do is get out in 
front and take measures where there will be punitive action on our 
allies that we need for sanctions that actually might have an impact.
  So the notion that we have to do this or nothing is simply false. We 
need to address this situation there, but we need to do it in a way 
where we don't alienate the people of Iran who, when you're on the 
streets of Iran, people are not virulently anti-American, gratefully. 
We need to keep it that way. We shouldn't have sanctions that target 
the people, hoping that they will somehow revolt and then get mad at 
their leadership rather than the U.S.
  I think that when you look at the history of sanctions, you're hard 
pressed to find examples where that kind of action works, where you try 
to entice some kind of rebellion among the people that you want to help 
and that somehow they will blame their government rather than those who 
are imposing the sanctions.

                              {time}  1600

  Again, multilateral sanctions can work. Multilateral action can work, 
and it needs to work. But in order to do that, you need to give the 
administration the flexibility, through a combination of diplomacy and 
other measures, to work with our allies, to bring measures that will 
work.
  I am glad the gentleman has stood up to oppose this. I want people to 
know that we aren't all in agreement here, that there are other 
measures that can be taken.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) on behalf of the legislation.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. I would like to thank Chairman Berman for 
yielding.
  I rise today disappointed that I am here to support the Iran Refined 
Petroleum Sanctions Act. I am disappointed because it's the 
extraordinary lack of cooperation and duplicity on the part of the 
leadership in Iran that brings us to that point.
  Though I share many of the concerns expressed by the opposition, like 
many, I was hopeful at the beginning of the year with the new President 
and administration that we would approach Iran differently and that the 
leaders in Iran would respond likewise. Sadly, the leadership of Iran, 
particularly following their flawed elections, has been anything but 
forthcoming and cooperative. They have thwarted the international 
community. They rebuffed a viable plan for transfer of low-grade 
uranium and materials for a true civilian nuclear capacity.
  They have led the world community along with the belief that they 
were negotiating fairly and with integrity. Instead, they are pursuing 
enrichment. This posture on the part of the Iranian government is both 
unfortunate and misguided, attempting to test President Obama's resolve 
and commitment to transparency, deterrence and accountability.
  It's my hope that our actions today will enable additional leverage 
for President Obama and his team within the governing multilateral 
institutions and negotiating countries. I think the Iranian leadership 
has to understand that the United States is both serious about 
engagement and accountability.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Though this bill claims to express international diplomatic efforts 
to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program, it actually undermines those 
efforts. Passing legislation effectively forces our President's hand in 
one direction, diminishing the power of the President and his 
diplomatic team by significantly limiting the tools the administration 
can utilize.
  Furthermore, it projects a negative image of the United States in a 
region at a time when we need broad international support to succeed in 
our negotiations.
  Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed 
ElBaradei has repeatedly stated that sanctions against Iran will be 
ineffective in forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. In 
a speech to the Board of Governors in September of this year, Mohamed 
ElBaradei recognized the important developments with respect to Iran's 
compliance with IAEA inspections, stating that, We are not in a state 
of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material. We 
have not seen components of nuclear weapons.
  In addition, he states, We went through this during the time of Iraq, 
when the Agency went exactly through that hype, fabrication, and it 
took a war based on fiction and not fact. It took a war and thousands 
of people dying for the Agency to become strong and more credible 
because we were sticking to the facts.
  Subsection A(1) of section 2 of this bill says, The illicit nuclear 
activities of the government of Iran, combined with its development of 
unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles in support of 
international terrorism, represents a serious threat to the security of 
the United States and allies in Europe, the Middle East, and around the 
world.
  This language makes dangerous accusations that have been repudiated 
by the IAEA and paves the way for the same mistakes we have made in 
Iraq. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes at the cost of the 
innocent lives of the people in Iran.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget Committee 
and Committee on Financial Services, a cosponsor of this bill, and a 
former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and my friend.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Given the state of Iran's nuclear ambitions and its poor record at 
transparency, it continues to be clear that the United States must lead 
the world in pressuring Iran to give up these ambitions. There is no 
option.
  Iran's energy sector is the backbone of its economy and provides the 
majority of its government's revenue. Iran's energy infrastructure is 
deteriorating badly. It is in need of modernization. Without this 
modernization, its energy

[[Page H14934]]

sector very well may deteriorate and, along with it, consequently, its 
economy and possibly even its regime.
  The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act gives the President an 
important tool to help persuade the Iranian regime to peacefully give 
up its nuclear ambitions. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. It 
could provide rogue nations and terrorists with nuclear technology. It 
constitutes the looming threat to the national security of the United 
States.
  Iran's behavior not only jeopardizes the stability of the region but 
threatens the very existence of many of our allies in the Mideast, 
particularly the state of Israel.
  I enthusiastically encourage all of my colleagues to support the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  Mr. KUCINICH. May I ask how much time is remaining for all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). The gentleman 
from Ohio has 4 minutes, the gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentlewoman from Florida has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  One of our colleagues talked about, well, what are our alternatives 
here, as though the only alternative we have is to impose sanctions. We 
know from a report 2 days ago in The New York Times that Iran's foreign 
minister has said that his country was willing to exchange most of the 
uranium for processed nuclear fuel from abroad, as the United Nations 
has proposed. The article goes along to say, but only according to the 
timetable Western powers appear to have rejected.
  Well, we need to get back into those negotiations. I have some points 
here I want to share with Members of Congress. Here is what we can do.
  The debate in Iran is focused on two shipments of 400 kilograms each 
of low-enriched uranium. What is being proposed by Tehran is a phased 
delivery to the IAEA control of Iran's low-enriched uranium within 3 to 
5 months of each other, for a total of 800 kilograms.
  Officially, we know Iran's foreign minister said they would put 400 
kilograms of low-enriched uranium in Kish Island--that's in the Persian 
Gulf--under IAEA custody. The Iranians want objective guarantees, the 
guaranteed delivery of highly enriched uranium from Russia and France.
  Once it's delivered to Iran for medical purposes, they would then 
send another 400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to the IAEA control 
at Kish Island. The simultaneous shipment of high-enriched uranium to 
Iran and low-enriched for medical purposes, and low-enriched uranium 
from Iran to Kish Island, are confidence-building measures which can 
form the basis for further cooperation.
  Second, we need to pledge a guaranteed delivery by the U.S. and other 
P-5-plus-1 participants.
  Third, the U.S. offer of assistance with modernizing the instruments 
for the Tehran reactor.
  Fourth, Iran's willingness to continue with its nuclear transparency 
and full-scope IAEA safeguards, including short-notice inspections.
  Five, Iran's willingness to participate in Geneva II.
  Six, Iran's willingness to participate in multilateral expert 
meetings on nuclear, non-nuclear, that is, regional issues, and 
consideration of a broad range of confidence-building steps.
  We don't need these sanctions. We need diplomacy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so happy to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) ranking member on 
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 
Trade.
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, time is not on our side. Today's Washington 
Post reports that Iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and 
switch in a nuclear weapon. It is mastering the technology to enrich 
uranium which would fuel that weapon. A secret nuclear facility located 
on an Iranian military base was recently revealed. For years, Iran has 
been slapping away all of our diplomatic overtures. ``Our outreach has 
produced very little.'' Secretary Clinton's words, not mine.
  Today, the world's top terrorist state has its tentacles throughout 
the region. Its tentacles are Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, 
Syria, Sudan. Its agents and proxies are practically everywhere in its 
aspiration for regional dominance, not to mention our own backyard. 
Tomorrow's nuclear Iran would have a compounding effect with severe 
consequences for regional security and for U.S. security. The time for 
action is long past. This bill would help address this threat, 
targeting the regime's Achilles' heel.
  But we need a broad-based Iran policy that focuses not just on Iran's 
nuclear program, but one that aims to protect the U.S. and our allies 
from the Iranian missile threat and speaks out against its human rights 
abuses and bolsters its democracy supporters.
  Disturbingly, this administration has backed away from missile 
defense in Europe and the democratic movement inside Iran. The 
administration must realize that promoting democracy in Iran and 
improving our national security go hand-in-hand.
  I would just mention that sanctions helped bring down apartheid in 
South Africa and ended the South African program to develop nuclear 
weapons.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, 
and Trade, I strongly support the passage of this legislation, of which 
I am an original cosponsor.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the vice chair of the 
Republican Conference, a member of the Armed Services Committee, 
Education and Labor Committee, and Natural Resources Committee, and the 
mom of Cole.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2194 and urge my 
colleagues to pass this important security bill.
  As I have mentioned before, in August my husband and I visited 
Israel. The people of Israel want nothing more than to live in peace 
with their neighbors, many of whom have said repeatedly that they want 
Israel wiped off of the map.
  But the Israelis are realistic about peace. They know it comes from 
strength, from clear military superiority, from letting your enemies 
know that they cannot defeat you. That is a hard, realistic peace. It's 
clear Iran wants to break that peace, to destabilize the whole region 
and make Israel live in fear.
  After years of Iranian delays and deception, we must now back our 
words with action. Iran must be held accountable.
  As Iran takes one step after another towards nuclear weapons, it 
edges towards war. A vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of 
continuing a hard peace in the Middle East and showing the rest of the 
world that a nuclear Iran is not an option.
  When I left Israel, I pledged to do all I could to support their work 
to maintain and expand a difficult peace. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in this quest. A strong first step is passing H.R. 2194.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Engel.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, only a few short months ago the world learned of the 
secret Iranian nuclear enrichment facility near the city of Qom. If 
there was any doubt that Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, this 
revelation dispelled any shred of that doubt.
  The facility, kept secret from the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, was built deep in a mountain on a protected military base. This 
is how a country conceals a nuclear weapons program and defies U.N. 
Security Council resolutions, not how it develops peaceful energy 
technologies.
  Although Iran is a leading producer of crude oil, it has limited 
refining capability. This bill will increase leverage against Iran by 
penalizing companies that export refined petroleum products to Iran or 
finance Iran's domestic refining capabilities. It's my hope that the 
administration will apply these additional sanctions to make absolutely 
clear to the Ahmadinejad regime that the world will not accept its 
nuclear ambition.
  The U.S. and our allies in the U.N. Security Council have recognized 
that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger to the Middle East, to our 
ally, Israel, and to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. A nuclear-
armed Iran is simply

[[Page H14935]]

unacceptable, and we must support this sanction. To my colleagues who 
say that sanctions don't work, it only hurts the local population, the 
same argument, discredited argument, was made against South African 
sanctions. That worked. These sanctions will, too.
  Support the legislation.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman who first introduced 
legislation on this subject, who I worked closely with, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for their guidance.
  I rise in strong support of the legislation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I now yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant 
support of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, IRPSA.
  President Obama has extended a hand to the Iranian government, 
offering a mutually beneficial deal that would severely limit Iran's 
ability to develop a nuclear weapon. This confidence building measure 
is intended to give us the space and time to reach a more comprehensive 
agreement that would seek to integrate Iran back into the international 
community as a responsible actor and to impose strong, verifiable 
safeguards to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. After 
agreeing in principle to an initial agreement to send Iran's enriched 
uranium to Russia, Iran has since backed away from it and even refused 
to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency a formal response to 
the proposal.
  Because of the seriousness of the challenges we face, I reluctantly 
support the IRSPA. It sends the clear message that Iran can either work 
cooperatively and beneficially with the international community or it 
can choose further international isolation.
  However, for sanctions to succeed, they must impose a cost on Iran's 
ruling regime. I am concerned that it is the Iranian people--rather 
than the Iranian regime--that will suffer the most under IRPSA. If we 
are able to limit Iran's ability to import refined petroleum, the 
Iranian government will simply deflect this cost onto the Iranian 
people, by eliminating petroleum subsidies and blaming the United 
States for the hardship such actions will cause the general public.
  A democratic uprising against the Iranian regime is currently under 
way. I believe we need to stand with the Iranian people as they fight 
for their freedoms. The Iranian government by contrast has brutally 
oppressed peaceful demonstrators. For that reason, Congress and the 
Obama administration should work to craft sanctions that affect the 
leaders of Iran and the IRGC. Only sanctions that hurt these decision 
makers will influence Iran's decision-making process.
  While we must make the Iranian regime aware of our displeasure with 
their rejection of our positive advances, we must also provide a 
helping hand to Iranian citizens. That is why it is important for 
Congress, in addition to these punitive sanctions, to also provide 
assistance to the democracy movement in Iran by aiding their access to 
the internet, in order to provide the Iranian people unfettered access 
to information, free of government censorship. Congress should also 
take steps to increase the ability of non-governmental organizations in 
the U.S. to work with their counterparts in Iran, so that the Iranian 
people can benefit from better health services, educational 
opportunities, the promotion of equal rights, and the facilitation of 
people to people exchanges.
  The Iranian people are among the most pro-American people in the 
Middle East. With passage of today's sanctions legislation, it is all 
the more important to reach out to, and around the Iranian government, 
to this pro-American society. This is the time to redouble our efforts 
to support the Iranian people and their courageous fight for democracy 
by increasing their access to information and communication both in 
country and internationally.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, sanctions, when fully enforced, weaken the oppressors 
and express support for the opposition. They send a clear message to 
the dissidents and those who are hungry for freedom that we stand with 
them. The refined petroleum sanctions bill will force the regime to use 
its resources to take care of the Iranian people, something that they 
have not done, instead of using its funding to develop nuclear weapons 
and the missiles to deliver them.
  Support the Iranian people. Support peace and security. Support this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady's time has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank the 
chairman, and I want to thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for her 
leadership as well.
  Madam Speaker, every Member of this Chamber understands the deep 
danger inherent in a nuclear Iran. That danger includes a new nuclear 
arms race as Iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing 
arsenals, plunging the Middle East into an ever-greater instability and 
the world into a new era of proliferation.
  The danger includes as well a ``nuclear umbrella'' for groups like 
Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations who may take any advantage 
of their state sponsor's protection to stage more brazen and deadly 
attacks on Israel, certainly, but on all the rest of us as well.
  And the danger includes on a more basic level a new era of fear for 
all those in range of Iran's missiles, fear that could equal or surpass 
what we ourselves experienced during the worst days of the Cold War. 
And all of those consequences, Madam Speaker, will be felt even if 
Iran's missiles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons 
remain buried. Could we imagine those weapons being used? We would be 
foolish not to as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime 
whose President denies the Holocaust, stokes hatred, and openly 
threatens its neighbors and the United States of America.
  In the months since last summer's election, we have seen the 
character of the Iranian regime more clearly than ever. We have seen it 
in the dissent silenced, in opposition leaders threatened and jailed, 
in peaceful protesters beaten and shot for the crime of demanding that 
their votes be counted. We have seen a regime founded on violence and 
on violent disregard for the opinion of its people and the opinion of 
the world community.
  Even so, our administration has, and I think correctly, in my view, 
pursued a policy of engagement with Tehran. That engagement reversed 
years of diplomatic silence that did little to slow Iran's growing 
nuclear program. It showed the world our patience and our commitment to 
addressing the common threat through diplomacy. And it gauged Tehran's 
honest willingness to resolve the crisis at the negotiating table. 
America's policy of engagement always came with a time limit, time for 
Tehran to negotiate in good faith or, as so many Members have said on 
this floor today, to show that it was only using talks as a cover for 
continuing enrichment of uranium.
  Sadly, time is running short and there is still no diplomatic 
agreement. The enrichment continues and the threat grows. The past 
months have brought revelations of secret Iranian facilities, a lack of 
cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a refusal 
to comply with Security Council demands to suspend enrichment.
  Just today The Washington Post reported that ``Iran has learned how 
to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon, according 
to assessments by U.N. nuclear officials, as well as Western and Middle 
Eastern intelligence analysts and weapons experts.'' That language is 
in the paper today. That is why this is the right time to bring strong 
economic pressure to bear on the Iranian regime.
  None of us want military conflict. Economic sanctions are not as 
effective as we would like them to be. But we just recently heard from 
a leader, the Chancellor of Germany, that a nuclear armed Iran was 
unacceptable. Angela Merkel spoke from this rostrum. This is not only a 
perception of the United States; it's a perception also of those who 
live in Europe, even more proximate to the nuclear threat that would be 
caused by Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

[[Page H14936]]

  The bill was designed by Chairman Berman and his committee to target 
Iran's economy at one of its weakest points by penalizing companies 
that help Iran import or produce refined petroleum products. Even 
though it is an oil producer, Iran imports a great deal of the refined 
petroleum that powers its economy.

  So these sanctions that are proposed will increase the high cost of 
Iran's self-imposed isolation from the international community. They 
are also a proportional response because they're exclusively tied to 
Iran's nuclear program. We should never take sanctions like these 
lightly.
  Even as we stand with the protesters facing down repression at the 
hands of their own government, we understand that these sanctions will 
affect the lives of many ordinary Iranians for the worse. But we know 
that economic pressure has worked before to alter the behavior of 
outlaw regimes, especially when such pressure is widely supported by 
the international community, as certainly we must hope these sanctions 
are. We know that these sanctions are our best tool against the nuclear 
proliferation that risks the security of millions in the Middle East. 
And let me say that we have 250,000 or more Americans within range of 
Iranian missiles.
  We know that Tehran can choose at any point to negotiate in good 
faith, abandon its aggressive nuclear pursuit, and rejoin the community 
of nations. We shouldn't hope for a change of heart from that regime, 
but we can hope for a change of behavior: a cold understanding that as 
long as Iran builds the capacity to catastrophically attack its 
neighbors, its economy will suffer deeply. These sanctions have the 
power to force that choice.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. It is time. 
It is time to do more than talk. We are willing to talk. We want to 
talk. But talk without action is not acceptable. Let us pass this 
resolution, support the administration in moving ahead with the 
international community on imposing sanctions that will make not only 
the Middle East but the international community safer.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), vice chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Iran Refined Petroleum 
Sanctions Act.
  It is deeply disappointing that the Iranian government continues to 
choose to isolate itself. The Iranian government has chosen its 
clandestine nuclear program and its support for global terrorism over 
joining the community of nations in allowing its economy to thrive.
  That is why I worked to include an important provision in today's 
legislation that requires companies applying for contracts with the 
United States Government to affirmatively certify that they do not 
conduct business with Iran.
  The legislation gives companies a single choice: do business with the 
United States or do business with Iran. We cannot allow the U.S. 
Government to be a financial crutch of this rogue regime, not on our 
watch and not on our dime. And with the passage of this legislation, 
Iranian businesses will have a choice as well: support a regime that 
chooses economic isolation or work to change the behavior of the 
Iranian government.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  One of my colleagues cited The Washington Post, but if you read The 
Post article, they couldn't authenticate where the information came 
from. So after a while it has the ring of uranium from Niger.
  We have to be careful that this sanctions debate doesn't put us on 
the path of a military escalation. We have to think why is the Obama 
administration, as has been quoted several times in this debate, 
expressing concern about this legislation, that this legislation might 
weaken, rather than strengthen, international unity and support for our 
efforts, that there are serious substantive concerns, the lack of 
flexibility that this would put on our President in his negotiations?
  I submit for the Record Mohamed ElBaradei's September 9 comments as 
Director General about the Iran situation.
  We've got to be careful that we're not making a situation worse and 
we're not giving our President the time that he says he needs for 
diplomacy.

Summary of the Director General's Comments Made at the End of the Board 
              of Governors' Discussion on Agenda Item 6(d)

    (``Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement and relevant 
 provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 
     1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran'')

                       Vienna, September 9, 2009.

       Thank you, Chairperson.
       A few comments on the debate this morning and on what has 
     been transpiring over the past few days. Clearly, we all need 
     to break the logjam. Merely giving speeches here is not going 
     to do that. We have to put our heads together. There is 
     stalemate, as I have said. Iran has made some positive 
     progress and I recognize that. It was partly, I hope, as a 
     result of my private and public appeal to them to move in a 
     positive direction. That is the only way to move.
       I don't think that talking about formalities--whether the 
     work plan has been fully implemented or not, how we should 
     write our reports, or whether to have an annex, or whether 
     something is routine or not routine--that is not the issue. 
     The issue is to clarify the substance and to make sure that 
     all outstanding issues are dealt with. It has been six years 
     and I don't want this to continue, as in the case of the 
     DPRK, for 17 years. One lesson I learned from the DPRK is 
     that it is only through dialogue that you can move forward. 
     There is no other way.
       There is a positive development. Iran has agreed to our 
     visiting the heavy water reactor and to strengthen 
     verification in Natanz. These are all positive. But there is 
     a lot more Iran can do. As Ambassador Soltanieh knows, I put 
     a lot of premium on the Additional Protocol. I know it is not 
     considered legally binding. But for us at the Secretariat, as 
     we have repeatedly said, the Protocol is key for us to build 
     confidence, not only about declared activities, but also 
     about undeclared activities. And you (Iran) have implemented 
     the Protocol before. I know Iran can do it again. I know you 
     have been reacting to others, but frankly, you are not 
     penalizing others, you are penalizing yourself. The Protocol 
     will help us to move forward with the process.
       Iran implemented the Code (3.1), before. I don't see any 
     impediment to Iran doing it again.
       There are a number of checkable facts, such as procurements 
     by military establishments, and production by military 
     establishments. These are issues, as Iran has said before, 
     that Iran can help work with us to clarify. I hope you will 
     do that because we need, both of us, to work together in a 
     constructive, positive direction.
       Coming to the alleged studies: they are alleged because the 
     whole question is not really about assessment or analysis, it 
     is about the accuracy and authenticity of the information 
     about the alleged studies. That it is the 64,000 dollar 
     question, frankly, and that is where we are stuck. We have 
     limited ability to authenticate the allegations. It is one 
     word against another. When we deal with nuclear material, we 
     are very comfortable; we know the litmus test. We do 
     measurements, we do environmental sampling. When it comes to 
     paperwork, that is quite different for us because we have 
     very limited tools.
       We need Iran to help us to clarify these issues. We have 
     said that we are not in a position to say these allegations 
     are real, but we have serious concerns, because of what we've 
     described--the detail, the different sources. We need to work 
     with you to clarify these issues. I would be the first one to 
     want to bring this issue to closure. I would hope that you 
     would work with us and try to help us.
       I would also hope that the suppliers of the information 
     would help us by providing us the authority to share with you 
     as much information as possible.
       People talk about assessments. I am not a scientist, but I 
     can tell you this: if this information is real, there is a 
     high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have 
     taken place. But I should underline ``if'' three times.
       With nuclear material, we can give you full assurance. With 
     certain documentation, it is quite difficult unless one side 
     or the other will help us to establish the facts. However, 
     there are other issues like procurement, like manufactures, 
     where Iran can work with us. These are checkable facts and we 
     need simply to clarify them.
       We have in our reports always tried not to understate the 
     facts and not to overstate the facts. We have serious 
     concerns, but we are not in a state of panic because we have 
     not seen diversion of nuclear material, we have not seen 
     components of nuclear weapons.
       We do not have any information to that effect. But I need 
     the Protocol in order to be on more solid ground to make such 
     a statement. That is why I say a Protocol is absolutely 
     essential for us to verify the absence of undeclared 
     activities.
       When I hear Ambassador Davies and Ambassador Soltanieh, I 
     don't see where the problem is. The U.S. is making an offer 
     without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. 
     Ambassador Soltanieh said they are

[[Page H14937]]

     ready to have a comprehensive dialogue. The offer by the U.S. 
     is an offer that should not and cannot be refused, because it 
     has no conditions attached. I hope your response to that is 
     positive. We can spend days and nights talking about the 
     issues, but unless we talk to each other and not at each 
     other, we will not move forward. Dialogue is key. The Agency 
     can provide some confidence, but there are many other issues 
     that need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner and there 
     have been a lot of opportunities lost over the past six 
     years. We should not lose any more opportunities.
       Finally, I will talk about this issue which has come to the 
     media about withholding information. I mentioned that in my 
     opening speech. Obviously, people are trying to undermine the 
     Agency, but they are really undermining an institution that 
     is absolutely essential to the maintenance of international 
     peace and security. All the information we got came from 
     people sitting in this room. If anybody has any information 
     that we have not shared, that has passed muster, that has 
     been critically assessed in accordance with our practice, 
     please step forward today. Otherwise, as a preacher would 
     say, ``You should forever hold your peace.''
       This is where we are. If you have information, please step 
     forward. We have no more information. The assessment is in 
     our report. As I said, if this information on alleged studies 
     is true, the likelihood is high that military activities have 
     taken place in Iran. But, that hinges on the word ``if,'' 
     which is where we are stuck right now.
       As for the idea that we did not share all the information 
     and that we only gave information in a briefing--I can't for 
     the life of me understand how we can share information in a 
     briefing with 150 Member States and at the same time be told 
     that we have not shared information. That briefing is open to 
     all Member States, every single one. But the briefing is 
     simply to explain the report. It had nothing different from 
     what is in the report.
       We went through this, I'm sorry to say, during the time of 
     Iraq, when the Agency went exactly through that--hype, 
     fabrication. And then it took a war based on fiction and not 
     fact, a war President Obama called euphemistically ``a war of 
     choice''. It took a war and hundreds of thousands of people 
     dying for the Agency to become stronger and more credible 
     because we were sticking to the facts. I don't want to go 
     through that process again; you do not want to go through 
     that process again.
       So let us all work together on the basis of diplomacy, on 
     the basis of facts to be able to resolve the issues as early 
     as possible.
                                                Mohamed ElBaradei,
                                                 Director General.

  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very 
patient member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, today we will impose sanctions. 
We will sanction with this legislation or we will sanction the 
unacceptable status quo, to which I say not on my watch.
  Let history record that even if I could not do enough, I did do all 
that I could. I support sanctions to avert a tyrant from acquiring 
nuclear weapons of mass destruction capable of creating an inferno 
unlike that which even the mind of Dante could imagine. To act later 
may be to act too late.
  I rise in support of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 
2194). This legislation will restrict refined petroleum imports to Iran 
by strengthening the President's authority to impose sanctions on 
companies that provide refined petroleum or help Iran maintain or 
expand its domestic refining capabilities.
  While Iran is one of the largest producers of crude oil, it lacks 
adequate refining capability to meet its own domestic needs for 
gasoline and is forced to import 25 to 40 percent of its refined 
petroleum needs.
  This legislation will prevent Iran from importing the gasoline it 
needs as a way to put pressure on the Iranian government to suspend its 
uranium enrichment program.
  For over a decade, the United States has played a central role in 
diplomatic, political and economic efforts within the international 
community to deter Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capabilities.
  H.R. 2194 continues those efforts and is particularly important in 
light of recent intelligence indicating that Iran continues to advance 
its nuclear program.
  The latest International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, resolution 
adopted by the Board of Governors on November 27, 2009, notes with 
serious concern how Iran has constructed an enrichment facility at Qom 
in breach of its obligation to suspend all uranium enrichment related 
activities.
  Many experts believe that with further processing of low-enriched 
uranium, Iran could have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon by 
the end of this year, reinforcing the sense of urgency to address this 
threat.
  A nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a nuclear arms race and increase 
the likelihood that such weapons might actually be used against the 
United States and our allies.
  As such, it is a threat not only to the Middle East, but to the 
entire world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope that it 
will be an effective step towards preventing such a threat.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I will use the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this is starting to sound like the debate over Iraq.
  My concerns are that this resolution is opposed to our national 
security, that it undermines diplomatic initiatives, that it creates a 
gas shortage in Iran which, in a sense, the regime would blame on the 
United States. It will benefit the Revolutionary Guard in its effort to 
gain profit off of a black market. It will throw the energy politics of 
the world into chaos with Russia, Venezuela and our European allies all 
coming in to play. It will undermine our diplomacy. It will isolate us 
from our allies. It will isolate us from trading partners. It will 
undercut international energy companies which try to work with the 
United States in back channels in diplomacy. It will undermine 
democracy efforts in Iran, and it will strengthen the hardliners. It 
will make U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan more 
dangerous for our troops.
  This sanctions resolution is, unfortunately, a path towards military 
escalation. As such, it should be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard, I guess, three reasons put forth about 
why people should not support this legislation.
  The first is some hint of a belief that Iran is not pursuing a 
nuclear weapons capability. Our report lists activity after activity 
that Iran has undertaken to hide its activities from the IAEA to build 
enrichment facilities that have no purpose in the uranium enrichment 
program and to talk about neutron triggers, which only have one 
purpose, which is to detonate a nuclear weapon. It is a country that 
has been offered by Russia, with the support of the P5, a chance for a 
nuclear energy program, and it has spurned all of those offers to 
pursue this. To me, there can be no serious doubt about that.
  The second argument is that they get a nuclear weapon, and we can 
contain them. For the reasons I gave in the beginning and because I 
believe it totally destroys the nonproliferation regime, containment is 
not the right policy.
  The third argument is that these sanctions are going to hurt the 
Iranian people. Well, I was here in 1986 when we took up a prohibition 
on any new investment, not investment in the energy sector, but any new 
investment in the apartheid regime of South Africa.
  What was the argument against it? Banning new investment, curtailing 
economic growth, hurting the majority of the population in South 
Africa. Don't do it. Don't wreak havoc on the poor people.
  We did not listen to that argument. We enacted those new sanctions. 
Europe soon followed in banning new investment. The South African 
business community went to the regime in South Africa and pointed out 
the economic devastation they faced if they continued with their 
apartheid policies.
  It is ludicrous to think that the people who are risking their lives 
and their liberty and their limbs and who are doing everything they can 
to express their opposition to this regime in Iran are going to turn 
into a unifying force behind that regime because the price of oil gets 
higher. We are working with them to weaken that regime and to stop this 
nuclear weapons program.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, as one who has worked for 
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation efforts throughout my life, I 
share my colleagues concern regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed 
Iran.
  I strongly believe Congress must support the Administration's 
diplomatic efforts and provide tools to help that diplomacy succeed in 
curbing Iran's belligerent and deceptive activities as related to their 
nuclear program, as well as put an end to the unjust and inhumane 
tactics used by the Iranian government to suppress democratic dissent 
amongst their own people.
  I have serious concerns regarding Iran's violation of its obligations 
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT.

[[Page H14938]]

  I believe strongly that the international community must work in a 
united collaboration to compel Iran to renounce and cease all 
activities that are in violation of the NPT, and submit fully to the 
international inspection regime.
  Let me also be clear that I strongly oppose the use of military force 
and while sanctions, particularly, with international support, can be 
utilized effectively if designed appropriately and in the right 
circumstances, they cannot be viewed as a checkmark on the path to war.
  Madam Speaker, there certainly may come a time for additional 
unilateral sanctions against Iran and those that would do business with 
them.
  Iran's recent rejection of international overtures and threats of 
expanding their nuclear enrichment program without allowing for 
improved transparency demand that Congress work with the administration 
to effectively increase pressure on Iran should multilateral diplomacy 
fail.
  But let us do everything we can to support the Obama administration 
during this very critical juncture.
  Iran's failure to-date to grasp this opportunity for engagement has 
opened the door to a multilateral sanctions regime that will be 
necessary to compel Iran to change course.
  I have grave concerns that H.R. 2194, as currently written may 
jeopardize these efforts by:

  Setting inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels
  Risking unintended foreign policy consequences as a result of 
potential punitive measures against the very international partners 
from which we are seeking cooperation on this issue; and
  Narrowing the President's waiver authority in a manner that may 
undermine the President's flexibility as he pursues a dual track of 
engagement coupled with increasingly unified international pressure.

  Madam Speaker, after decades of levying unilateral measures against 
Iran with little effect, and in recognition of the essential support of 
our international partners, I cannot fully support moving forward with 
this bill in its current form.
  In placing my vote today, I recognize that this bill is not in its 
final form-but in its current form it does not meet the test of 
efficacy for achieving our non-proliferation goals with respect to 
Iranian behavior.
  It is my hope that changes to address these concerns will be 
reflected in the bill when it returns to the House floor.
  While we are not able to make changes to this legislation here today, 
I plan to work with, and in support of Chairman Berman and the 
Administration, to ensure any sanctions package ultimately signed into 
law most effectively serves U.S. interests in preventing a nuclear 
armed Iran.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. This 
legislation provides another tool for the President to prevent Iran 
from developing nuclear weapons by allowing the administration to 
sanction foreign firms who attempt to supply refined gasoline to Iran 
or provide them with the materials to enhance their oil refineries. 
These sanctions would further restrict the government of Iran's ability 
to procure refined petroleum. Currently, the availability of petroleum 
products is stagnant in Iran. Private firms have decided that the 
government of Iran's refusal to cooperate with the multilateral 
community on nuclear proliferation generates a significant risk to 
doing business with Iran.
  I would like to thank Chairman Berman, for incorporating my concerns 
about the human rights situation in Iran into the findings of this 
legislation. It is important that we acknowledge that, throughout 2009, 
the government of Iran has persistently violated the rights of its 
citizens. The government of Iran's most overt display of disregard for 
human rights happened in the Presidential elections on June 12, 2009. 
As I said on June 19, 2009, ``we must condemn Iran for the absence of 
fair and free Presidential elections and urge Iran to provide its 
people with the opportunity to engage in a Democratic election 
process.'' The repression and murder, arbitrary arrests, and show 
trials of peaceful dissidents in the wake of the elections were a sad 
reminder of the government of Iran's long history of human rights 
violations. The latest violations were the most recent iteration of the 
government of Iran's wanton suppression of the freedom of expression.
  It is important that we are clear that our concerns are with the 
government of Iran and not its people. The State Department's Human 
Rights Report on Iran provides a bleak picture of life in Iran. The 
government of Iran, through its denial of the democratic process and 
repression of dissent has prevented the people from determining their 
own future. Moreover, it is the government of Iran that persecutes its 
ethnic minorities and denies the free expression of religion. As we 
proceed with consideration of this legislation, we should all remember 
that the sole target of these sanctions is the Iranian government.
  Madam Speaker, the government of Iran has repeatedly shown its 
disdain for the international community by disregarding international 
nonproliferation agreements. Iran's flagrant violation of 
nonproliferation agreements was evidenced most recently in the 
discovery of the secret enrichment facility at Qom. The government of 
Iran's continued threats against Israel, opposition to the Middle East 
peace process, and support of international terrorist organizations 
further demonstrate the necessity for action.
  Iran's recent actions towards the international community reflect a 
very small measure of progress. Iran's decision to allow International 
Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, inspectors to visit this facility was a 
positive sign, but not a sufficient indication of their willingness to 
comply with international agreements. The recent announcement that Iran 
will accept a nuclear fuel deal is also indicative of their willingness 
to engage in dialogue, though it remains to be seen what amendments 
that they will seek to the deal. While these actions indicate a small 
degree of improvement in Iran's position, the legislation before us 
today demonstrates that only continued dialogue and positive actions 
will soften the international community's stance towards Iran.
  I would also like to emphasize that the legislation before us 
provides only one tool for achieving Iran's compliance with 
international nonproliferation agreements. I continue to support the 
Administration's policy of engagement with Iran and use of diplomatic 
talks. I believe that diplomacy and multilateralism are the most 
valuable tools we have to create change in Iran. After those tools 
fail, I believe that the sanctions are an appropriate recourse.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  A few months ago, a second nuclear enrichment site was discovered in 
Iran. The Iranian regime had withheld the disclosure of this facility 
from the International Atomic Energy Agency for quite some time--yet 
another violation of Iran's obligations under the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty. Furthermore, this second facility will allow 
Iran to produce more enriched uranium and at an even faster rate.
  There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran poses a dangerous threat to the 
United States and its allies throughout the Middle East and across the 
entire globe. We cannot allow the Iranian regime to continue 
threatening its neighbors and thumbing its nose at the world. And we 
certainly cannot let a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off 
the map even come close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  Madam Speaker, the Iran problem is getting worse, not better. It is 
time we take action.
  Currently, Iran relies on foreign suppliers for 40 percent of its 
refined petroleum. The legislation before us would sanction foreign 
companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its 
own domestic refining capacity, by depriving those companies of access 
to the U.S. market. This will help put needed pressure on Iran to 
suspend its program and allow for verification of that action.
  Time and time again, Iran has been given the opportunity to prove 
they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and each time they have failed to 
do so. It is time for the U.S. to take action and send a message that 
the world will not sit idly by as tyrants in Iran buy time to enrich 
uranium and ultimately amass a nuclear weapon.
  Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the brave 
Iranian people who are peacefully going to the streets to protest the 
actions of the current regime. It is not only for our own security but 
also for these people--the students and dissidents who desire a better 
future for their nation--that this legislation should be passed.
  The status quo when it comes to Iran is no longer a viable option. 
This bill offers a peaceful, significant course of action that will set 
the world on a safer course when it comes to Iran. I urge adoption of 
this important legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, nuclear weapons are a plague.
  If we are to control their spread, international law must mean 
something. Words must be supported by action.
  In recent months, the United States and our allies have engaged in 
vigorous multilateral diplomacy in an attempt to break through an 
impasse with Iran over its nuclear program.
  Rather than engaging in good-faith diplomacy, Iran has stalled and 
played games.
  So today we must authorize President Obama to impose sanctions on 
Iran's petroleum sector. Iran's leaders must understand that life will 
become more difficult every day they defy the lawful will of the 
international community. I urge the President to use this authority 
carefully, patiently, and effectively.
  I commend Chairman Berman for his diligence and determination in 
bringing this legislation through Committee and to the floor. I am also 
proud to have a small claim of co-authorship. I contributed language 
that highlights Iran's construction of a secret uranium enrichment 
facility at Qom and demands that Iran

[[Page H14939]]

disclose any additional covert enrichment facilities.
  Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will beget similar programs by 
Iran's neighbors. A nuclearized Middle East is bad for international 
security, bad for the global economy, bad for the United States and bad 
for our allies.
  Nuclear weapons are a plague. Here we must draw a red line and stop 
their spread.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  The threat from Iran is real. Just last month, the IAEA censured Iran 
for its secret nuclear facility. In response, Iran vowed to no longer 
cooperate with the IAEA and, soon after, announced their plans for 10 
additional nuclear enrichment sites. Iran is also the leading state 
sponsor of terrorism and is supporting extremist organizations in the 
Middle East and beyond.
  It is time for this Congress to say ``enough is enough.'' This 
legislation sends a clear message: foreign entities selling petroleum 
to Iran will pay a price and will not enjoy the benefits of having the 
United States as a customer.
  I commend Mr. Berman for this fine piece of legislation and urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2194.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I am a strong 
supporter of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanction Act. I 
believe Iran remains the number one national security concern for the 
international community. Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear 
capabilities is extremely concerning and remains a serious threat to 
the United States of America and the entire world. Iran's refusal to 
respond to the United States' diplomatic engagement is especially 
disconcerting. I'd like to thank Chairman Berman for his willingness to 
add language to this legislation at my request, highlighting Iran's 
unwillingness to cooperate with the international community and the 
government's insistence on rejecting the United States' efforts at 
engagement.
  When Iran's secret nuclear facility was revealed in September, my 
colleagues and I demanded that the Government of Iran immediately 
disclose the existence of any additional nuclear-related facilities, 
and provide open-access to its Qom enrichment facility. The Obama 
Administration set a deadline for Iran to open the facility for 
inspection. However, Iran did not meet this deadline. Iran was also 
required to ship its low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia and 
France for conversion. Yet again, Iran refused to accept this deal. 
Iran has systematically refused to live up to any of its promises of 
transparency and cooperation with the international community. Instead, 
Iran decided to act against our efforts at engagement by announcing 
that it would enrich its own uranium to 20 percent, and that it would 
build 10 new enrichment plants for purportedly civilian purposes.
  These actions are unacceptable and the U.S. House of Representatives 
must ensure that our country is not investing in companies and 
institutions that enhance Iran's petroleum resources, which may be used 
to fund their nuclear ambitions and terrorist groups. However, I also 
believe the international community must come together to help 
neutralize the threat Iran poses to the rest of the world. All states 
must take responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the 
region through multi-lateral sanctions and efforts to force Iran to 
denuclearize. In order to be successful, I believe these efforts must 
be international in scope.
  The passage of H.R. 2194 is an important step towards continuing to 
show Iran that we will not stand by idly while they continue to 
threaten the peace and security of the rest of the world. I regret that 
I am unavoidably detained in California. However, as a cosponsor and 
strong supporter of H.R. 2194, I would have voted ``aye'' on this 
critical legislation.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, aimed at 
checking the government of Iran's clandestine effort to acquire a 
nuclear weapons capability.
  That effort is particularly troublesome given the country's ongoing 
support of international terrorism and its programs to develop 
ballistic missiles. An Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons and 
the systems to deliver them, and no compunction about targeting 
innocents, will present a grave security threat to the United States, 
the Middle East and the entire globe. And make no mistake: Iran has 
global ambitions, now encompassing the Pacific Islands. Last year, for 
example, Iran provided a $200,000 scholarship fund to the Solomon 
Islands for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. This year, 
the Solomons voted in favor of a U.N. resolution regarding the 
seriously-flawed Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict.
  Meanwhile, today's Washington Post reports that Iran's indigenous 
scientific and technical capabilities appear to have put Teheran on the 
threshold of becoming a nuclear weapons state. And as Secretary of 
State Hillary Rodham Clinton noted yesterday, diplomatic engagement 
with Iran over its nuclear activities, ``has produced very little in 
terms of any kind of a positive response from the Iranians.''
  H.R. 2194, sponsored by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, 
provides the Administration one more instrument for its diplomatic tool 
kit: explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on the Iranian 
regime if it fails to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.
  While I hope that the President will not have to exercise that 
authority, I believe having it available will increase his diplomatic 
leverage. It is time for the government of Iran to heed the call of the 
international community and abandon its nuclear ambitions. I ask my 
colleagues in the House to reinforce that call by supporting H.R. 2194.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194.
  I am deeply concerned that Iran continues to pursue nuclear 
capabilities in defiance of the international community. The Iranian 
leader's abhorrent statements against America and Israel are 
outrageous.
  Both current and previous Administrations view Iran as a profound 
threat to U.S. national security interests, a view that reflects my 
position as well.
  We must address the situation. I have continually supported efforts 
to give U.S. Presidents the tools and capabilities needed to prevent 
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I continue to do so today.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of H.R. 2194. I believe we need 
to expand sanctions to refined petroleum resources to prevent Iran's 
nuclear proliferation. However, while domestic sanctions are critical, 
it is also important that our allies participate in an international 
coalition so that combating Iran's nuclear proliferation is a 
multilateral effort.
  This bill, like other Iran sanctions bills that have preceded it in 
this chamber, was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. Usually on 
Iran bills, Foreign Affairs and Ways & Means discuss and agree jointly 
on the provisions in the bill that fall within the jurisdiction of my 
Committee. These conversations have always been very productive in the 
past. This process provides the best possible outcome, because it 
respects the strength and thrust of the bill, as well as positions the 
legislation to give our Administration the best chance at continuing to 
cultivate and maintain international multilateral pressure.
  We are still in the midst of that process for the bill now under 
consideration, and the bill we are voting on reflects the starting 
point of that process, not the end result. The aspects of the bill 
within the jurisdiction of Ways & Means that the two Committees are 
still discussing include the bill's provisions addressing the 
President's waiver authority, the structure and content of the 
additional mandatory sanctions, and certain definitions.
  Although we have not completed our discussions, I can nevertheless 
offer my full support to this bill because of the Foreign Affairs 
Chairman's commitment to continue working with the Ways & Means 
Committee on these outstanding issues.
  In light of that commitment, it is my expectation that bona fide, 
good-faith discussions between Ways & Means and Foreign Affairs will 
continue as this legislation proceeds in the legislative process.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2194--Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  This bill requires the President to impose sanctions on any entity 
that provides Iran with refined petroleum resources, or engages in 
activity that could contribute to Iran's ability to import such 
resources.
  Because Iran lacks sufficient domestic petroleum refining capability, 
a restriction of gasoline deliveries to Iran will become a painful 
sanction designed to bring Iran's leaders into compliance with their 
commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  The government of Iran must verifiably suspend, and dismantle its 
weapons-applicable nuclear program and stop all uranium enrichment 
activities.
  There can be no doubt that Iran poses a significant threat to the 
United States and our allies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Iran is 
proceeding with an aggressive nuclear weapons program, despite its 
claim that the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful uses.
  Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and ending its support 
for international terrorism are vital United States national security 
interests.
  We know that Iran has engaged in stonewalling, deception and deceit 
when it comes to its nuclear program. Several weeks ago, a secret 
uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom was revealed--a 
facility the Iranians failed to disclose to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency.
  Yesterday, British intelligence revealed that it has discovered 
documents which indicate

[[Page H14940]]

that Iran has been testing nuclear bomb triggers since at least 2007.
  This Administration is engaged in some wishful thinking if they 
believe that the threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program can be 
negotiated away through engagement and concessions.
  Mohammad El-Baradei, the former head of the IAEA said, 
``Investigations into military aspects of Iran's nuclear program had 
reached a ``dead end.''
  We have tried negotiations and inspections to convince the Iranian 
regime to end its weapons program and we are getting no results.
  So, the time has come to take decisive, concrete action and nothing 
less than overwhelming and crippling sanctions will compel Iran to end 
the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  This bill provides a powerful stick to force the Iranians to end its 
illicit nuclear weapons program.
  I urge my colleges to support this bill.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this important bill, and urge my colleagues in the House, 
as well as the Senate, to enact this legislation into law without 
delay.
  Iran has for decades presented a serious threat to the security of 
the United States, our allies, the region, and the international 
community. Its support for terrorism and other belligerent activities 
has been a particular challenge to the security of Israel and the 
entire Middle East. Iran's more recent efforts to develop nuclear 
weapons elevate these security threats, and must be resisted by all the 
diplomatic and security institutions of the United States. Furthermore, 
the reports this week that Iran is pursuing technology specific to 
nuclear weapons should remove any doubts about Iran's intentions with 
regard to uranium enrichment, and make clear to me that we must contain 
this threat immediately.
  The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act will provide the United 
States with a new lever against the Iranian regime in order to deter 
its dangerous behavior. Specifically, this bill would allow the 
President to impose sanctions on any business or individual that makes 
an investment that contributes to Iran's ability to develop its 
petroleum resources or to import petroleum goods. Iran relies on its 
oil exports to derive income, and must also import 30-40 percent of its 
gasoline to meet its needs. Sanctions on petroleum development and the 
fuel needs of Iran will further cripple its economic development--
focused primarily on the elite class that is closest to the regime, and 
help to increase the costs of its threatening activities. These far-
reaching sanctions, capturing all those who provide a range of 
associated support to Iran's petroleum needs, will send an important 
message to the regime that its nuclear weapons ambitions are 
unacceptable, and that they will be met with serious consequences.
  It is very important that Congress pass this bill quickly in order to 
provide the President the necessary options and legal remedies to deter 
Iran. There is a point of no-return with nuclear weapons development, 
and we must engage all available options to prevent Iran from 
developing those capabilities. Furthermore, as we have learned with 
Iran's support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, should Iran acquire 
nuclear weapon capabilities, it is all too likely that they will share 
their weapons and knowledge with any number of dangerous actors. 
Nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly to non-state actors and 
those who pose the greatest threats to the security of America, Israel, 
and other allies, must be stopped at all costs.
  At the same time, it is vital that we seek the support of the 
international community to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear weapons 
pursuit. We must work with our allies in Europe, as well as with China, 
Russia, and others to address the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran 
presents to the world. But international efforts should not be an 
alternative to the United States pursuing the strongest sanctions 
options possible against Iran.
  It will be very important in the upcoming year that we continue to 
proceed with both U.S. sanctions, and also international diplomatic 
efforts and sanctions to prevent Iran from proceeding with its 
dangerous and insular nuclear weapons ambitions. Iran must not be 
allowed to become a nuclear weapons state, and we must pursue all 
available options to prevent that from occurring. It is essential to 
that goal that we pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (H.R. 2194). I would like to 
thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their 
leadership and work to bring this legislation to the floor. I would 
especially like to thank them for working with me to ensure that 
language related to Venezuela and Iran was included.
  Madam Speaker, Iran is not wasting any time in its pursuit of nuclear 
weapons, and this body must also not waste any time in making sure that 
this bill becomes law.
  Today in the Western Hemisphere, Iran and its proxies, such as 
Hezbollah, are working hard to promote acts of terrorism.
  Iran is also working diligently across the Western Hemisphere to 
acquire uranium. This would, of course, not be possible without the 
help of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
  Madam Speaker, my subcommittee held a hearing in which we addressed 
Iran's rising influence in the Western Hemisphere. All experts point to 
Venezuela when it comes to Iran's threat in our region.
  Hugo Chavez has not only facilitated Iran's influence, but is a co-
conspirator with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in both evading 
sanctions and procuring nuclear technology.
  This bill targets Iran. And we should target Iran. But we must also 
be mindful of who is helping Iran avoid sanctions and who is helping 
Iran achieve its ultimate goals.
  This bill rightfully adds the sale of gasoline to the list of 
sanctions for Iran. It should come as no surprise to this body that 
just a few months ago, Chavez and Ahmadinejad signed a deal that allows 
Venezuela to sell 20,000 barrels of gasoline each day to Iran.
  Chavez's actions clearly undermine our efforts and bolster 
Ahmadinejad's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. We in Congress must 
not stand for it. We must stem Ahmadinejad's growing influence in Latin 
America, and we can start by passing this important legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions 
Act.
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2194, the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. Not only has Iran repeatedly 
refused to engage in international diplomatic efforts to halt their 
ongoing nuclear program, it is resolute in its plans to expand it. Just 
today, Israel's Military Intelligence Chief Major General Amos Yadlin 
stated that Iran has enough nuclear material for a warhead and is close 
to being able to build one. This announcement reinforces the urgency of 
strengthening the United States economic sanctions against Iran.
  The United States must defend the security of Israel and the Middle 
East, as well as our citizens here at home from Iran's dangerous 
threats. This bill sends a clear message that the United States takes 
Iran's actions and threats seriously and that we will not sit idly by. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this critical legislation and 
I am thankful it has finally been brought before the House for 
consideration.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194, the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, and I commend the chairman and ranking 
member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  In June of this year, it was a great privilege for me to partner with 
Chairman Berman in bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor of the 
House that expressed the American people's solidarity with dissidents 
in Iran and condemned the violence taking place there. That resolution 
was met with overwhelming support. So should this Iran sanctions 
legislation.
  Iran has deceived the world community time and again, and any 
assurance that their nuclear program is peaceful should be seen for 
what it is, just another lie. Iran's support for terrorism and pursuit 
of weapons of mass destruction have long threatened global peace and 
security. It is time to impose meaningful sanctions on the Iranian 
government, and send a strong signal that these dangerous acts will not 
stand.
  President Obama promised during his campaign that he would extend an 
open hand to Iran and has expended precious time and resources towards 
that goal. However, the international community and this country have 
talked long enough about Iran's nuclear ambitions; it is time for 
deeds.
  I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to support 
this important legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I will vote 
against H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. This 
legislation seeks to expand economic sanctions against Iran. I believe 
that the foundation of this act reflects a misguided and self-defeating 
approach to United States foreign policy. Economic sanctions will 
target the Iranian people not just the Iranian government. These 
sanctions seek to make the Iranian people miserable enough so they will 
pressure their government to change course. We have seen from the past 
Iranian Presidential elections that public pressure directed at the 
government has, and did not, work. We have seen from the past with 
countries, such as Cuba and Iraq, that these sanctions harm the people 
and not the ruling government. I believe that these economic sanctions 
take authority away from the President and States of Department by 
tying their hand from achieving a diplomatic national security 
strategy. Let me be clear, I do not approve of Iran's nuclear

[[Page H14941]]

program or of this governments human rights record. I believe that we 
must trust in our President and State Department to lead international 
pressures on Iran.
  Madam Speaker, I have always promoted diplomacy, peace, and human 
rights. In 2001, I created ``A World of Women for World Peace'' to 
bring greater visibility to peacemaking and peace-building activities 
in communities around the world. I firmly believe that the burden of 
peacemaking, peace building, and nation building cannot be left to one 
institution, gender or political party. It must be a shared 
responsibility that encompasses all, regardless of race, class, gender 
and religion. If these sanctions are passed, they will block Americans 
and Iranians from working together promoting peace, nation building, 
and human rights.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, legislation that I co-sponsored 
because of my concerns about the Iranian nuclear threat. We in Congress 
must act swiftly to make sure a nuclear Iran is never a reality.
  I know how destabilizing a nuclear Iran would be to the region. While 
serving on duty with the U.S. Navy reserve in the United Arab Emirates, 
I could look out each day over the Straights of Hormuz. I could see the 
line of oil tankers waiting to transit the straights and I saw what a 
choke point that was for the world's economy. This year, I traveled to 
Israel, a trip which reinforced just how critical and grave the threat 
from Iran is to Israel's security and America's interests in the 
region.
  Despite being a leading producer of crude oil, Iran cannot adequately 
meet its own needs for refined petroleum products. Enacting sanctions 
to restrict the imports of those products into Iran is important 
leverage we must have to ensure the security of the united States, 
Israel, and our allies around the world.
  Passing tough sanctions today will show Iran, and the global 
community, that the United States will not stand idle as Iran attempts 
to amass a nuclear arsenal.
  Madam Speaker, the threat is real and the time to act is now. I 
strongly urge passage.
  Mr. McMAHON. Madam Speaker, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act 
of 2009, an historic, bipartisan piece of legislation, smartly targets 
investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector.
  Outside of the oil and natural gas industry, Iran has practically no 
economy and any international company that chooses to invest and assist 
Iran in importing or producing refined petroleum, enables Iran to buy 
time as it masters the nuclear cycle. This perilous cat and mouse game, 
ultimately endangers the security of the U.S. Israel and the global 
community.
  For those who question the effectiveness of stricter sanctions, I 
would point out the fact that already, due to U.S. pressure, at least 
40 banks, including Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and Commerzbank 
AK, have reduced business with Iran.
  Yet, despite increased pressure from the international community and 
5 UN Security Council Resolutions, Iran still refuses to suspend its 
enrichment program and has pledged to build even more enrichment 
facilities.
  For this reason, H.R. 2194 is a necessary instrument in the tool box 
of international diplomacy that the United States can use to pressure 
Iran to engage in serious negotiations.
  While I commend the Obama Administration for its willingness to 
engage with Iran and offer new solutions, I fear that their dialogue 
and discussion isn't being met with true partnership by the Iranian 
regime. The Iranian Government continues to drag their feet and refuse 
to commit to honest dialogue.
  Madam Speaker, nuclear nonproliferation is a global responsibility.
  Through my position on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I 
included a provision in this bill to the President to issue a timely 
report on the trade and sales of petroleum extraction equipment between 
Iran and members of the G20.
  Sactions by the United States alone will not put the pressure on the 
Iranian regime unless they are met with equal restrictions by our 
friends and allies.
  I have devoted much of my efforts on the committee to promoting 
transatlantic relations and nonproliferation efforts, and I feel that 
there is no better way to engage with allies and foes-alike than to 
promote a nuclear nonproliferation regime and ending Iran's nuclear 
ambitions once and for all.
  This reporting requirement will allow the U.S. to weigh the efforts 
of the G20 members in the fight against nuclear proliferation and will 
ultimately further secure the United States, Israel and the global 
community.
  I am confident that this measure will undoubtedly give the 
Administration the leverage that it needs to negotiate with the 
Ahmadinejad regime, but the United States will need the support of the 
international leaders in trade and the energy sector to wean Iran off 
its nuclear ambitions.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about Iran's 
irresponsible violations both of its commitments under the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, and its agreements which it signed with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
  I share my colleague's conviction to stop an Iranian regime headed by 
Ahmadinejad from getting nuclear weapons. However, I think we should do 
so without crippling the Iranian people (as is noted in this 
legislation towards whom the people of the United States have feelings 
of friendship and hold in the highest esteem) or crippling efforts to 
raise a unified and international response to Iran's continuing 
noncompliance.
  While we all recognize that the intention of this act is not to 
punish the Iranian people, it does not escape me that the impact of 
these sanctions will result in more suffering for them nonetheless. 
Upon introducing this bill in April, the Chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee noted his belief ``that this measure could have a 
powerfully negative impact on the Iranian economy.'' For sanctions to 
be truly crippling to Iran, they have to ``cripple'' the people first.
  At a time when the Iranian people have courageously challenged the 
mullahs and the rulers in Iran by taking to the streets after the 
elections and recently again this month, there is concern that this 
unilateral approach may end up benefitting, not hindering, the regime 
and sowing the anger of the Iranian people at the U.S., not the Iranian 
government.
  Unilateral sanctions can have unintended consequences. In a recent 
Dear Colleague, it was noted that ``in two recent instances, Microsoft 
and Google each determined that they must deny instant messaging 
services to the Iranian people that were previously available, citing 
their duty to comply with U.S. sanctions.'' Apparently, this medium had 
become a popular way for protesters to get around increasing efforts by 
the Iranian government to monitor their communications. As a result, my 
colleagues warned that ``Congress must act quickly to ensure that we 
are not unwittingly doing the repressive work of the Iranian government 
on its behalf.''
  The President is currently working with our international partners 
not only as part of a renewed diplomatic outreach effort but also to 
fashion a strong multilateral response if Iran continues to refuse to 
cooperate with the international community.
  In testimony in October, the State Department told Congress that it 
believes it has ``the authorities necessary to take strong action alone 
and together with our international partners, should they prove 
necessary'' to squeeze off financing of Iran's nuclear weapons efforts.
  For example, the Treasury Department can continue to use the 
authority that it has used for over three years now to blacklist 
Iranian banks and encourage international banks to avoid doing business 
with Iran.
  As a result, since 2006, the U.S. has taken action against over 100 
banks, government entities, companies, and people involved in Iran's 
support for terrorism and its proliferation activities including 
freezing assets and preventing U.S. persons, wherever located, from 
doing business with them.
  Recently, the Department wrote to express its concerns about 
companion Senate legislation to the bill before us today warning that 
``during this crucial period of intense diplomacy to impose significant 
international pressure on Iran'' it was concerned that such 
legislation, ``in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen 
international unity and support for'' these efforts.
  In this letter, the Administration appealed for a delay of that bill 
in order not to undermine ``its diplomacy at this critical juncture.''
  Israeli officials have also made clear that broad-based international 
efforts, including for sanctions, are better than the unilateral 
approach before us today. Very recently, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud 
Barak noted that ``There is a need for tough sanctions . . . Something 
that is well and coherently coordinated to include the Americans, the 
EU, the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians.''
  I also share the concerns that some have that the legislation before 
the House today will ``disempower''--not empower--the President to 
bring this multination coalition together by taking away or limiting 
his flexibility to use sanctions as necessary to assist diplomatic 
efforts. That's a very curious definition of ``empowerment.''
  It's as curious as saying that it is in the U.S. national security 
interest and helps diplomacy to make it harder for the President--any 
President--to use and waive sanctions when he

[[Page H14942]]

thinks the timing best serves our efforts to put pressure on Iran.
  The President's flexibility to conduct foreign relations and 
diplomatic efforts to achieve a strong international consensus against 
Iran is not a loophole that needs to be closed but a vital tool that 
needs to be supported. I am concerned that this bill as written would 
keep our allies from working with us to address the threat from Iran.
  Earlier this year, Nicholas Burns, who served under the 
Administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and as George W. 
Bush's top State Department negotiator in efforts to thwart Iran's 
nuclear program, testified in dealing with Iran, ``My main 
recommendation for this committee and the Congress, however, is to 
permit the President maximum flexibility and maneuverability as he 
deals with an extraordinarily difficult and complex situation in Iran 
and in discussions with the international group of countries 
considering sanctions. It would be unwise to tie the President's hands 
in legislation when it is impossible to know how the situation will 
develop in the coming months.''
  An action taken against Iran--including sanctions--should have the 
broadest possible support in the international community. According to 
the Administration, ``with wide international support, sanctions 
regimes can be enforced, pressure can be sustained, and Iran's leaders 
are less able to shift the blame from themselves to the U.S. for the 
pains caused by their behavior.'' Even the Senate version of this same 
legislation recognizes the limits of more U.S. only sanctions. In 
section 111 of S. 2799, it is noted that ``in general, multilateral 
sanctions are more effective than unilateral sanctions at achieving 
desired results from countries such as Iran.''
  International pressure for Iran to act or to face more forceful 
international action is building, as evidenced by the recent IAEA vote 
condemning Iran for its Qom enrichment facilities.
  All five veto-wielding members of the Security Council (China and 
Russia included) voted for that measure, which opens up the potential 
for another round of Security Council sanctions.
  The progress in uniting the Security Council is attributable to 
President Obama's investment in diplomacy. If Congress moves forward 
with sanctions that target our allies, that unity may very well 
collapse.
  Sanctions have a place. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1327, the Iran 
Enabling Sanctions Act of 2009, which passed the House with my support 
by a vote of 414-6 on October 29th. There are even provisions of this 
legislation which are worthwhile and which I have supported in the past 
as stand-alone legislation (H.R. 957 in the 110th Congress) that make 
clear that current U.S. sanctions can be used against financial 
institutions, insurers, underwriters, guarantors, and any other 
business organizations, including foreign subsidiaries, that aid 
investment in Iran's energy sector.
  However, the less united the international community is in applying 
pressure against Iran, the greater the risk our measures will not have 
the impact we seek. And given the gravity of the stakes at risk here, 
that would be truly regrettable.
  As noted by Secretary of State Clinton just yesterday, ``we have 
pursued, under President Obama's direction, a dual-track approach to 
Iran. We have reached out. We have offered the opportunity to engage in 
meaningful, serious discussions with our Iranian counterparts . . . The 
second track of our dual-track strategy is to bring the international 
community together to stand in a united front against the Iranians.''
  I hope that as this legislation moves forward in the legislative 
process, further changes will be made to strengthen this bill in a way 
that will truly enhance, and not hobble, strong diplomatic efforts to 
diplomatically engage with Iran as well as to enact multilateral 
sanctions.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2194, 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. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  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.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________