[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6074-6083]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2194, IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM 
                         SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2194 be 
     instructed--
       (1) To insist on the provisions of H.R. 2194, A bill 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 passed by the House on December 
     15, 2009; and
       (2) To complete their work and present a conference report 
     and joint explanatory statement by no later than May 28, 
     2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion comes at a critical point in our efforts to 
prevent Iran from dealing a devastating blow to the security of our 
Nation, the security of our closest allies, and to global security and 
stability. The gravest threat comes from Iran's rapidly advancing 
nuclear weapons program.
  Last week, Lieutenant General Burgess, the director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, and General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that Iran could produce enough 
weapons-grade fuel for a nuclear weapon within 1 year. But even with 
this alarming scenario, we may be too optimistic given the Iranian 
regime's long history of deception.
  Last September, yet another secret Iranian nuclear facility was 
revealed--an underground uranium enrichment plant. Inspectors from the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, reportedly concluded that 
this facility's capacity is too small to be of use in producing fuel 
for civilian nuclear power but is well configured to produce material 
for one or two nuclear weapons a year. The regime has already announced 
that it intends to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants and will 
start construction on two in this coming year.
  There is mounting evidence that Iran has been working on a nuclear 
warhead for many years. The IAEA's Iran report from February of this 
year stated that its inspectors had uncovered extensive evidence of 
``past or current undisclosed activities'' to develop a nuclear 
warhead.
  That same IAEA report, Mr. Speaker, raised concerns ``about the 
possible existence in Iran of undisclosed activities

[[Page 6075]]

related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.''
  Iran has long been at work on ballistic missiles and already has the 
ability to strike U.S. forces and our allies in the Middle East, such 
as Israel and in many other areas.
  But Iran is not stopping there. A recent unclassified report by the 
Department of Defense estimated that Iran may be able to strike the 
United States with a missile by the year 2015.

                              {time}  1030

  The threat posed by the Iranian regime's nuclear ballistic missile 
and unconventional weapons capabilities is magnified by its continued 
support for violent extremism. According to this Pentagon report, Iran 
is ``furnishing lethal aid to Iraqi Shia militants and Afghan 
insurgents. And Iran provides Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian 
terrorist groups with funding, weapons and training to oppose Israel.'' 
The same report stated that ``Iran, through its longstanding 
relationship with Lebanese Hezbollah, maintains a capability to strike 
Israel directly and to threaten Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.''
  We know that Iran has a long track record of using these 
capabilities. The Pentagon report confirms that the Iranian regime has 
been involved in or has been behind what the report describes as ``some 
of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades, including: 
The 1983 and '84 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and annex in Beirut; the 
1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut; the 1994 attack on the 
AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina; the 1996 
Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; and many of the insurgent 
attacks on coalition and Iraqi security forces in Iraq since 2003.''
  In other words, when the Iranian regime threatens America and Israel 
with destruction over and over again, they may mean it. Today the 
Iranian Revolutionary Guard is scheduled to begin a 3-day exercise 
involving their missiles and other weapons to demonstrate their ability 
to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point 
for much of the world's oil supply.
  Diplomacy and engagement have had no real impact on the regime in 
Tehran. As Iran sprints towards the nuclear finish line, deadlines set 
by the Obama administration for compliance have been repeatedly 
disregarded. Now the strategy appears to be resting on securing a new 
U.N. Security Council resolution. However, Russia and China see 
themselves as friends of the regime in Tehran and have publicly stated 
that they will not support a resolution that puts any significant 
pressure on Tehran. In fact, The New York Times reported last week that 
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ``warned in a secret 3-page 
memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not 
have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady 
progress toward nuclear capability.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress must fill this vacuum. We must not sit idly 
by and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear device. In February of 2006, 
the Congress adopted a concurrent resolution, citing the Iranian 
regime's repeated violations of its international obligations, 
underscoring that as a result of these violations, Iran no longer has 
the right to develop any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle, and urging 
responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny Iran the 
resources and the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Then we moved to 
strengthen U.S. sanctions on Iran and to render support to Iranian 
human rights and pro-democracy advocates through the passage of the 
Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.
  Yet again, the U.S. has yet to bring to bear the full force of U.S. 
punitive measures on the Iranian regime. We have failed to act quickly 
and decisively before. This may be our last chance to apply pressure on 
Iran before it is too late. So while the motion to instruct we are 
considering calls on the conferees to conclude their work by May 28, it 
is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will not wait that long. We must 
strike at the regime's vulnerabilities and do so quickly and 
effectively.
  As such, the motion to instruct conferees insists on the House-passed 
version of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanction Act, also 
known as IRPSA. Chairman Berman and I, along with several other members 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the House as a whole, have 
introduced IRPSA to target one of the Iranian regime's key 
vulnerabilities; namely, its dependence on imported petroleum products, 
especially gasoline. The House passed it overwhelmingly on December 15 
by a vote of 412-12.
  The sanctions bill we enact must match the gravity of the growing 
threat. There are several provisions that the conference report must 
contain if this legislation is to have any significant impact. Because 
Iran's energy sector and its dependence on refined petroleum are the 
regime's Achilles' heel, in the motion to instruct we must insist on 
sections 3(a) and 3(b), which strengthen sanctions regarding the 
development of Iran's petroleum resources and the export of refined 
petroleum products to Iran. We must not reward countries that allow 
their businesses and citizens to provide assistance to Iran's nuclear 
missile or advanced conventional weapons program to be rewarded with a 
peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement. Therefore, the House must 
insist on section 3(c), which prohibits such agreements being submitted 
to Congress or entering into force. We must insist, Mr. Speaker, on 
those provisions because the executive branch has not once applied 
sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act on investment in the Iranian 
energy sector.
  This problem originated more than a decade ago when former Secretary 
of State Albright exercised a sweeping waiver that turned that act into 
a paper tiger, and the State Department continues to ignore mandatory 
sanctions under that act on those who are assisting Iran's 
proliferation activities. We must also ensure that section 3(d) removes 
ambiguities regarding the President's waiver authority and, thereby, 
will ensure the speedy implementation of sanctions. And we must insist 
on section 3(f), which expands the definition of petroleum resources 
and products and closes loopholes in the original Iran Sanctions Act 
that have been repeatedly exploited by others. Because the Iranian 
threat will continue to grow, the House must insist also on section 
3(h), which extends the Iran Sanctions Act by 5 years. And because we 
must not let those who have already violated our laws off the hook, we 
must insist on sections 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), and 4(b)(1).
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion and ask 
conferees to embrace it and commit to sending the strongest possible 
bill to the President's desk. The clock is ticking. The centrifuges in 
Iran are spinning. Our time has almost run out.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the ranking member's motion to instruct. 
The world faces no security threat greater than the prospect of a 
nuclear-armed Iran. We must make certain that the prospect never 
becomes a reality. A nuclear Iran would menace, intimidate, and 
ultimately dominate its neighbors. It would be virtually impervious to 
any type of pressure from the West, whether regarding its support of 
terrorism or its crushing of freedom and human rights at home, and it 
would touch off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would shred 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and almost inevitably lead to 
catastrophe. And worst of all, Iran might actually use its nuclear arms 
against those it considers its enemies.
  The urgency of this issue is beyond dispute. Iran quite possibly will 
be capable of developing and delivering a nuclear weapon in the next 3 
to 5 years, and our task of preventing Iran from achieving nuclear 
weapons capability is made more complicated by the fact that we all 
know that our best weapon for fighting this battle--economic 
sanctions--takes time to work. So we need the strongest possible 
sanctions, and we need them fast.
  That's why I support this motion to instruct. The House bill, H.R. 
2194, the

[[Page 6076]]

Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, is a good, strong measure; and I 
and my fellow conferees will fight for it in conference. We will also 
work with the Senate on measures to help Iran's brave dissidents 
circumvent regime efforts to block their communications.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, will speak about an 
additional provision with respect to State decisions to disinvest that 
we want to include in this conference report. And I want to send this 
bill to the President by or before the May 28 deadline proposed in the 
motion to instruct.
  This bill, along with the Senate bill, has already done much good. In 
recent months, in anticipation of our sanctions becoming law, several 
major energy companies have ceased selling refined petroleum to Iran. 
Others have announced they will not make new investments in Iranian 
energy. They are making the sensible choice that our bill encourages, 
choosing the U.S. market over the Iranian market. More will make that 
choice when our bill becomes law.
  Meanwhile, our bill is goading other nations to intensify their 
efforts to achieve a sanctions resolution in the U.N. Security Council, 
and our own executive branch is getting the message that Congress is 
able and willing to take the grave matter of sanctions into our own 
hands.
  April 30 will mark 1 year since we first introduced this sanctions 
legislation. Since then, Iran has increased the number of its working 
centrifuges and has reached the one-bomb equivalent level in its stock 
of low-enriched uranium. It has enriched uranium to 20 percent, a big 
step on its way to mastering the process of producing weapons-grade 
uranium, and has installed advanced third-generation centrifuges. It 
has been caught red-handed building a secret reactor near Qom, which 
research suggests could only have been intended for bomb-making 
purposes, and it has announced plans to build 10 more reactors.
  Iran is in contempt of the international community, and I had hoped 
that a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring tough sanctions, 
followed immediately thereafter by additional muscular sanctions 
imposed by the European Union, would have happened by now. I know the 
administration is doing everything possible to bring that result about. 
Unfortunately, we are now nearly 4 months into 2010 with Iran on the 
verge of nuclear weapons capability and a U.N. Security Council 
resolution remains an uncertain prospect. We cannot wait any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  You know, I think my colleagues have very eloquently explained the 
contents of the bill and what we need to do. But the thing I would like 
to talk about for a minute or two are the ramifications for America and 
the rest of the world if we don't do something. We get about 30 to 40 
percent of our energy from the Middle East, and if I were talking to 
the American people, I would just say to them that if you look at your 
lights and you look at the energy you need for your car and for 
everything else, heating your house, you need to realize that if Iran 
develops a nuclear capability and that whole area becomes a war zone, 
the Persian Gulf, where a lot of oil is transported through, we would 
see a terrible problem as far as our energy is concerned, and that 
would directly affect our economy.

                              {time}  1045

  So it is extremely important that we do something and do something 
very, very quickly. We have waited too long. We have been talking about 
negotiating with Iran and putting sanctions on them for the past 4 or 5 
years, trying to get our allies to work with us. The fact of the matter 
is nothing has happened, and Iran continues to thumb their nose at the 
rest of the world. This is a terrible, terrible threat. A terrorist 
state, Iran, with nuclear weapons is not only a threat to the Middle 
East, to Israel, our best ally over there, but it is a threat to every 
single one of us.
  They are also working on intermediate range missiles and possibly 
intercontinental ballistic missiles. If they get those, nobody is safe. 
So it is extremely important that we take whatever measures are 
necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  Now, today we are taking a great first step. I hope when this goes to 
conference committee we come out with something that is so strong it 
really will have an impact on what Iran does. But if it doesn't, it is 
important that everybody in the world realize that we have to stop Iran 
from developing nuclear weapons because it is a threat to every single 
person on this planet in one way or another. We have got to stop 
nuclear proliferation, but the first thing we have to do is stop Iran, 
a terrorist state, from getting nuclear weapons.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlelady 
from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much both for his 
leadership and for this opportunity, with the ranking member, to really 
discuss and reinforce some of the principles that many of us support in 
a bipartisan manner. But I rise today to simply encourage the 
conference on this legislation and to be able to simply chronicle 
efforts that I think were not wasteful, but constructive.
  I do believe the administration's effort at engagement was 
constructive and not wasteful. It is always important--for those of who 
us are lawyers--to create the record, the building blocks for the final 
decision of the court of law. In this instance, the court of law is the 
combination of the American people, this Congress, and this 
administration, and it is, likewise, the world community, the United 
Nations.
  Also, the people of Iran are speaking and they are speaking loudly. 
No one can forget that fateful picture of a young lady lying in her own 
blood during the uprising of the people of Iran, not provoked by any 
world standards or provocation, but for the people of Iran simply 
saying enough of the despotism of this administration, of their 
country; enough is enough. They were willing to die in the streets. 
They took to the buildings to make loud noises at night, and they 
continue to pounce over and over again.
  Iran is a challenge, and it is a terror around the world. Having just 
come back from Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, and Pakistan, everywhere you went 
individuals, leaders in government were willing to indicate what a 
threat Iran was. Just yesterday, in a hearing on Syria, questions are 
now rising as to Iran's participation in funding Hezbollah to go into 
Lebanon. Of course some of those particular points are being denied, 
but frankly I think if there is any reason to move forward on a 
conference, it is the concept of the disruption of Iran in the region.
  There are those who are in the Mid East who want peace. From Jordan, 
to Israel, to other places around, they want peace. If we begin to look 
at Yemen, that is in a distant location, a place where I visited, we 
know that it is an al Qaeda cesspool. We know that there are young men 
there that are susceptible to recruitment. All of this provides for a 
disruptive arena, and we here in this country must provide the moral 
standing of peace and democracy for those who desire so.
  So I rise to support the people of Iran, those who are willing to 
sacrifice their lives and go into the streets. And it is well known 
that whatever we have tried to do, the engagement of the Cold War, the 
standoff, Iran continues to seemingly put forward its nuclear efforts.
  I ask for support of this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to 
vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 6077]]

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 1 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.
  Mr. 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 
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.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the ranking member on the 
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding time.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, 
and Trade, I strongly support this motion to instruct.
  I think it is important for all of us to realize that right now Iran 
is at its weakest point in terms of its capacity to manufacture enough 
refined petroleum. It has to, at this point for its gasoline, import 
that into the nation. Already the impact, the effect of this 
legislation even coming up on the floor has been effective in backing 
companies away from doing business with Iran. Imagine what the effect 
will be if we pass this legislation. Imagine the impact it will have 
and the pressure that it will bring to bear because the threat of this 
legislation has already produced a situation in Iran that is very, very 
difficult for civil society and is making people understand the cost 
and the consequences for Iran to continue down this road.
  Now, this morning the GAO will release a report that shows that 
foreign commercial activity in Iran's energy sector is going to begin 
to increase, and that will provide cash for Iran's nuclear program. 
That is why this bill is so important. A similar report 3 years ago 
showed half as many companies involved in this sector; now it is on the 
increase. The usual way of doing business of not standing up to the 
Russians and the Chinese and to others cannot continue; we have to take 
action.
  Time is not on our side. Enrichment capability, the key aspect of a 
nuclear weapons program, is being mastered by that government. Not so 
long ago, I remember talking here on the floor about Iran's 164 
centrifuges, and now the progress is measured in thousands and 
thousands of centrifuges. It is working on a weapon design, my 
colleagues, and may have a missile to carry that warhead to the United 
States within 5 years' time.
  Today, the world's top terrorist state has its tentacles throughout 
the region.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  As the chairman knows, I have some reservations about the 
effectiveness of a sanctions regime, but there is no question in my 
mind but that the worst thing that could happen is military 
confrontation because that would in fact unite the Iranian people 
against America and on the wrong side of history.
  Now, it is too easy to think of Iran as a monolithic people. The 
reality is that Iran is the successor to the great Persian 
civilization, and it is a very diverse civilization. I share the 
chairman's concern about the current Government of Iran, which I don't 
think is consistent with Persia's history; and in fact their actions 
have been inexplicable and inexcusable. And the chairman is right, 
obviously, to respond. But the reality is that a very substantial 
portion of the Iranian population, perhaps a majority, in fact embraces 
American values of democracy and human rights and individual freedoms 
of expression, collective gathering, and freedom of worship; but they 
are not able to do that today.
  I appreciate the fact that the chairman is determined to allow the 
technology that would enable the population to communicate their ideas, 
in fact to mobilize for the best interests of their nation and their 
future. We ought also to limit the availability of technology that the 
regime is using for precisely the opposite purposes: to censor and to 
perform surveillance against those people who would like to empower the 
Iranian people to take control of their own future.
  This bill will be supported, it should be supported, and, again, I 
appreciate the chairman's leadership.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the ranking member 
of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 
Trade.
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady.
  For those of us who have engaged in this region and have watched 
neighboring countries to Iran, watched their propensity to react as 
Iran has sped up its development, each of those countries is now 
looking at going nuclear. I would ask my colleagues to think about 
those neighbors of Iran that would create a heavily nuclearized Middle 
East should Iran succeed in this and what the impact would be. We can 
only imagine the turmoil and the tensions that will come to the Middle 
East should we not succeed in this effort to prevent Iran from 
developing these nuclear weapons.
  Tomorrow's nuclear Iran would thus have a compounding effect with 
severe consequences for regional security and, as I pointed out 
earlier, for U.S. security. So the time for action has long passed. 
This bill will greatly help because it targets Iran's Achilles' heel at

[[Page 6078]]

perhaps the only time that we can effectively do that.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
author of Florida legislation with respect to disinvestment from Iran's 
energy sector, our newest Member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is based on the 
simple fact that a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable threat to our 
national security, poses an existential threat to our vital ally, 
Israel, and will ignite a destabilizing arms race throughout the Middle 
East.
  We must take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from 
acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran is the world's leading sponsor of 
terror; its President denies the Holocaust, and he has openly declared 
his intention to wipe Israel off the map.
  To be included among the powerful sanctions in this legislation is 
the removal of barriers that State pension boards raise which prevent 
the divestment of holdings in companies that help to fund Iran's 
nuclear weapons program.
  In 2007, the Florida legislature passed critical legislation that 
mandated that workers' pension funds could not be used to support 
Iranian nuclear weapons. In Florida alone, we removed more than $1 
billion from companies that put their profits ahead of this Nation's 
national security. That is one State. This legislation will permit 
every State to divest from Iran just as Florida and 20 other States 
have already done. The divestment effort will become a full-fledged 
movement.
  The threat from Iran is real. This threat is unacceptable, and it 
demands this aggressive effort on the part of the United States and our 
allies.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, a member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, because that's just the way it is.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Iran is the world threat. They along with North Korea 
are working together to plot and build nuclear weapons to threaten the 
rest of the world.
  Ahmadinejad, the little fellow from the desert, has already said that 
when he gets nuclear weapons, his first target is Tel Aviv in Israel. 
He has made it clear to the world that he wants to destroy Israel and 
he wants nuclear weapons; he wants missiles from North Korea to do 
that. But his threat is not just to the Israelis. It is to the entire 
region, and even to the United States. He continues to rant about how 
he wants the destruction of the West.
  He helps Hezbollah in the north and he helps Hamas in the south both 
to engage and cause terror in Israel. Our answer has been, Well, let's 
talk to them; let's tell the Iranians that they're not playing nice, 
that they are going to cause problems in the world. Mr. Speaker, we 
cannot adopt the Neville Chamberlain philosophy and fool ourselves that 
the Iranians will honestly negotiate with the world. They lie to the 
world and the United States so they can buy time to build their nuclear 
weapons. More talking will not bring peace in our time. It will only 
allow them to build nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1100

  So this sanction must work. It must be enforced. Prevent companies 
from dealing with our enemy government, the Iranian Government, and do 
not allow Iran to receive refined gasoline. We must mean it and we must 
enforce this.
  The long-term solution with Iran is that there is a regime change. We 
hope the good people of Iran change their rogue government, a 
government that doesn't even represent the people, a government that 
had fraudulent elections last year and that took over control again.
  Our government, our country, our people must be vocal about our 
support of this resistance movement. Iranians will, hopefully, remove 
their government by themselves and will peaceably set up a government 
that represents to the world that it will bring peace to the world.
  That is the great hope for Iran. That is the great hope for the 
world--a peaceable regime change in Iran.
  Right now, we need sanctions, and we need to let them know we mean it 
because we are not going to continue to talk forever and to hope that 
they will negotiate and play nice.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank my California colleague for yielding to me, and I 
commend him for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, in the course of my service on virtually all of the 
security-related committees in this House, I have visited some of the 
most dangerous and austere places on the planet--rugged, remote areas 
that provide sanctuary to the most ruthless and cunning terrorists. As 
a result, I am often asked to name those countries which I think pose 
the greatest threat to the security of our country and to the world. 
Iraq? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Yemen?
  My answer every time is: Iran, Iran, Iran.
  Given the zeal with which it promotes and supports instability in the 
Middle East, given its myopic obsession with the destruction of Israel, 
its arming of and financial assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas, and its 
implacable, duplicitous march towards a nuclear weapons capability, in 
my view, no other country comes close.
  The question that confronts us is how to cause Iran's government to 
abandon interest in a nuclear weapons program.
  Most agree--certainly, I do--that a multilateral approach is most 
likely to succeed. Our efforts with the EU, led by the indomitable 
Stuart Levey, have been effective, but they haven't yet changed Iran's 
course.
  Our country must continue its leadership role. Our efforts at 
diplomacy and at unilateral sanctions must drive stronger multilateral 
diplomacy and sanctions. That is why Congress must move to conference 
on Iran sanctions legislation and why it must enact by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote the strongest package. That package should include 
divestments, and it should expand sanctions on individuals, 
institutions, as well as on nongovernmental entities, and it must 
cripple Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Our problem is not with the Iranian 
people but with its government's reckless policies. Iran with nuclear 
weapons not only poses an existential threat to Israel; it poses an 
existential threat to us and to countries everywhere which espouse 
Democratic values.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), an esteemed member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as the Iranians accelerate their nuclear 
program, indications are that America may be losing its nerve. In its 
latest report to Congress, the CIA said that Iran has continued to 
expand its nuclear weapon infrastructure and that it has continued 
uranium enrichment. This follows reports by the U.N.'s IAEA that Iran 
has mastered the art of making low-enriched uranium and that it is 
halfway to its goal of making bomb-grade fissile material.
  So what are our options?
  We know that Iran's greatest weakness is its dependence on foreign 
gasoline. The mullahs have so mishandled Iran's economy since 1979 that 
this leading OPEC, oil-producing nation is dependent on gasoline for 40 
percent of its needs.
  I wrote the first gasoline sanctions resolution with my colleague Rob 
Andrews in 2005. Over time, my colleagues and I have built a bipartisan 
coalition with Congressman Sherman behind a policy of ending Iran's 
gasoline sales.
  I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for 
their success in bringing this bill to the floor. In these partisan 
times now, when have 514 Senators and Congressmen agreed on anything? 
But they agree on cutting off Iran's gasoline.

[[Page 6079]]

  Now, without decisive bipartisan action soon, the security of our 
children and of our allies may depend on the good behavior of a 
terrorist nation now armed with the most dangerous weapon. So, as 
Congress has been sleeping, I think we should wake up. We should 
finally sign this bipartisan bill.
  To Congress: Pass this legislation. To the President: Sign it and 
then seal off Iran's gasoline.
  Without unilateral action to cut off Iran's gasoline, no other 
sanctions policy is serious. With it, we have a chance to remove a 
great danger to the security of American and Israeli children.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the chair of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the chair for his leadership on this very 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 2194, the 
Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which mandates tighter sanctions 
against the Iranian regime. With its continued defiance of the 
international community and with the clock ticking on their nuclear 
capabilities, now is the time for action.
  This week, Iran announced its testing of various missiles and weapons 
capabilities. U.S. officials have said Iran could develop a ballistic 
missile capable of striking the U.S. by 2015, and they have said that 
Iran's continued existential threat to our strongest ally in the Middle 
East, Israel, presents dire global security implications.
  I urge the conferees to act with haste to address these urgent 
challenges with tough crippling sanctions. Let the speed with which 
Congress finalizes this legislation to sanction Iran be a message to 
the international community that time is of the essence if we are to 
contain Iran's threat to security, stability and prosperity worldwide.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from 
Florida for their efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
this motion to instruct.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on the motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, not long ago, I was briefed by an official on Iran's 
provocative action, and he gave a challenge in that briefing.
  He said, Print out on your computer a red line. Print a big, thick, 
red bar on a white sheet of paper, and look at it from a distance. 
You'll think it's a solid red line, but if you'll look at it up close, 
what you will see is that it is actually a series of tiny, little pink 
lines all pushed together, but they're individual little lines. He 
said, What Iran has figured out is a way to break through one tiny, 
little line at a time, just one at a time, one at a time, one at a 
time.
  That is why we are here today, because we in the West, we in the 
United States, are on to what the Iranian leadership is doing. They are 
being incredibly provocative. There is no legitimate nuclear ambition 
for Iran. This is a regime that has said that Israel, our greatest ally 
in the Middle East, has no right to exist. They've said one provocative 
thing after another.
  History is filled, Mr. Speaker, with examples of weakness and 
ambiguity in foreign affairs. What is the result? Largely, the result 
is calamity.
  Now we have a chance to be united, to all come together to say we are 
not going to stand for this. We have come up with a remedy, and it is 
time for the conferees to move forward and to create this very tough 
and solid sanction against the petroleum products going into Iran. I 
urge the conferees to move quickly.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the Obama administration's 
historic efforts at nuclear weapon nonproliferation and nuclear 
security. It is a recognition that our security depends on dialogue and 
negotiation between nations. It was reflected in a proposal that was 
made last year to freeze Iran's nuclear programs at existing levels.
  Now, in December of last year, I led the effort to oppose H.R. 2194, 
the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I stand here today, almost 5 
months later, to reaffirm my objections to the underlying bill, and 5 
months later, we have not come any closer to a diplomatic resolution to 
our objections to Iran's nuclear proliferation program nor have we 
attempted to amend the language of the Iran sanctions bill to ensure 
that it does not come at the cost of the well-being of the Iranian 
people we claim to support.
  Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline. Leaders of Iran aren't going 
to lack for gasoline, but the people of Iran already suffer. We have to 
ask ourselves:
  Will this cause them to turn against their government or will it 
cause them to turn against the United States in our efforts to bring 
about a cessation of Iran's nuclear program? If we cared about the 
Iranian people, we would not be back on the House floor, considering 
Iran sanctions.
  Congress can better demonstrate its commitment to the Iranian people 
and to their brave demonstrations for democracy by focusing on efforts 
to address the egregious human rights, civil liberties and civil rights 
abuses that they endure. The legislation under consideration will only 
play into the hands of the Iranian regime by diverting attention away 
from the significant social and economic problems that must be 
addressed.
  I fear that this legislation will actually strengthen the hard-liners 
in Iran, and I am sure that is not what we want to happen. This 
legislation will undermine any future efforts by the administration to 
engage diplomatically with Iran by limiting the tools the 
administration can use. Reports suggest that Iranians have delayed any 
agreements with the United States for a fuel swap due to internal 
divisions.
  We must stand in support of the courageous battle for human rights 
and democracy that the Iranian people are engaged in, many at the cost 
of their lives.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Armed Services and Judiciary 
Committees.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, the ominous intersection of Jihadist terrorism and 
nuclear proliferation has been inexorably and relentlessly rolling 
toward America and the free world for decades.
  We now find ourselves living in a time when the terrorist state of 
Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. If that occurs, all 
other issues will be wiped from the table because whatever challenges 
we have in dealing with Iran today will pale in comparison to dealing 
with an Iran that has nuclear weapons.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration seems to remain asleep at 
the wheel. We see repeated signals that the Obama administration may 
already be adopting a policy of containment. It is beyond my ability to 
express the danger of such a policy. I am afraid that the last window 
we will ever have to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly 
closing.
  While it is unlikely that the bill before us will be enough to 
prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons by itself, it is a step in 
the right direction, and I applaud its sponsors. I only pray that the 
Obama administration will wake up in time to prevent Iran from becoming 
a nuclear armed nation, from threatening the peace of the human family, 
and from bringing nuclear terrorism to this and to future generations.

[[Page 6080]]


  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I get the time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) articulated his 
reasons for opposing this legislation. We are now, of course, voting on 
a motion to instruct on the legislation, but I want to just take issue 
with several of his points.
  Firstly, the reason there has not been a diplomatic resolution of the 
problem is that the regime in Iran has refused to engage in any 
meaningful and serious way in a resolution which would require them to 
change their behavior to end their ambition to obtain a nuclear weapons 
capability, and that is where the blame lies. It is not because 
diplomatic alternatives have been ignored. It is because they have been 
undertaken and rebuffed by the regime in Iran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  Secondly, I disagree very much with the gentleman's contention that 
our effort to seek to change Iranian behavior and to reverse Iran's 
decision to pursue nuclear weapons through the imposition of strong, 
robust, meaningful economic sanctions, both through this legislation 
and, even more importantly, through tough international sanctions by 
the community of nations, is going to cause the Iranian people to turn 
against us on behalf of their regime.

                              {time}  1115

  These are people who have risked their lives, their freedom, their 
liberty. They have been subject to execution, murder, imprisonment, all 
kinds of repression, efforts to suppress their speech and their 
political liberties by that regime and have taken great risks, 
notwithstanding the way that regime has reacted. I would suggest that 
those people will know more than anyone that the consequences that are 
befalling the people of Iran are a result of the regime's behavior, not 
the international community and America's efforts to change Iran's 
behavior.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our esteemed Republican whip 
and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to salute, 
first of all, the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue as well as 
that of the gentleman from California in bringing this to the floor. I 
would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the 
floor as well.
  Mr. Speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting 
it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a 
nuclear Iran. By talking to and engaging with the regime in Tehran, the 
administration said we could convince the world's most active state 
sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. And if 
that didn't work, America ostensibly would gain the ``moral authority'' 
to galvanize China, Russia, and the rest of the world to go along with 
a regime of crippling sanctions against Tehran.
  Fifteen months and countless missed deadlines later, the 
administration's strategy has failed. Our lack of resolve has only 
enabled Iran to accelerate its illegal activities.
  Let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. The 
danger of a nuclear Iran is not hypothetical; it is real. It is a 
direct and serious threat to America. It is a game changer that would 
set off a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East, permanently 
destabilizing the world's most dangerous region.
  Top U.S. military officials recently warned Congress that within 1 
year Iran will have the fissile material it needs to make a nuclear 
weapon. Once Iran gets the bomb, the concept of deterrence that 
underpins U.S. national security is no longer valid.
  The resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats 
of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. That's why 
Congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world 
that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. It is time for 
a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth, and that begins 
here today with the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
  We must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to Iran, and we 
must cut off all international companies who do business with Iran's 
Revolutionary Guard from the U.S. financial system. Iran's trading 
partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with 
the regime in Tehran with impunity.
  Mr. Speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our Nation's 
capital, 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 the regime in Iran's nuclear program is now.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the majority leader, I 
yield myself 30 seconds.
  One year and 3 months ago, America was pretty isolated in its goal of 
trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We absolutely need 
to move quickly because Iran is moving quickly. But there can be no 
doubt that the result of the events of the past 15 months have changed 
the dynamic fundamentally where the international community now 
recognizes the threat Iran's nuclear weapons pose and it is Iran who is 
isolated, not America. That is a direct result of the fundamental 
change of policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a great advocate 
of this legislation and of achieving this goal, the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend of some 45 years, the chairman of the 
committee, for yielding. And I want to, before I start my remarks, say 
that I agree with him with respect to his observations regarding the 
Obama administration's efforts that are bearing positive fruit with 
respect to our allies around the world. We are not where we need to be 
and they are not all allies, but they certainly are partners in 
responding to this threat to the international community.
  We know what a grave danger a nuclear Iran would pose to America's 
security, to our ally Israel's security, and, indeed, to the security 
of the international community. That is why Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen reported out a bill. That is why we passed a bill. That's why 
the Senate has passed a bill. And now it's time to go to conference. 
It's time to resolve the differences that exist and send a clear and 
unmistakable message.
  The dangerous consequences of inaction range from a fierce regional 
arms race to a nuclear umbrella for terrorism, to the unthinkable. With 
American and international security at stake, Iran's nuclearization is 
a grave proximate threat and cannot stand. That is why the United 
States must do everything in its power, Mr. Speaker, to stop Iran's 
nuclear pursuit.
  Through years of diplomatic silence, Iran's nuclear program grew. 
President Obama took a course of patient engagement. And while Iran's 
unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has been exposed to the world, 
it has grown even closer to its goal. Today, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency feels that Iran has enough low-enriched uranium for two 
nuclear bombs.
  So time is of the essence. By proceeding with this motion, Congress 
moves closer to the imposition of sanctions that will hit the Iranian 
economy at its weakest points: its banking system, the Revolutionary 
Guard Corps, and the refined petroleum Iran depends upon.
  I support, strongly, this motion, knowing full well that sanctions 
are never a perfectly precise instrument and that they may mean 
hardship for ordinary Iranians who already suffer under the repressive 
regime in Iran. But I support sanctions nonetheless because they can 
work when the international community recognizes that an outlaw nation 
poses a common threat to us all, a case that President Obama and 
Secretary Clinton are making persuasively, as was the point of the

[[Page 6081]]

chairman of the committee, to our fellow Security Council members and a 
case that the administration continued to make at this month's nuclear 
security summit. An extraordinary summit, I might add, of historical 
precedence, where 47 nations from around the world came here to 
Washington to meet together, including the President of China, to say 
that nuclear proliferation poses a danger to all, not just to a single 
nation, not just to a regional group of nations, but to all.
  I support sanctions because Tehran can choose, at any time, to 
negotiate in good faith and set aside its aggressive nuclear pursuit. 
And I support sanctions because when properly designed, they can be a 
source of powerful pressure on the Iranian regime, pressure both 
external and internal.
  As Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported on Monday, ``there is now 
increasing resentment that Iran's once popular nuclear program could be 
distracting from more urgent needs in the face of economic 
mismanagement and sanctions. Far from resenting the U.S.-designed 
sanctions, Iranians blame the slowdown on their own government.
  ```Nuclear energy is something that I supported, but why go about it 
in this way?' asked an Iranian citizen Zori Baghi, a pensioner and 
father of two.'' He went on to ask, ```If it is legitimate, then why 
are we suffering for it in this way? If it's not legitimate, then do it 
in the right way or give it up. We're paying too heavy a price,''' so 
said an Iranian citizen about that country's nuclear ambitions.
  It is my belief, my colleagues, that if smart sanctions take effect, 
more and more Iranians will come to the same conclusion and so, 
hopefully, will the Iranian regime. Sanctions will show the regime that 
its embrace of nuclear proliferation carries a cost that is far too 
high. We cannot expect a change of heart from Tehran, but we can demand 
a change of behavior.
  My colleagues, this action is timely and perhaps past time, but it is 
always timely to do the right thing, to speak up, to act, and to 
encourage our allies as well and our partners and our fellow citizens 
in this globe to act in a way that will protect them and protect our 
international community.
  So I rise in strong support of this motion to go to conference and 
the motion to instruct, and I thank my chairman for his leadership on 
this issue. He is working both to have effective action taken by the 
Congress and to assist the administration in reaching the objective in 
as positive a way as is possible.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the prospect of an Iranian state armed 
with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable for the world. It poses an 
existential threat to our ally Israel. It would pose the threat of 
terrorism all over the Middle East under a nuclear umbrella, so we 
wouldn't be able to oppose what Iran was doing. It poses a threat of a 
nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It poses the threat that we 
cannot rule out that this regime would give a nuclear weapon to a 
terrorist group like al Qaeda to use we can only guess where.
  Finally, some people say, you know, we coexisted with a nuclear 
Soviet Union for 40 years, 50 years. We deterred them, deterrence 
works. Deterrence cannot work when you have a government that is 
religious in nature, many of whose elements are millenarian; that is, 
they believe that the final destruction of Israel even if it causes a 
nuclear war would bring on the return of the Hidden Imam more quickly. 
You cannot reason with a suicide bomber. You cannot deter a suicide 
bomber, which is in essence what parts of the Iranian Government are.
  So we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. We also must 
avoid the Hobson's choice of having a situation where the advisers come 
in to the President and say, Mr. President, here are your two choices: 
One, do nothing in Iran, who will have nuclear weapons in a couple of 
weeks; two, militarily attack Iran. We don't want that Hobson's choice. 
We have to avoid a choice of military action or a nuclear Iran.
  The Bush administration was here for 8 years. They pursued a policy 
of talk tough and carry a toothpick. They talked tough but stopped 
nothing, and for 8 years the centrifuges increased and increased in 
number and went round and round and came closer and closer to a nuclear 
Iran.
  Now we have an administration that comes in with a policy of big 
sticks and big carrots and says first we will engage the Iranians. We 
will show them the advantages of avoiding a nuclear status, and we will 
by so doing establish the foundation for unified, not unilateral, 
sanctions action against Iran if necessary.

                              {time}  1130

  Now we've reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real 
sanctions, and we have allies, and we will get those sanctions, and we 
must take tough sanctions to avoid that Hobson's choice.
  And this resolution before us is part of that, to impose tough 
sanctions on the Iranians to make them reconsider, or to make it 
impossible for them to develop nuclear weapons.
  So we must establish this now. We must pass this resolution because 
we do not want a Hobson's choice of military action or a nuclear Iran, 
the latter of which is intolerable, and the first of which is something 
we should not ever want.
  So I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, and I thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for bringing it to the floor.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), one of the original creators 
of the concept of refined petroleum sanctions as a sanction.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there is a justifiable and broad consensus 
in our country and in this Congress that the regime in Iran cannot have 
a nuclear weapon. The issue is how to achieve that objective and why to 
achieve that objective.
  We cannot act in isolation to achieve the objective. We must act to 
isolate Iran. This has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy 
engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by Chairman 
Berman and our ranking member that has brought us to a point where the 
world is now isolating Iran. Iran stands essentially alone in support 
of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable.
  The sanctions that are proposed by the underlying bill will be 
effective because they will force the Iranian leadership to choose 
between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear chicanery 
and the certainty of economic stress if they persist in retaining it.
  The best evidence that these sanctions are effective is the crash 
program the Iranians themselves have embarked on to switch from 
gasoline to natural gas as a means of propelling vehicles.
  More important than how to do this, though, is why to do this. In the 
early 1930s, there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out 
of Europe. People insisted that people who worried about that were 
exaggerating the threat. So much of the world, including, sadly, the 
United States turned away as those ugly signals were sent. The result 
was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions: 6 million innocent people 
killed in the Holocaust.
  Today, there are ugly signals and words coming out of Tehran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. There are ugly signals saying that one Holocaust is not 
enough, that the Jewish state should be wiped off the face of the 
Earth.
  We ignore these ugly signals at our own peril. We should learn the 
terrible history of the thirties and not repeat it. We should act 
swiftly, decisively

[[Page 6082]]

and united with the rest of the world to impose meaningful sanctions on 
the Iranian Government that will prevent the day of an Iranian nuclear 
weapon from ever occurring.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a ``yes'' 
vote and the swift adoption of the underlying legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker requesting 
time. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel), chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, a 
hemisphere which has already seen Iranian efforts to penetrate.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I 
thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her strong 
voice.
  And, boy, if there was ever anything that's bipartisan, it's this 
resolution. The one good thing that Iran has done is brought us all 
together because we realize that the Iranian threat to the world is the 
world's biggest threat.
  Iran remains the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world; and, 
as was mentioned before, the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has 
threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. But the threat is 
not to Israel alone. It's to Europe, it's to the United States, it's to 
the entire world; and the entire world must speak with one voice.
  I'm a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum 
Sanctions Act, and I want to commend Chairman Berman for this 
initiative, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen as well.
  Only a few short months ago, the world learned of the secret Iranian 
nuclear enrichment facility near the city of Qom. If there was ever any 
doubt that Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, this revelation 
dispelled any shred of that doubt. The facility was kept secret from 
the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was built deep in 
a mountain on a protected military base. This is precisely how a 
country conceals a nuclear weapons program and defies U.N. Security 
Council resolutions, not how it develops peaceful energy technologies.
  However, although Iran is a leading producer of crude oil, it has 
limited refining capacity. And this bill will increase leverage against 
Iran by penalizing companies that export refined petroleum products to 
Iran or finance Iran's domestic refueling capabilities. It's my hope 
that the administration will apply these additional sanctions to make 
absolutely clear to the Iranian regime that the world will not accept 
its nuclear ambitions.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee, I'd also like to raise one additional 
concern which arose at my October hearing on Iran's role in the Western 
Hemisphere. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez recently agreed to provide 
20,000 barrels per day of refined gasoline to Iran. It's anyone's guess 
as to whether this will be implemented, but the deal may be covered by 
the bill we are considering today. While some question whether 
Venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to Iran since it imports 
some gasoline to meet its own demand, Chavez is clearly approaching a 
perilous area. I hope Chavez reconsiders this unwise step. And we must 
consider and keep focusing on Iran in the Western Hemisphere as well.
  The U.S., our allies and the U.N. Security Council have recognized 
that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger to our ally, Israel, the 
Middle East, the nuclear proliferation regime and to the entire world. 
The Iranian regime is brutal to its own population, murders its own 
citizens, represses people who want to demonstrate against its stolen 
election, and it's time for us to stand up.
  So I'm glad, in a bipartisan voice this morning, we say ``no'' to 
Iran; ``no'' to nuclear weapons for Iran; ``yes'' to support the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to close if the gentleman 
is ready to.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, for several years we have watched Iran move ever closer 
to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. No rational person can 
question that that is Iran's goal. And yet, even though Iran has 
violated its international treaty obligations, defied repeated U.N. 
Security Council resolutions, had one secret nuclear site after another 
revealed to the world, and rejected every offer to negotiate, the world 
has let it happen.
  We, in this Chamber, have been elected to defend and promote the 
interests and security of our country. We must do everything we can to 
force Iran's leaders to change course and abandon their pursuit of 
nuclear weapons because the American people and our allies are their 
intended targets. We know this because they have repeatedly told us.
  We cannot rely on hope for deliverance because that will only 
guarantee our destruction. So we must act quickly, and we must act 
decisively.
  The bill that the House passed overwhelmingly last December, the Iran 
Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, represents the best opportunity we 
have to do precisely that. If we, and our colleagues in the Senate, can 
craft a strong measure that can then be sent to the President, we will 
have met our responsibility to the American people.
  I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that we can defeat the menace that is 
posed by Iran before it has a chance to strike us, but our time is 
running out.
  Let us support this motion. Let us send a strong bill to the 
President's desk.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we meet today to consider a motion to 
appoint conferees to reconcile the differences between the House and 
Senate versions of the Iran Sanctions Act. Though both versions would 
impose sanctions against companies that support Iran's petroleum 
sector, especially in the area of gasoline and other refined petroleum 
products, the Senate version includes additional provisions that would 
direct the president to freeze the assets of Iranian officials and 
prohibit the U.S. Government from providing contracts to companies that 
supply Iran with communications monitoring technology. These provisions 
must be reconciled before the final version can be presented to the 
President.
  Stopping Iran's illegal nuclear enrichment program is an urgent 
matter, requiring a comprehensive strategy that targets Iran's 
important energy sector, and its access to the global financial system. 
These bills can help to achieve these goals.
  Last year, Iran admitted the existence of a secret enrichment 
facility in the holy city of Qom that set in motion a renewed 
international effort to pursue more aggressive penalties against Iran 
for its nuclear activities. Using a variety of measures, including the 
United States led sanctions efforts in the United Nations, penalties 
currently under consideration by the European Union and the sustained 
campaign by the U.S. Treasury Department and others to persuade banks 
and other businesses to curtail their activities with Iranian 
businesses, we must significantly increase pressure on Iran to persuade 
it to end its nuclear program. The United States and the international 
community must send a very clear signal that Iran faces a stark 
choice--Iran must end its illegal nuclear enrichment program or it will 
face increasingly severe consequences. All options for ending that 
program should remain on the table.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct 
House conferees on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition 
again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I 
object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. 
Listening to the debate on the floor on this motion and the underlying 
bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same 
falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a 
disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being 
trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more 
disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.
  We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about 
reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the 
United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember 
the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States 
and attack us? These ``drones'' ended up being pure propaganda--

[[Page 6083]]

the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no 
evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for 
use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten 
their war so the truth did not matter much.
  We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot 
afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. 
Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of 
State Condoleeza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot 
wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.
  We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war 
against Iran for the benefit of special interests.
  Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of 
that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary 
level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire U.S. 
Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear 
weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make 
one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on Iran 
will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it 
is important and necessary to point them out.
  Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for 
sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. 
I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing 
for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger 
sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: 
as each round of new sanctions failed to ``work''--to change the 
regime--war became the only remaining regime-change option.
  This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us 
to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran 
necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war 
according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote 
for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to 
turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion 
to go to conference on the Iran sanctions legislation.
  I am grateful to Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for 
working with me on a provision included in the House version of this 
legislation to require companies applying for contracts with the U.S. 
government to affirmatively certify that they do not conduct business 
with Iran.
  This legislation gives companies a simple choice: do business with 
the United States, or do business with Iran. We cannot allow the U.S. 
taxpayer to be last crutch of Iran's dangerous nuclear program. Not on 
our watch and not on our dime.
  The time to act is now, and we must move with fierce urgency.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote 219, on the Motion 
to Instruct Conferees on Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, 
and Divestment Act-- Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Reports are clear that Iran is speeding forward toward developing the 
capability to manufacture and launch a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran 
will put the world's most deadly weapon into the hands of a nation that 
is actively supporting terrorism and is actively engaged in providing 
weapons and other support to terrorist organizations. Iran's leader, 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made no secret of his desire to destroy our 
ally Israel--he has promised to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. 
If Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it will have the ability to do in a 
matter of minutes what it took the Nazis six years to do.
  A nuclear Iran will destabilize the entire Middle East. If Iran has 
nuclear capability, every nation in the Middle East will rush to 
acquire the same capability. Although Israel has much to fear from 
Iran, there are many other countries in the region that have a long 
history of bad relations with Iran. And there is no love lost between 
Shi'ite Iran and its Sunni neighbors.
  I salute the young people who have risked their lives in Iran in the 
hopes of removing this madman from power. Their courage deserves our 
praise and our support. But a nuclear Iran will be a threat to every 
nation in the Middle East, regardless of who is in power; and there is 
no sign that a different Iranian leader would dismantle the nuclear 
program. Sanctions are our best hope to pressure Iran to relinquish its 
nuclear program.
  Tough sanctions have an impact. They have already discouraged 
companies from doing business in Iran, thereby reducing Iran's access 
to the goods it wants. Time Magazine reported that two of the world's 
largest insurance companies, Lloyd's and Munich Re, will no longer 
insure cargo going into or out of Iran. Major oil brokers are no longer 
willing to sell refined petroleum to Iran, a blow to a country that 
must import much of its oil. LUKOIL, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, BP and 
Malaysia's Petronas and other companies will no longer sell gasoline to 
Iran. Sanctions change corporate behavior--and if the corporations that 
do business in Iran are no longer willing to trade, it will have an 
immediate and direct effect on the quality of life in Iran.
  The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act 
of 2009 is a good bill--a strong bill. It's time to go to conference 
and move forward with implementing strong sanctions that can make a 
difference. The only nation that benefits from delay is Iran. Time is 
on its side--with more time, it can realize its nuclear ambitions. We 
can change the equation by moving this bill forward now. Accordingly, I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support this motion.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________