[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6774-6781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF PREVENTING IRAN FROM 
                 ACQUIRING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 568) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government 
of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 568

       Whereas since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in 
     a sustained and well-documented pattern of illicit and 
     deceptive activities to acquire a nuclear capability;
       Whereas the United Nations Security Council has adopted 
     multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full and 
     sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and 
     reprocessing activities by the Iranian Government and its 
     full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     (IAEA) on all outstanding issues related to its nuclear 
     activities, particularly those concerning the possible 
     military dimensions of its nuclear program;
       Whereas Iran remains in violation of all of the 
     aforementioned United Nations Security Council resolutions;
       Whereas, on November 8, 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive 
     report that--
       (1) documents ``serious concerns regarding possible 
     military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme'';
       (2) states that ``Iran has carried out activities relevant 
     to the development of a nuclear device''; and
       (3) states that the efforts described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) may be ongoing;
       Whereas as of November 2008, Iran had produced, according 
     to the IAEA--
       (1) approximately 630 kilograms of uranium-235 enriched to 
     3.5 percent; and
       (2) no uranium-235 enriched to 20 percent;
       Whereas as of November 2011, Iran had produced, according 
     to the IAEA--
       (1) nearly 5,000 kilograms of uranium-235 enriched to 3.5 
     percent; and
       (2) 79.7 kilograms of uranium-235 enriched to 20 percent;
       Whereas, on January 9, 2011, IAEA inspectors confirmed that 
     the Iranian Government had begun enrichment activities at the 
     Fordow site, including possibly enrichment of uranium-235 to 
     20 percent;
       Whereas Iran has repeatedly refused requests by IAEA 
     inspectors to visit its Parchin military facility, a 
     suspected site of Iranian activities related to testing of a 
     nuclear weapon;
       Whereas if Iran were successful in acquiring a nuclear 
     weapon capability, it would likely spur other countries in 
     the region to consider developing their own nuclear weapons 
     capabilities;
       Whereas, on December 6, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal of 
     Saudi Arabia stated that if international efforts to prevent 
     Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons fail, ``we must, as a 
     duty to our country and people, look into all options we are 
     given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves'';
       Whereas top Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened the 
     existence of the State of Israel, pledging to ``wipe Israel 
     off the map'';
       Whereas the Department of State--
       (1) has designated Iran as a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' 
     since 1984; and
       (2) has characterized Iran as the ``most active state 
     sponsor of terrorism'';
       Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, funding, and 
     direction to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, 
     and Shiite militias in Iraq that are responsible for the 
     murders of hundreds of American forces and innocent 
     civilians;
       Whereas, on July 28, 2011, the Department of the Treasury 
     charged that the Government of Iran had forged a ``secret 
     deal'' with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda 
     fighters and funding through Iranian territory;
       Whereas in October 2011, senior leaders of Iran's Islamic 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force were implicated 
     in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Ambassador 
     to the United States on United States soil;
       Whereas, on December 26, 2011, the United Nations General 
     Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious human 
     rights abuses occurring in Iran, including torture, cruel and 
     degrading treatment in detention, the targeting of human 
     rights defenders, violence against women, and ``the 
     systematic and serious restrictions on freedom of peaceful 
     assembly'', as well as severe restrictions on the rights to 
     ``freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief'';
       Whereas the Governments of the P5+1 nations (the United 
     States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and 
     Germany) have made repeated efforts to engage the Iranian 
     Government in dialogue about Iran's nuclear program and its 
     international commitments under the Treaty on the Non-
     Proliferation Nuclear Weapons;
       Whereas talks between the P5+1 and Iran regarding Iran's 
     nuclear program resumed on April 14, 2012, in Istanbul, 
     Turkey, and the parties agreed to meet again on May 23, 2012, 
     in Baghdad, Iraq;
       Whereas in the 2006 State of the Union Address, President 
     Bush stated that ``The Iranian Government is defying the 
     world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the 
     world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear 
     weapons.'';
       Whereas, on March 31, 2010, President Obama stated that the 
     ``consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable'';
       Whereas in his State of the Union Address on January 24, 
     2012, President Obama stated, ``Let there be no doubt: 
     America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear 
     weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve 
     that goal.'';
       Whereas Secretary of Defense Panetta stated, in December 
     2011, that it was unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear 
     weapons, reaffirmed that all options were on the table to 
     thwart Iran's nuclear weapons efforts, and vowed that if the 
     United States gets ``intelligence that they are proceeding 
     with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever 
     steps necessary to stop it'';
       Whereas, on December 1, 2011, Deputy Secretary of State 
     William J. Burns and Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel 
     Ayalon issued a joint statement in Washington, DC, which 
     emphasized that ``Iran is the greatest challenge we face 
     today in the Middle East'' and that ``[c]ontinued efforts by 
     the international community are critical to bringing about 
     change in Iranian behavior and preventing Iran from 
     developing a nuclear weapons capability.'';
       Whereas the Department of Defense's January 2012 Strategic 
     Guidance stated that United States defense efforts in the 
     Middle East would be aimed ``to prevent Iran's development of 
     a nuclear weapons capability and counter its destabilizing 
     policies'';
       Whereas, on March 4, 2012, President Obama stated that 
     ``Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a 
     policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from 
     obtaining a nuclear weapon.''; and
       Whereas, on April 9, 2012, President Obama stated ``[T]his 
     continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons capability continues to 
     be a major challenge.'': Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) warns that time is limited to prevent the Government of 
     Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
       (2) urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic 
     pressure on Iran to secure an agreement with the Government 
     of Iran that includes--
       (A) the full and sustained suspension of all uranium 
     enrichment-related and reprocessing activities;
       (B) complete cooperation with the IAEA on all outstanding 
     questions related to Iran's nuclear activities, including--
       (i) the implementation of the Additional Protocol to the 
     Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and
       (ii) the verified end of Iran's ballistic missile programs; 
     and
       (C) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that 
     Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful;
       (3) expresses support for the universal rights and 
     democratic aspirations of the Iranian people;
       (4) affirms that it is a vital national interest of the 
     United States to prevent the Government of Iran from 
     acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
       (5) strongly supports United States policy to prevent the 
     Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons 
     capability;
       (6) rejects any policy that would rely on efforts to 
     contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and
       (7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of 
     an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any 
     policy that would rely on containment as an option in 
     response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to submit 
extraneous materials for the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 568, which 
I introduced, together with the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend.
  The Iranian regime continues to pose an immediate and growing threat 
to

[[Page 6775]]

the United States, to our allies, and to the Iranian people. In fact, 
just over the weekend, it was reported that the IAEA discovered a 
drawing that shows an explosive containment chamber of the type needed 
for nuclear arms-related tests. This was based on information from 
inside an Iranian military base.
  Iran remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, aiding 
multiple groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, which continue to 
destabilize the Middle East and which are responsible for the deaths of 
Americans. It was only a few months ago that U.S. officials foiled a 
planned attack on U.S. soil that was commissioned by the Iranian 
regime, and the Iranian regime is believed to have been behind the 
attacks against Israeli Embassies that took place earlier this year.
  I have much more to say, Mr. Speaker, but at this time I will reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 568, 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a 
nuclear weapons capability, and yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extremely timely, as next week the 
five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany will 
once again sit down with Iran to negotiate secession of Iran's nuclear 
weapons program. What better time for this body to send an unambiguous 
message that Iran must never be allowed to achieve a nuclear weapons 
capability and that its nuclear weapons program must end once and for 
all? That's exactly what this resolution does.
  The United States must continue to take the lead in preventing Iran 
from obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon. If Iran were 
to achieve that capability, neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would 
want that capability as well. Others in the region would begin to defer 
to Iran as if it already were a nuclear power. And worst of all, once 
Iran acquires the capability, it would be able to build an actual 
nuclear weapon so quickly that we may not be able to stop it.
  Stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is not 
simply an American priority, but a global responsibility.
  I want to be straightforward about my view. A regime that brutalizes 
its own people, trains, arms, and dispatches terrorist proxies, props 
up the repugnant Assad dictatorship, denies the Holocaust, and incites 
violence against and kills Americans should never be allowed to reach 
the nuclear threshold.
  The urgent nature of the Iranian nuclear threat demands that the 
United States work with our allies to do everything possible 
diplomatically, politically, and economically to prevent Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. No option, as the President has 
said, can be taken off the table.
  Mr. Speaker, the policy of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear 
weapons capability is not unfamiliar to the House of Representatives. 
Since 2009, we have passed five bills expressing congressional support 
for this policy. These bills have been supported by nearly every Member 
of the House.
  The resolution before us today reminds us, as well as the world, how 
Iran has flaunted its flagrant disregard for U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, is an active state sponsor of terrorism, has engaged in 
serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, and plotted a 
heinous terrorist attack on American soil.
  This resolution also reminds us of the urgency, as well as the 
seriousness, of the nuclear issue. And so, as the window is closing, we 
send a clear message that the House is aligned with the administration 
in thoroughly rejecting containment, a policy that would have us sit 
back and watch Iran get the bomb, then try to contain it as we 
contained the Soviet Union.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  In fact, we have no choice but to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program 
before it ever reaches that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we know, Iran continues to sponsor violent extremist 
groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed our men and women in 
uniform. With a nuclear weapons capability, the regime would 
dramatically increase its ability to threaten the United States and our 
allies.
  We are running out of time to stop the nightmare of a nuclear 
weapons-capable Iran from becoming a reality. Estimates from the U.S. 
and Israeli officials indicate that Iran could develop nuclear weapons 
in less than 1 year. And even before the regime actually develops 
nuclear weapons, Iran may enter into what the Israeli Defense Minister 
calls a ``zone of immunity,'' and after that point we would have very 
few options left to actually stop Iran from going nuclear.
  Right now, the regime is doing all it can to run down the clock and 
enter that zone of immunity. The most recent set of negotiations are 
just another way for Iran to hold off Western sanctions and buy more 
time to further their capabilities.

                              {time}  1750

  We need to stop the regime before it possesses the capability to 
develop nuclear weapons, not before it makes a decision to develop 
nuclear weapons, because we may not know that they have actually made 
that decision until it is too late. Once that regime enters into the 
zone of immunity, it can decide at any time to develop nuclear weapons, 
and we would probably not be able to stop them.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
minority whip, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has been a leader on this 
issue as has the chair of the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 
Representative Berman has been a leader in Congress when it comes to 
reminding us of how important it is to prevent the rise in nuclear war 
and a nuclear-armed Iran. We are fortunate as a country to have a 
partnership between the chair and the ranking member focused like a 
laser on this issue. So I thank my friend, Mr. Berman, and my friend, 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman has also been instrumental in securing 
funding for the deployment of the Iron Dome anti-missile system to 
counter the threat from Iranian-supplied short-range rockets in the 
hands of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
  I rise in strong support of the chair and ranking member's 
resolution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor with them of the 
resolution.
  The most significant threat to peace, regional security, and American 
interests in the Middle East is Iran's nuclear program. This resolution 
makes clear that it is in America's security interest not to contain a 
nuclear Iran, but to prevent one. A nuclear Iran would destabilize an 
already volatile region where so many American troops are stationed--
and a region so vital to the world's energy supplies.
  Iran continues to be a sponsor of groups committed to the destruction 
of our ally Israel and of groups that threaten Americans throughout the 
world. Iran is believed to be pursuing not only a nuclear capability 
but also delivery technologies that could threaten our allies in Europe 
and the Middle East as well as American assets in the region.
  Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken a strong lead in 
confronting Iran. President Obama has built a wide coalition of support 
that has imposed the strongest sanctions Iran has ever faced. In 
particular, we are hitting the Iranian Government where it hurts most--
its oil exports and its banking sector. From the very start, his policy 
has been not containment but prevention.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 6776]]


  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. This resolution reaffirms the administration's prevention 
policy, and I urge my colleagues to pass it as a strong sign that Iran 
must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
  Again, in closing, I want to congratulate the chair, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, and the ranking member, Howard Berman, on their strong and 
unwavering leadership on this critically important issue to the 
national security of the United States of America and to international 
and global security as well.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For the Iranian regime, the possession of the capability to produce a 
nuclear weapon would be almost as useful as actually having one. Tehran 
would be able to intimidate its neighbors and engage in even more 
threatening actions by reminding us that they could develop nuclear 
weapons anytime the regime wanted. Tehran might even decide not to 
reveal whether or not it had developed nuclear weapons, thereby keeping 
the world guessing and off balance indefinitely, all while claiming 
innocence. Tehran would be in the driver's seat, and the security of 
the United States, Israel, and our many other allies would be in their 
hands.
  We need to make clear that containing a nuclear Iran is not an 
option, that nothing short of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear-
weapons capability is good enough. So that is why Ranking Member Berman 
and I have introduced the resolution before us, House Resolution 568, 
which strongly supports preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring a 
nuclear-weapons capability. It rejects any policy that would rely on 
efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. It supports the 
right and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. Lastly, it 
urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with a 
nuclear-weapons capability and to oppose any policy that would rely on 
containment as an option.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank my friend from California, but, unfortunately, 
I must disagree with him.
  This resolution contains broad and dangerous language that would 
undermine any diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. 
Without explicit language stating there is no authorization for 
military action, this could be interpreted as a blank check for war. 
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel 
Lawrence Wilkerson, stated:

       This resolution reads like the same piece of music that got 
     us into the Iraq war.

  Did not Congress learn anything from being hustled into a war based 
on misrepresentations?
  At a time when the U.S. is engaging in its first successful direct 
talks with Iran in years, it is more critical than ever for Congress to 
support these negotiations. Even if language were added to H. Res. 568 
to make it absolutely clear that this bill does not constitute an 
authorization for war and that only Congress can make such an 
authorization, it still puts Members of Congress on record as opposing 
a diplomatic solution, paving the way toward war with Iran. In the 
past, Congress has rejected its power to declare war, and now we want 
to tell the President that he can't declare diplomacy. Congress must 
reject resolutions that could lead the U.S. into yet another disastrous 
and costly war and tie the President's hands as he endeavors for a 
peaceful solution.
  Have we not lost enough of our brave men and women to causes that are 
not in the interests of the U.S.?
  H. Res. 568 lowers the bar for war by changing longstanding U.S. 
policy that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons by, instead, drawing 
the red line for military action at Iran's achieving a nuclear-weapons 
capability. The term ``capability'' is undefined in the underlying 
resolution, and it could be applied to any country with a civilian 
nuclear program, including Japan and Brazil. This resolution, 
therefore, sets a precedent which could cause us to stumble from one 
war into another.
  And, what, we haven't had enough wars?
  Not all enrichment is devoted to building bombs. This resolution 
marks a significant shift in U.S. policy that could threaten critical 
upcoming negotiations with Iran on May 23. It is likely that a 
negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran would provide for 
Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes, under the framework of the 
nonproliferation nuclear weapons treaty, with strict safeguards and 
inspections.
  I want to point out, in conclusion, that Yuval Diskin, the former 
Shin Bet chief, has stated that attacking Iran will encourage them to 
develop a bomb.
  Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief, echoed his sentiment by saying:

       Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. 
     It will be followed by a war with Iran. It's the kind of 
     thing where we know how it starts but not know how it will 
     end.

  I think our diplomacy is having an effect, said General Martin 
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This resolution reaffirms the position of the House with respect to 
U.S. policy on Iran's nuclear program. Efforts to misrepresent this 
resolution really distract from the real problem, which is the 
increasing threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and the need to 
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.
  Tehran has repeatedly lied to the world about its secret nuclear 
activities; Tehran has violated international nonproliferation 
obligations; and it has repeatedly threatened to destroy our ally 
Israel.
  Just earlier this year, Ayatollah Khamenei said:

       The truly cancerous Israel must be destroyed in the region, 
     and this will without doubt come to fruition.

                              {time}  1800

  It is abundantly clear that Iran cannot be trusted with uranium 
enrichment or any component of the nuclear program. Even the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions have demanded that Iran stop all uranium 
enrichment and reprocessing.
  Unless compelled to change course, Iran will soon have all of the 
basic components or capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon. The only 
thing that would be left for them to do will be to put the pieces 
together.
  According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is 
expanding its stockpiles of uranium, advancing its missile 
capabilities, and burying and hiding its nuclear infrastructure. As if 
that were not enough, the smoking gun in the IAEA's November 2011 
report was that Iran carried out, ``work on the development of an 
indigenous design of a nuclear weapon, including the testing of 
components.'' In addition, the IAEA uncovered evidence that Iran was 
attempting to miniaturize a warhead to fit on top of a ballistic 
missile.
  As we fast-forward to this weekend, drawings were revealed showing a 
secret chamber at an Iranian military facility of the type needed for 
nuclear weapons testing. Again, the regime is building up its 
capacities on all fronts. When it has mastered all of these, Tehran 
would be able to intimidate its neighbors and engage in even more 
threatening actions, always with the threat that it could flip the 
switch and produce nuclear weapons at any time. At that point, the U.S. 
and other responsible nations would have no other option but to sit in 
fear of this nuclear-armed state sponsor of terrorism.
  We must reaffirm our commitment to adoption of this resolution and 
stronger sanctions legislation to prevent this doomsday scenario from 
becoming a reality.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
Delegate from American Samoa, the ranking member of the Asia and the 
Pacific Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Faleomavaega.

[[Page 6777]]


  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the United 
States and the international community understand that a nuclear-
capable Iran is a global threat and a danger to the United States and, 
just as important, to the State of Israel, where Iranian leaders have 
continued to threaten Israel's existence by pledging that Israel must 
be wiped off the map. This is a direct threat to our closest ally in 
the Middle East.
  Iran's reckless attitude continues to be a stimulus for the 
instability in the Middle East. My greatest fear is that a nuclear-
capable Iran will cause other countries in the region to also build 
their own nuclear program.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the eloquent 
statements made earlier by our good chairman, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, 
and my good friend, Ranking Member Berman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 568, expressing the 
sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of 
preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons 
capability. I want to thank House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Ranking Member Howard Berman of California 
for their leadership on this very important matter. I also want to 
thank all the cosponsors and supporters of this critical resolution.
  H. Res. 568 reiterates the United States policy against the 
Government of Iran from ever acquiring nuclear arms capability and 
expresses the U.S.'s strong support for ensuring that the universal 
rights and aspirations for democracy of the Iranian people are 
protected.
  It is imperative that the U.S. and the international community 
understand that a nuclear-capable Iran is a global threat and a danger 
to the U.S. and just as important to the State of Israel where Iranian 
leaders have continued to threaten Israel's existence by pledging that 
Israel must be ``wiped off the map.'' This is a direct threat to our 
closest ally in the Middle East. Iran's reckless attitude continues to 
be a stimulus for instability in the Middle East. My greatest fear is 
that a nuclear-capable Iran will cause other countries in the region to 
build their own nuclear weapons.
  The United Nations Security Council has passed many resolutions 
demanding the suspension of Iran's nuclear program but it has fallen on 
deaf ears. In 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has 
reported that Iran's nuclear program was suspected of having ``possible 
military dimensions'' in their program and that Iran has continued to 
enrich uranium to levels that are capable of building a nuclear weapon.
  The U.S. and our international community must continue to enforce 
economic and political sanctions on Iran. I certainly commend President 
Obama and his Administration for maintaining his position in not 
``taking any options off the table'' in preventing Iran from ever 
having a nuclear weapon. The Administration must continue to pressure 
Iran to agree in having full and complete cooperation with the IAEA in 
addressing concerns relating to their nuclear activities.
  I thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman again for 
their leadership and I urge my colleagues to pass H. Res. 568.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ranking Member Berman, for yielding the time. 
I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.
  After reading the resolution and studying it, I just have a couple of 
questions that I would ask that you clarify your understanding about 
the resolution, and that is the resolved clauses, especially clauses 4 
through 7, which are of some concern to me, but I'm interested in 
hearing from you.
  In your view, does this resolution in any way constitute an 
authorization for the use of military force?
  Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Absolutely not. This resolution is no way intended and in 
no way can it be interpreted as an authorization for the use of 
military force. It is a nonbinding resolution that endorses a 
diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear program. It includes no 
operative authorizations regarding the use of force.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Maryland 
has expired.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Some may put forth the argument that this resolution undermines and 
threatens the ongoing P5+1 negotiations. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, 
that the Iranian regime is using these negotiations as a way to buy 
time and continue enrichment without any additional sanctions.
  Time and again, the United States has come to the table with Iran, 
made concession after concession, and left with nothing in return. In 
one example, last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. 
officials are now willing to let Iran continue enriching uranium, even 
though multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions demand that Iran 
immediately halt uranium enrichment. And today's New York Times 
included a report, entitled, ``Iran Sees Success in Stalling on Nuclear 
Issue,'' and the report states:

       Iran's negotiation team may be less interested in reaching 
     a comprehensive settlement than in buying time and 
     establishing the legitimacy of its enrichment program.

  I couldn't say it better. It's time to stop glorifying negotiations 
for the sake of negotiations. This resolution strengthens the U.S. 
position and our leverage.
  With that, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, my friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I 
rise today in strong support of House Resolution 568, a resolution 
making clear that the United States' policy towards Iran is not one of 
containment but is one of prevention.
  I'm pleased to have co-introduced this resolution with a bipartisan 
group of colleagues, including the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
  Indeed, this Congress, this administration, and this President 
understand that failing to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a 
destabilizing arms race in the Middle East, would threaten the very 
existence of our ally Israel, and would endanger the security of the 
American people.
  As Iran faces growing international isolation, now is not the time to 
roll back crippling economic sanctions, nor should we fall victim to 
this regime's penchant of hiding behind the pretense of negotiations 
simply to buy more time. With this resolution, we will send a message 
to Iran's regime and to the world that the U.S. will accept nothing 
less than a strict policy of prevention when it comes to this regime's 
illicit quest for nuclear weapons.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close on the resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do have a few more speakers.
  I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the 
Europe and Eurasia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 568. This 
resolution supports President Obama's policy towards Iran.
  As the President stated during the AIPAC annual convention in March:

       Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a 
     policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from 
     obtaining a nuclear weapon.

  President's Obama's commitment to Israel's security is ironclad. 
America has stood with Israel under this administration which has 
facilitated unprecedented levels of security assistance for Israel, 
increasing every single year, even in a tough domestic budget 
environment. Above all, President Obama has directed his administration 
to prevent--not merely contain--Iran achieving nuclear weapons 
capability.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, supporting 
the President's position and affirming that the U.S.-Israel 
relationship is too important to be distorted by politics.
  I thank Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Howard Berman for 
bringing us together in a united way and passing this resolution.

[[Page 6778]]


  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey, an individual who knows a lot about this 
subject, Mr. Holt.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  The threat of nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world 
peace. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the 
United States and our allies.
  This resolution is not an authorization for military force. It is not 
a call for war. I would not support this resolution if it were.
  Our shared goal must be to persuade Iran to end its nuclear weapons 
program. That's President Obama's purpose in agreeing to negotiations. 
That's our purpose here. The world does not have many tools available, 
but we should use, and the world is united in using, economic and 
diplomatic pressure. This does not preclude diplomatic resolution. In 
fact, it makes diplomatic resolution more possible.
  Of course, ultimately, Iran should decide that it's not in her 
people's interest for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. And we and all 
nuclear powers should stop behaving as if we think nuclear weapons are 
beneficial for a country. This resolution will help move us in that 
direction.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, could we get an indication of the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California controls 6 
minutes, and the gentlewoman from Florida controls 10 minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the Speaker.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the other expert from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairwoman Ros-
Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for bringing this resolution 
forward. I regret but do not doubt its necessity.
  The issue raised in this resolution is not whether we are authorizing 
war--because we clearly are not. The issue is not whether the President 
would have to come to this Chamber--any President--should he conclude 
that war is necessary--because he clearly would. The issue in this 
resolution is not whether we should conduct negotiations but how we 
should conduct negotiations. And this resolution gives us an emphatic 
opportunity to say that when we are negotiating with a country that has 
conceived its nuclear weapons program in secret, that has brandished 
its nuclear weapons program with the rhetoric of hostility, and for 
whom the attainment of a nuclear weapon would be fraught with peril for 
free people everywhere, then in the context of that negotiation, our 
position must be that we will not support or stand for an Iran with 
nuclear weapons.
  This is the issue. I would urge a ``yes'' vote. And, again, I thank 
the chair and the ranking member for their patriotic and unified 
leadership on this question.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this.
  This is no dispute in this Chamber that a nuclear armed Iran is 
completely unacceptable. That's why it was so encouraging to hear the 
Democratic whip say with assurance--and I think we all agree--that we 
are hitting Iran where it hurts the most.
  The news this weekend was filled with accounts of ``dark'' ships of 
oil tankers of Iran that are unable to deliver oil. They are having 
their oil trade significantly constricted. Their economy is being 
battered, their currency in free-fall.
  The President has assembled the broadest coalition we have seen 
uniting behind this diplomatic effort. We have had a range of people in 
the past who have been, I think, too sympathetic to Iran or at least 
have not stood up to them. But they are falling in place with us.
  Now we are on the verge of what hopefully will be encouraging 
diplomatic efforts scheduled to start next week. The resolution claims 
to support an endorsed diplomacy but, in fact, the timing and the 
wording undercuts that.
  Now is the time that we ought to be united and we ought to be 
focused. We ought to make sure that we have a positive environment to 
seize on the pain that is being inflicted on the regime, to be able to 
capitalize on the coalition and be able to make progress. Instead, we 
have a resolution--and these concepts have been bandied about now for 
several months--but we have a resolution that's rushed to the House 
floor, unsettlingly timed before the negotiations.
  It never had a hearing. It never had a markup. There was no 
opportunity to find out what, actually, the implications are of 
changing a standard from preventing Iran from ``acquiring'' nuclear 
weapons to preventing Iran from ``obtaining'' a nuclear weapons 
capability. These are not small matters, and they bear on the ultimate 
success of our coalition, the diplomacy, because every expert has 
concluded that an armed intervention, a military attack against Iran 
would be disastrous for all involved. And my colleague from Ohio quoted 
people from the Israeli Government who are convinced that military 
action would be folly.
  But the point is, we shouldn't be at this point. We shouldn't be 
casting a cloud over the negotiations. It's unnecessary. It's 
nonproductive. I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the ranking member 
whether, under this resolution, the President would be required to come 
to the Congress for a specific authorization for the use of military 
force.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for the inquiry.
  The President is the Commander in Chief. There is no authorization 
for the use of force.
  Contrary to what was said earlier by my friend from Ohio, whatever 
one thought about the decision to go to war in Iraq, 5 months before 
that, Congress very explicitly provided an authorization for the use of 
force. There is nothing in this resolution, and there is no intention 
in this resolution, to provide that authorization.
  Nuclear weapons capability--there are three elements, as defined by 
the Director of National Intelligence: fissile material production, 
one. Design, weaponization, and testing of a warhead, two. A delivery 
vehicle. To be nuclear-capable, you really have to have to master all 
three elements.
  While Iran has the delivery system, they have not yet mastered--but 
they are making progress--on steps one and two. And if one day, when 
they've mastered all the other elements and they kick out the 
inspectors and they shut off the cameras, I will consider them nuclear-
capable.
  This is about achieving a goal through economic sanctions rigorously 
applied to achieve a diplomatic resolution. It is the perfect time to 
bring up this resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just 2 months ago, President Obama extended the national emergency, 
as we heard, with respect to Iran, declaring that the regime's 
activities pose ``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.''
  Well, this resolution is an important statement, clarifying 
congressional commitment to countering the Iranian threat. However, our 
focus must be on rapidly and dramatically ratcheting up sanctions, 
without the glaring exceptions that we now have, in order to put our 
boot on the throat of this dangerous regime.

                              {time}  1820

  We must compel the Iranian regime to permanently and verifiably 
dismantle its nuclear program, abandon its unconventional and missile 
development programs, and end its support for violent extremism. We do 
not want to

[[Page 6779]]

look back, Mr. Speaker, and wish that we had heeded the warning signs.
  We anxiously await the other body's strengthening and passage of 
companion legislation to the measures that the House passed months ago. 
We must meet our responsibility to the American people and protect the 
security of our Nation, our allies, and the world from this threat of a 
nuclear capable Iran.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H. 
Res. 568.
  This bi-partisan resolution signifies the importance of preventing 
the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
  I want to thank my friend from Florida, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, for introducing this resolution.
  For over 20 years Iran has engaged in a sustained and well-documented 
pattern of deceptive activities to acquire a nuclear capability outside 
of what can be considered for peaceful use.
  The UN Security Council has adopted a number of resolutions since 
2006 demanding the suspension of uranium enrichment-related and 
reprocessing activities by Iran and its cooperation with the IAEA on 
all nuclear activities, including the possible militarization of its 
nuclear program.
  The IAEA's extensive report documents ``serious concerns'' regarding 
military dimensions to Iran's nuclear activity in hopes of developing a 
nuclear device.
  If Iran is successful in acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, it 
will force other countries in the region to consider developing their 
own nuclear capabilities; notably, Saudi Arabia.
  Iranian leaders have previously threatened the existence of Israel, 
pledging to ``wipe Israel off the map'' and since 1984 Iran has been 
recognized by the State Department as an active sponsor of terrorism.
  I feel just as President Obama has previously stated, ``that the 
consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable'' and we are 
determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
  Our Congress must stand in one voice and prevent Iran from acquiring 
a nuclear weapons capability.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in condemning Iran's nuclear ambitions 
and vote in favor of H. Res. 568.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H. Res. 568, a bipartisan resolution affirming that it is our 
nation's policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons 
capability and emphasize that containment is not a viable option.
  Iran is developing the capability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon 
at a time of its choosing. Iran's acquisition of such a capability 
would create a significant new regional danger and be an immediate 
threat to America's interest and allies in the Middle East.
  A nuclear Iran would most likely trigger an arms race in the region 
that could de-stabilize an already fragile peace and threaten the 
global economy.
  It is imperative that our nation continue to strengthen existing 
diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran and force it to change course 
before it is too late.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. 
Res. 568, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' As a member of the Homeland 
Security Committee and a proud cosponsor of this resolution, I believe 
it is of critical importance to American security to continue dialogue 
with Iran. However, we must also take a clear stance that the United 
States will take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from obtaining 
nuclear weapons.
  H. Res. 568 rejects the possibility of containing a nuclear Iran. If 
Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons, Tehran will be able to 
leverage its new capabilities to secure its own agenda at the expense 
of broader American interests. Such a program would also likely spur 
other Middle Eastern countries to develop their own nuclear 
capabilities, leading to an arms race and massive instability. The 
development of these weapons is not just bad for the region. It is 
dangerous to the global community.
  The United States has always maintained a strong relationship with 
the State of Israel and is committed to its security and prosperity. I 
was particularly alarmed to hear of top Iranian officials threatening 
to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' and I urge my colleagues not to take 
this threat lightly. The United States has a demonstrated history of 
supporting democracy, human rights, and peace throughout the Middle 
East. A nuclear arms race would be an affront to this ideal.
  Mr. Speaker, I also stand with the people of Iran and strongly 
advocate for their rights and security. The United Nations' General 
Assembly has condemned Iran for failing to meet international human 
rights standards and expressed concern over a high frequency of 
executions and violations of minority groups' rights. As the United 
States exercises sanctions against Tehran, I would like to highlight 
the message that we are not seeking to punish the Iranian people and 
that we wish for them a responsive and stable government.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to watch this situation continue to 
escalate while we sit idly by. President Obama, Secretary of Defense 
Panetta, and other American leaders have united and pledged to prevent 
Iran's nuclear weapons capability at any cost. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of H. Res. 568 and hope that Congress can also unite to 
become another powerful voice against Iranian aggression.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. 
Res. 568, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' This measure affirms that it 
is vital to our national interest to prevent Iran from acquiring 
weapons of mass destruction. It also makes clear that our time is 
limited and we must act to prevent Iran from acquiring full nuclear 
weapons capability. As a Ranking Member of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I am well versed in the 
dangers posed by allowing countries who are against our interests to 
gain nuclear weapons. I have always been and will continue to be 
concerned for the average citizen of Iran. This measure is not a 
reflection of the will of the average Iranian but a reflection of the 
government which currently represents them. H. Res. 568 represents our 
commitment to national security.
  The United States of America should increase economic and diplomatic 
pressure on Iran to secure an agreement that includes: (1) the 
suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing 
activities, (2) ensures Iran's complete cooperation with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, regarding their nuclear 
activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that 
Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful.
  I support the Iranian people's universal human rights and access to 
inclusive, democratic representation. H. Res. 568 urges the President 
to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran that has nuclear weapons 
capability. This piece of legislation calls for enforcing tougher 
sanctions against Iran. Iran has been involved in the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, whether they are nuclear or chemical or 
biological.
  This timely piece of legislation addresses the need for the U.S. to 
take a strong stance against the aggressive and hostile behavior of 
these three countries. These governments are not our friends. We must 
not underestimate their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. The 
government of Iran, under its president and leader, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad, has pursued policies undermining democracy and threatening 
regional security as well as our own national security.
  Iran's actions regarding its nuclear program have been highly 
troublesome. Investigations conducted by the U.N.'s International 
Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, have revealed that Iran has been in 
violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty time and time again. 
In 2003, Iran confirmed that there are sites in the cities of Natanz 
and Arak that are under construction. But Iran insisted that these 
sites, like Bushehr, are designed to provide fuel for future power 
plants and nothing else.
  Subsequent actions, however, have led us to believe otherwise. 
Stemming from the most recent IAEA report, experts believe that, with 
further enrichment of its existing stockpile of uranium, Iran already 
has enough raw material to make two or three nuclear weapons. Even 
though having the raw material is different from having an actual 
weapon, Ahmedinejad's belligerent and hostile actions create an 
atmosphere dangerous to U.S. national security.
  Iran also has a horrific human rights abuse record. On December 26, 
2011, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution 
denouncing the serious human rights abuses occurring in Iran.
  The resolution included torture, cruel and degrading treatment in 
detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, violence against 
women, and ``the systematic and serious restrictions on freedom of 
peaceful assembly'' as well as severe restrictions on the rights to 
``freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.''
  The Iranian regime's treatment of women is particularly heinous. 
Prominent human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace

[[Page 6780]]

Prize Laureate, has faced intensified persecution from the Iranian 
government for her courageous activism and efforts to promote women's 
rights in Iran.
  On 21 December 2008, dozens of government agents carried out a raid 
on the Defenders of Human Rights Center, run by Ms. Ebadi. The Center 
provides legal assistance to victims of human rights violations.
  The raid on the Center occurred hours before they were planning on 
holding an event there to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Center staff members and guests 
were harassed and intimidated and the center was forcibly closed. 
Later, officials identifying themselves as tax inspectors came to the 
Center to remove documents and computers, despite Ms. Ebadi's protests 
that they contained protected lawyer-client information. Ms. Ebadi has 
repeatedly been subjected to threats and intimidation for the work she 
does. Occurrences like this must stop.
  The United States' relations with Iran have been volatile and 
tumultuous for almost 60 years. We are engaging with a hostile regime 
that has not demonstrated a desire to compromise or an ability to admit 
to its wrongdoings. Our focus now is to address the security concerns 
in the region.
  The provisions put forth in this bill are vital to ensuring our 
nation's security interests. Those who govern Iran must be held 
accountable for its actions.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, Iran's failure to comply with U.N. Security 
Council resolutions regarding its nuclear program, or its 
responsibilities as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
are deeply troubling.
  A nuclear-armed Iran would represent a grave threat to the interests 
of the United States, Israel, and our other allies in the Middle East. 
This body has forcefully and repeatedly emphasized the singular 
importance of contributing to Israel's defense and well-being, most 
recently only last week when we overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4133, 
affirming the strategic relationship between Israel and the United 
States.
  Sadly, the resolution before us does not contribute in any 
appreciable way either to Israel's security or to the goal of 
compelling Iran's cooperation on their nuclear program. The ambiguous 
language of H. Res. 568 effectively redefines the circumstances that 
could be used to justify a military strike against Iran. This could 
make it harder to reach an agreement through negotiations, since it 
could be argued that Iran--and indeed any country with a civilian 
nuclear program--already possesses ``nuclear weapons capability.'' The 
consensus in the U.S. and Israeli intelligence community remains that 
Iran has not made the decision to move ahead with the development of a 
nuclear weapon.
  Furthermore, the resolution declares that, of all possible responses 
should Iran make that decision, our government cannot consider 
containment. By combining these two provisions, even in a non-binding 
resolution, the Congress risks accelerating a drive to war.
  Since President Obama took office, the United States has carefully 
built a comprehensive regime of multi-lateral sanctions in response to 
Iran's intransigence. After extensive diplomatic efforts by this 
administration, Iran agreed to reengage with the international 
community, and the second major negotiations session will take place in 
Baghdad on May 23.
  The United States and our partners enter the dialogue with Iran from 
a position of strength and unity, while reports indicate Iran's 
leadership is divided and weak. With the P5+1 negotiations, we have a 
unique opportunity to demonstrate our resolve to achieve the goal of 
full compliance by Iran with IAEA expectations, while reversing the 
clock on Iran's nuclear efforts and building toward a permanent 
agreement that ensures Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon.
  The United States built a global alliance against Iran with the 
support of close, like-minded allies Britain, Germany and France. But 
our efforts also rely heavily on Russia and China, partners that have 
at times seen this issue very differently. It is critical that we 
maintain a consistent and reasoned approach towards Iran that will help 
us maintain this network of partners.
  As we wind down two wars in the region, it is urgent that we make the 
most of our extensive diplomatic efforts and the platform of stringent 
sanctions the world community has imposed on Iran. We must capitalize 
on the opportunity presented by the Baghdad talks. This resolution is 
inconsistent with that aim.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H. Res. 
568. It is imperative that the United States takes necessary steps to 
ensure that Iran is unable to acquire the capability to produce nuclear 
weapons.
  The United States and all our allies must respond to this threat 
immediately. The stability of the entire Middle East region hangs in 
the balance as Iran seeks this technology. Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad has openly threatened both the United States and Israel in 
the recent past and as a result, swift and harsh sanctions must be put 
in place against the Iranian regime.
  The United States' security and interests are clearly in danger. 
Satellite intelligence provides us with enough information to 
confidently assess that Tehran is concealing their true actions. 
International inspectors have been denied entry into the facilities, a 
troublesome act if there is nothing to hide. The containment and 
appeasement of Iran must not be considered. Instituting aggressive 
sanctions against this radical regime is a prudent and necessary course 
of action.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my vote in favor of 
H. Res. 568.
  I would like to clarify that nothing in this resolution authorizes or 
empowers military action by the United States or U.S. encouragement of 
the use of force by any other country at this time. I have long made 
plain my conviction that all options should be available with respect 
to the Iranian nuclear program. I do not believe the military option 
should be taken off the table for future discussion at a future time. 
However, this is not an appropriate time to seriously consider or even 
to hint at military strikes. Most informed observers believe sanctions 
are heavily affecting the Iranian regime and may be moving it to 
recognize that the international community is united in opposition to 
its nuclear project. This is not the moment to loosen the screws, nor 
is it the moment for cheap bellicosity. Issues of peace and war should 
not be exploited for political advantage.
  I vote yes despite these concerns. I regret that the leadership of 
this House has chosen this moment to make an unnecessary and untimely 
political statement. I believe this is profoundly ill timed and 
injudicious. I call upon the House leadership to stop holding such 
unhelpful votes at politically charged moments. This resolution 
heightens the rhetoric in a way that is at best unhelpful to ongoing, 
promising diplomatic efforts and may be actively damaging.
  In addition, I note that the inclusion of language regarding Iran's 
``nuclear weapons capability'' is overly broad and undefined. When 
considering such weighty issues, clarity is of the utmost importance, 
and Congress should be precise in what we are asking for in this 
resolution so that we may avoid misinterpretation.
  Finally, I point out that the last resolve clause, which ``urges the 
President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-
weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on 
containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat,'' 
is unnecessary and insulting. President Obama has always been clear, 
forceful, and mature when dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. It 
is evident that this clause is a political statement meant to score 
points during a political season.
  Nonetheless, with these concerns I am required to vote. Though I 
considered answering present, I want to be clear about my strong stance 
on this issue. I do believe that a nuclear armed Iran would pose a 
danger to the peace of the region and the world. So, today I vote in 
favor of H. Res. 568, with the clear concerns I have stated.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 568, a resolution 
``expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a 
nuclear weapons capability.''
  Once again we see on the ``suspension'' calendar, which is 
customarily reserved for non-controversial legislation, a resolution 
designed to move the U.S. toward a military conflict with Iran. Sadly, 
it has become non-controversial for Congress to call for U.S. attacks 
on foreign countries that have neither attacked nor threatened the 
United States.
  We should not fool ourselves about the timing of this legislation. 
Next week, high-level talks between Iran and the five permanent U.N. 
Security Council members plus Germany, P5+1, will resume. Those who 
seek U.S. military action against Iran must fear that successful 
diplomacy will undermine their calls for war.
  Disturbingly, some of my colleagues have suggested this resolution 
can be read as a form of ersatz Congressional approval for the use of 
military force against Iran.
  The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has the authority to 
monitor the Iranian nuclear program to determine whether nuclear 
material is being diverted from civilian to military uses. The IAEA has 
never reported an Iranian violation. This legislation attempts to scare 
us into believing otherwise, but that fact remains. And the U.S. 
Intelligence Community agrees with IAEA conclusions on this matter.

[[Page 6781]]

  The most dangerous aspect of H. Res. 568 is that it dramatically 
lowers the threshold for conflict with Iran by replacing the 
prohibition against acquiring nuclear weapons to a prohibition against 
a ``capability'' to develop nuclear weapons.
  However, as former senior Bush administration official, Flynt 
Leverett, has stated:

       Iranian efforts to develop a ``nuclear weapons 
     capability''.  .  . may make American and Israeli elites 
     uncomfortable. But it is not a violation of the NPT. .  .  . 
     While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear-weapon states from 
     building atomic bombs, developing a nuclear weapons 
     capability is, [allowed] under the NPT . . . It is certainly 
     not a justification--strategically, legally, or morally--for 
     armed aggression against Iran.

  But this resolution states that the House ``rejects any United States 
policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable 
Iran.'' That makes it very clear that the intent of the House is to 
authorize force against Iran not if it acquires a nuclear weapon, but 
if it has a ``capability'' to acquire them some time in the future. The 
term ``capability'' is left undefined, of course, leaving it open to 
very broad interpretations by this and future administrations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly dangerous legislation. I urge my 
colleagues in the strongest manner to reject this stealth authorization 
for war on Iran.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 568, a 
resolution emphasizing the importance of preventing the Government of 
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have long held that the United 
States should make every effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear 
weapon and this resolution is consistent with that belief. Allowing 
them to do so would needlessly create instability in the region, 
potentially spark a nuclear arms race, and would threaten our ally 
Israel. As someone who has consistently defended the security of 
Israel, such an outcome would be unacceptable.
  I applaud President Obama for taking a strong and decisive stand on 
this important issue. H. Res 568 recognizes the President's March 31, 
2010 statement that the ``consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are 
unacceptable,'' and I wholeheartedly agree. That being said, we should 
give diplomacy and tough economic sanctions every chance to succeed in 
dealing with Iran. As I have said in the past, the consequences of 
rushing to war are grave and should be made with all due consideration. 
I have high hopes for the talks that the international community is 
holding with Iran at the end of the month, and look forward to seeing 
the result. The whole world is indeed watching.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H. Res. 568 to 
commend Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for crafting 
this bi-partisan resolution and to urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  As President Obama has made clear, it is unacceptable for Iran to 
develop a nuclear weapon. The U.N. Security Council has passed numerous 
resolutions demanding that Iran comply with the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty and suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. 
The IAEA has repeatedly found Iran to be in violation of the U.N. 
resolutions.
  A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the State of 
Israel, a country the President of Iran has stated should ``be wiped 
off the map.'' A nuclear Iran would also trigger a nuclear-arms race in 
the Middle East that would further destabilize an already volatile 
region. It is in the national security interests of the United States 
to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
  The economic sanctions imposed on Iran have succeeded in bringing the 
Iranians to the negotiating table in Istanbul. It remains to be seen 
whether the Iranians are simply engaged in stall-tactics or are willing 
to end their effort to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. I know 
the Obama Administration will insist on a verifiable agreement when 
talks resume later this month. This resolution should send a strong 
signal to the Iranian regime that Congress stands with President Obama 
on this critical matter.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 568, 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a 
nuclear weapons capability. I reluctantly missed this vote due to a 
longstanding commitment to give the commencement address at Passaic 
County Community College, in my district, but had I been present, I 
would have voted AYE.
  I am a proud to co-sponsor this legislation. It is completely 
unacceptable to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and the 
government of Iran has isolated itself from the community of nations 
because of its refusal to negotiate or suspend its program. I have long 
supported strong sanctions on the Iranian regime to pressure them to 
abandon their nuclear program.
  A nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel, our 
greatest ally in the Middle East. I have always been a strong supporter 
of Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and I believe that the 
nation of Israel truly shares the ideals of freedom and democracy with 
the United States. Additionally, as a state sponsor of terror, the 
possibility that Iranian nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong 
hands is all too real. This would greatly increase the chance that a 
nuclear weapon could be detonated anywhere in the world. For these 
reasons, we simply cannot afford to contain a nuclear armed Iran.
  I commend the House of Representatives for passing this legislation 
by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, which demonstrates the 
incredible level of support in the United States Congress and among the 
American people for protecting Israel and preventing Iran from 
obtaining nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons capability.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly 
passed H. Res. 568, a resolution expressing a sense of the House 
regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from 
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite agreeing with the 
overall intent of the resolution, I was compelled to vote ``present'' 
due to concerns about how the resolution was drafted.
  I wholeheartedly believe that stopping the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons is necessary to ensure the peaceful security of our Nation, and 
the world. Accordingly, I am gravely concerned about the prospect of a 
nuclear weapon-armed Government of Iran, which has vehemently 
antagonized its regional neighbors, particularly our ally Israel. H. 
Res. 568 expresses this concern and supports a permanent agreement with 
Iran that assures its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. I also 
agree with the support expressed in H. Res. 568 for the universal 
rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, many of whom 
have suffered greatly in pursuit of these noble causes.
  Unfortunately, H. Res. 568 employs dangerously ambiguous language 
when reframing U.S. policy to prevent this potential nuclear weapon 
threat. The resolution references nuclear weapons ``capability'' as a 
new basis for U.S. policy. A loose interpretation of the undefined 
``capability'' term, combined with the resolution's strong rejection of 
any policy--U.S. or otherwise--that does not prevent a nuclear weapons-
capable Iran, can easily accelerate the rhetoric for military action 
against Iran. Furthermore, the resolution's policy restrictions can 
only hinder the upcoming P5+1 negotiations with Iran. For these 
reasons, I voted ``present'' on H. Res. 568.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 568, 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.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________