Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, but with great reservations that this weak legislation will send a message to our enemies of a weakened U.S. position on the issue of Iran.

The Iranian threat to the United States, to our allies and to our interests could not be more apparent. Only last week the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Iran is probably carrying out secret nuclear activities. Then last Saturday the lead inspector for the Middle East shared with member nations of the IAEA extensive documentation of an Iranian effort to reconfigure the Shahab- 3 long-range missile to carry a nuclear warhead. The range of these missiles reach Israel and most of the Middle East.

And this is a regime whose current leader, Ahmadinejad, has consistently called for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

On October 26, 2005, at the World Without Zionism Conference in Tehran, the Iranian leader called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' Then on December 12, 2006, he addressed a conference in Tehran questioning the historical veracity of the Holocaust and said that Israel, again, would ``soon be wiped out.''

On Israel's 60th birthday, Ahmadinejad gave a speech in which, according to the official Iranian news agency, he stated that Israel was ``on its way to total destruction.''

In a public address which aired on the Iranian news channel on June 2 of this year, Ahmadinejad again called this ``worm of corruption'' in reference to Israel, to be wiped off. He further stated that while ``some say the ideal of Greater Israel has expired, I say the idea of lesser Israel has expired too.'' And earlier this week at the United Nations, he continued to invoke anti-Israel and anti-Semitic canards when he stated ``the dignity, integrity and rights of the European and American people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people call Zionists. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and the occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.''

But the threat is not just to our friend Israel. Iran is currently working on even longer-range missiles directly threatening critical U.S. interests. The importance and the urgency of strengthened sanctions was underlined just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, when the European Union warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear weapons capability. The significance stems from the fact that the European Union has long insisted that the West and other countries focus their efforts on diplomacy to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program.

This is an acknowledgment that a strategy based on holding out an olive branch and engaging directly with the Iranian regime, while promising trade agreements and other benefits, has not worked and that more concrete economic pressure is needed to compel a change in regimes' behavior. Thus the evidence before us makes it clear that we must act quickly to impose the greatest pressure possible on the regime and its enablers.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do quite that, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues, you all know where I stand on Iran. Last Congress I authored the Iran Freedom Support Act which contained very tough and quite focused sanctions on the regime in Tehran. Our beloved late former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, was the lead Democrat cosponsor, and the bill enjoyed the support of our current chairman, Howard Berman, my good friend, and 360 Members of the House.

The Iran Freedom Support Act was enacted into law 2 years ago almost to the day on September 30. Then when Chairman Lantos approached me last year and asked that I serve as the lead Republican cosponsor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, I immediately agreed because H.R. 1400 truly does strengthen U.S. law and does tighten the economic noose around the regime's elites in Iran.

H.R. 1400 passed the House a year ago yesterday, September 25, 2007, by a vote of 397 in favor and only 16 against. Yet it has been stalled in the Senate all this time. Then we have Senate bill 970 which currently has the support of 73 Senators. However, action on these stronger bills was not to be. Instead, we have a bill which refers to certain sanctions already in place, and they call them ``new'' sanctions, and then refers to a handful of other important ones while providing a meager ``national interest waiver.''

What does this mean in practice, Mr. Speaker? The next President doesn't have to worry about actually implementing or applying these sanctions, as a ``national interest waiver'' has been easily justified by consecutive administrations to avoid implementing U.S. laws concerning state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran.

So rather than strengthening the sanctions structure, rather than limiting the President's flexibility, as we did 2 years ago in the Iran Freedom Support Act on proliferation-related sanctions by removing the waiver and on the Iran Sanctions Act by raising the threshold to ``vital to the national security interests of the United States,'' the bill before us provides the weakest possible threshold.

I do not fault my good friend, Chairman Berman. I commend the chairman for his efforts. He is in a difficult situation, and this is as strong a bill as some of his colleagues will allow the House or the Senate to act on.

This bill is like one of the weak Iran resolutions that the United Nations Security Council keeps passing that allows Russia and China and others to go along with because they do nothing. In fact, just today, the U.N. Security Council moved a measure that contained no new sanctions but said that other Security Council resolutions on Iran are legally binding and must be carried out. That is almost exactly what the bill before us is going to do on the issue of sanctions.

Again, I do not understand why, at a time when the Iranian regime is crystal clear in accelerating its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, that we are not considering the Lantos Iran Counter-Proliferation Act or Senate bill 970.

Notably, this body has not even considered the Ackerman-Pence resolution, which has 275 cosponsors and is a strong, unequivocal message to the regime.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite the many deficiencies of this bill, I want to thank my friend, Chairman Berman, for adding a Rule of Construction to his version of the Dodd bill which states, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in any way any provision of the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006, Public Law 109-293.''

Since the legislation retains a ``notwithstanding'' clause for section 103, I hope that the Rule of Construction will be sufficient to prevent the unraveling

of sanctions codified 2 years ago. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, portions of section 104 are essentially a repetition of current law as section 2(f) of the Executive Order 13059 codified.

In this respect, Chairman Berman, I would appreciate or his substitute, Mr. Ackerman, clarification that the waiver in section 104 would not apply to sanctions already in place, even if these have been restated in the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the reporting requirements have been strengthened with respect to investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year. However, I ask to add language to the bill before us that would amend current law and force a determination on whether foreign investments in Iran's energy sector violate the Iran Sanctions Act and whether sanctions should be implemented. My proposal was not limited to the last 9 months of activity or to simply reporting requirements. But this modification was not incorporated in the text that we are considering today.

Looking to other sections of this House version of the Dodd bill, there are provisions seeking to prevent the export or trans-shipment of U.S.-origin goods to Iran. Except for the language calling for the designation of a country as a Destination of Possible Diversion Concern, this bill duplicates most existing laws and regulations on these issues, as well as current U.S. Government programs. It does provide for the application of licensing controls to the countries designated, but immediately affords yet another mere ``national interest waiver.''

There are also stronger bills pending on the issue of trans-shipment, such as H.R. 6178, the Security Through Termination of Proliferation Act, or the STOP Act. And I hope that we can work together to move that legislation in the next Congress.

My good friend, Howard Berman, shares with me concerns about trans- shipment and diversion of sensitive materials and technology to Iran. We articulated them in our letter of February 5, 2008, a letter to Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, raising these and many other vital issues.

Mr. Speaker, also on this issue I recently wrote to my chairman, Howard Berman, asking for greater scrutiny of foreign military financing, foreign military sales and direct commercial sales to countries that are a trans-shipment concern for U.S.-origin goods to Iran.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, despite my grave, serious and repeated reservations about this weak bill, I will vote for it, and I hope that the Iranian regime and its enablers do not see this as a sign of weakness on our part.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2008.

Hon. J. Michael McConnell,

Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of

National Intelligence, Washington, DC.

Dear Admiral McConnell: We are writing to request an

assessment of the export control regime in the United Arab

Emirates (UAE), especially its effectiveness in preventing

the export or transshipment of U.S.-origin goods to Iran. We

are also interested in receiving information regarding

broader efforts to implement U.S. sanctions against Iran.

As you are aware, Iran is the one of the UAE's largest

trade partners. The UAE is also a world leader in the

transshipments of goods from other countries, including the

United States. We are concerned by reports that the

international sanctions against Iran are being undermined by

inadequate end-use controls in the UAE. Obviously, an

effective export, re-export, and transshipment control regime

in the UAE is a prerequisite to that country's ability to

control transshipment of sensitive goods through its ports.

To enable the House Foreign Affairs Committee to better

understand this issue, we request that you provide an

assessment of the effectiveness of the UAE's existing export

control regime and a translated copy of the DAE's new export

control legislation. Among other subjects, the assessment

should address overall effectiveness, obstacles to

implementation, the extent to which the UAE has complied with

U.S. requests to interdict and prevent shipments of concern,

and the attitudes and records of specific UAE officials

toward preventing exports or transshipments of items of

proliferation concern to Iran or Iranian-controlled entities.

Additionally, we request that you provide the following

information pertaining to broader U.S. efforts: the amount of

goods seized, penalties imposed, and convictions obtained by

U.S. authorities under the trade ban; the type and amount of

U.S. sensitive items diverted to Iran through all

transshipment points; the extent to which all repeat

violators of U.S. Iran-specific sanctions laws have ended

their sales of sensitive items to Iran; the total amount of

assets frozen due to financial sanctions implemented by both

the United States and other nations; and the total impact of

U.S. bilateral sanctions on foreign investment in Iran's

energy sector.

This assessment may be in classified form.

Thank you for your attention to our request.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Edward R. Royce,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation

and Trade.

Mike Pence,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South

Asia.

Tom Lantos,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Howard L. Berman,

Senior Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to point out that the reports that we are getting about the threat of a nuclear-powered Iran are coming from all corners of the world, and I would like to read just segments of the online edition of The Jerusalem Post posted by Herb Keinon. It says, ``Military Intelligence: Iran Halfway to First Nuclear Bomb.'' It reads, ``Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm.''

This is according to the Head of Research from the Israeli Military Intelligence, and that is the information that he gave and he shared with members of the Israeli Cabinet and the Israeli Parliament on September 21st, in the Knesset. He said there was a growing gap between Iran's progress on the nuclear front and the determination of the West to stop it. A growing gap. Iran gets closer, our determination is stopped. Iran is concentrating on uranium enrichment and is making progress.

He noted that they have improved the function of their 4,000 centrifuges. According to this military intelligence head of research, Iranian centrifuges have so far produced between one-third to one-half of the enriched material that is needed to build a nuclear bomb. The time that they will have crossed the nuclear point of no return is fast approaching.

Although he stopped short of giving a firm deadline, last week in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, he put the date at 2011. Tick tock, the clock is ticking. He said that their confidence is growing with the thought that the international community is not strong enough to stop them. He said that the Iranians were playing for time and that time was working in their favor because the longer the process dragged on, the wider the riffs appearing among the countries in the west, then Iran is in control of the technology and continues to move forward with determination toward a nuclear bomb.

In addition to their nuclear efforts, Iranians were also deepening their influence throughout the region, because they are cooperating with Syria. They are cooperating with the Palestinian terrorist organization, as well as being the main arms supplier to another terrorist group, Hezbollah.

While I appreciate the intentions of my good friend, Chairman Berman, this bill does fall far short of the type of comprehensive sanctions that would truly cripple the Iranian economy, which is dependent on investments in its energy sector. Setting aside the weakness of the bill regarding the U.S. direct sanctions on the regime, it does nothing tangible to force the executive branch's hand to fully implement the Iran Sanctions Act.

It could have, but language to include an automatic trigger for a determination of sanctions was not in place in this bill, and it was not to be. This bill had great promise. It does deliver on some of those promises. I wish that it could have gone further, but I hope that my colleagues will adopt this important bill tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the legislative process, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if there is one message that was abundantly clear based on the results of last year's election results, it was that the American people want us to end the culture of corruption that has enveloped the legislative process.

For far too long, Americans have seen business as usual where time and time again special interests trump the public interest.

So we've heard that message loud and clear. For the past several months, the House and the Senate have diligently worked together to fuse a legislative response that combines the best of the measures passed by both Houses earlier this year.

The measure that we consider today will go a long way toward bringing back accountability to the Congress and to restoring the trust of the American people in their government. S. 1 accomplishes these critical goals in four ways.

First, S. 1 puts an end to the K Street Project, an insidious effort that employed threats and intimidation to control the legislative process. S. 1 ensures that such efforts will no longer be permitted. It specifically prohibits Members and senior staff from influencing hiring decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain.

Second, S. 1 shines a disinfecting spotlight on lobbying activities by mandating full and enhanced public disclosure on these activities. Pursuant to this measure, lobbyists will have to file reports on their lobbying activities twice as often each year. They will be required to disclose their contacts with Congress. They must certify that they did not give a gift or pay for travel in violation of the rules and, for the first time, file these reports electronically in a public, searchable database so that anyone can review them.

Third, S. 1 closes loopholes in the current law that have been exploited to avoid the clear intent of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It does this by mandating the disclosure of contributions in excess of $5,000 by businesses or organizations that actively lobby through certain coalitions and associations. And, it also requires the disclosure of the past executive and congressional employment of registered lobbyists.

Importantly, S. 1 prohibits a Member's spouse who becomes a lobbyist after the Member's election from making direct lobbying contacts to the Member or the Member's office.

In addition, the bill addresses the process by which political contributions are bundled by campaign committees. It requires each committee to disclose to the Federal Election Commission, on a semiannual basis, specified information for each currently registered lobbyist who has either forwarded or been credited for raising contributions totaling at least $15,000 during the reporting period.

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, S. 1 puts real teeth into enforcement. It increases the penalties for violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act to deter and punish corrupt activity. It substantially increases civil penalties from the current level of $50,000, to four times as much, to $200,000 and provides for the imposition of criminal penalties of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt violations of the Act.

These are some of the major reforms that S. 1 offers. This bill recognizes the importance of lobbying to responsive and effective congressional and executive decision-making. And these reforms will help strengthen the sound foundation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and go a long way toward restoring the trust of the American people in our system of government.

I want to respectfully point out the contributions from the other side, particularly the ranking member of Judiciary, Lamar Smith, in this endeavor, and so I urge my colleagues all to join me in supporting the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague for his examination of the bill. We've worked on this bill together. I think we're in support of it, and I hope to enjoy the gentleman's continued success and cooperation in the matter.

It's very important that we understand that we are ending the pay-to- play K Street Project which, under this bill before us, now prohibits Members and their staff from influencing hiring decisions of private organizations on the sole basis of partisan political gain.

It subjects those who violate this provision to a fine and imprisonment of up to 15 years.

We prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts or travel to Members of Congress who have knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of the Senate or the House rules.

We require now lobbyist disclosure filings to be filed twice as often by decreasing the time from filing from semiannually to quarterly.

We require lobbyist disclosures in both the Senate and the House to be filed electronically and creates a public and searchable Internet database of such information.

We increase civil penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Lobby Disclosure Act. We increase them by four times as much, from $50,000 to $200,000, and imposes a criminal penalty up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to comply with the Act.

We require the GAO to audit annually lobbyists' compliance with these disclosure rules and, further, require lobbyists to certify that they've not been given gifts or travel that would violate either Senate or House rules.

We require the disclosure of businesses or organizations that contribute in excess of $5,000 and actively participate in lobbying activities by certain coalitions and associations.

We're requiring disclosure to the Federal Election Commission when lobbyists bundle over $15,000 semiannually in campaign contributions for any federally elected official, including the Senate, the House or presidential, or leadership PACs.

We require lobbyists to disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and the House Clerk their campaign contributions and payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees or entities controlled by the name for or honoring Members of Congress.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an extremely difficult and new way of controlling lobby operations. I think we are restoring the trust of the American people and our system of government, and I think we are living up to the title of this measure, honest leadership and open government.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Steny Hoyer, from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Georgia, and of course the ranking member, for pointing out additional refinements that we must continue to concern ourselves with. The Lobbying and Ethics Reform bill is not over with with today's work. Our job continues, and I will be looking forward for these constructive comments that they will be bringing to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a letter from the Campaign Legal Center and others that support this legislation, and I would like you to know that the organizations' authors that signed this are among the most watchful and effective critics of the subject of ethics and lobbying that we have in the country.

The letter was signed by the U.S. PIRG, the Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, all who have said that:

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the lobbying and ethics reform legislation when it is considered by the House on the Suspension Calendar.

The legislation being presented to the House constitutes landmark reform of the Nation's lobbying disclosure laws and landmark reform of the Senate ethics rules. It is designed to help address the worst congressional corruption scandals in 30 years that were revealed during the last Congress.

Under the legislation, for the first time citizens will be provided with a wealth of information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists and lobbyist organizations provide financial support to assist Members. For the first time, candidate campaign committees, leadership PACs, and political party committees will be required to disclose the bundled contributions raised for them by lobbyists and lobbying organizations. The legislation also includes fundamental reforms of the Senate ethics rules very similar to the landmark House ethic reforms adopted at the beginning of the year.

July 30, 2007.

Re Vote for the lobbying and ethics reform bill.

Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to

vote for the lobbying and ethics reform legislation when it

is considered by the House on the suspension calendar.

The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, Common

Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public

Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The legislation being presented to the House constitutes

landmark reform of the nation's lobbying disclosure laws and

landmark reform of the Senate ethics rules. It is designed to

help address the worst congressional corruption scandals in

30 years that were revealed during the last Congress.

Under the legislation, for the first time citizens will be

provided with a wealth of information about the multiple ways

in which lobbyists and lobbying organizations provide

financial support to assist Members. For the first time,

candidate campaign committees, leadership PACs and political

party committees will be required to disclose the ``bundled''

contributions raised for them by lobbyists and lobbying

organizations.

The legislation also includes fundamental reforms of the

Senate ethics rules very similar to the landmark House ethics

reforms adopted at the beginning of the year.

The process being used in the House to vote on this

legislation is the result of a Republican Senator, Jim DeMint

(R-SC), blocking the House and Senate from going to

conference on the lobbying and ethics reforms and bringing a

conference report to the House and Senate floors for an up-

or-down vote. There is absolutely no basis for a House member

to vote against this legislation on process or substance

grounds.

A vote against this legislation is a vote against landmark

lobbying and ethics reforms.

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the

lobbying and ethics legislation when it comes to the House

floor for a vote.

Campaign Legal Center.

Common Cause.

Democracy 21.

League of Women Voters.

Public Citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise only to advise my colleague that starting at page 51 on our bill, we have so many felonies that are listed that they run for three pages. And I don't have the time to go through them today, but some of them are the ones that the gentleman mentioned.

I don't see it here.

The answer is, it is not included in here.

But every other one is. So I just wanted to refer the distinguished gentleman to the numbers of pages of felonies that are included in here, and I thank him for the one that concerns him mostly.

I am going to conclude my remarks by thanking all of my colleagues who have put time in on this matter. I want to thank the ranking member and the leadership on both sides of the aisle.

We have a major accomplishment on our hands. What we need to do is to continue to follow through on implementing and improving anything in this measure that anybody would like to bring to our attention. But what we are doing is finally ending the cynical business as usual environment where big business and special interests dominate the legislative process to the detriment of the public interests. That is what all of these months and continuing wrangling and what our good government groups have been looking at and criticizing us for far too frequently is now being corrected.

This is a measure that every Member in the Congress can be proud of and support fully. A vote for this measure is a vote to end the culture of corruption. The time for S. 1 is now, and I accordingly urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1400) to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address the United Nations General Assembly in just a couple of hours, the latest step in his campaign to remove all obstacles to Tehran's headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. We, in turn, must resolve to use every available peaceful means, economic, political, and diplomatic, to put a stop to that deadly, dangerous pursuit.

Peaceful persuasion in this instance will require a lot of leverage. Strong international sanctions must be imposed against the regime in Tehran, biting sanctions that will bring about a change in policy.

Ideally, Mr. Speaker, such measures would be undertaken through the United Nations. But if China and Russia continue to block effective U.N. sanctions against Iran, the United States must move ahead in the company of as many other like-minded nations as possible. And if multilateral sanctions are not in the offing, the United States needs to be prepared to tighten and to fully enforce our own sanctions without any exceptions.

Current law imposes sanctions in the U.S. market on any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in the Iranian energy sector. But the law lets the executive branch, at its sole discretion, waive those sanctions. And for years, Mr. Speaker, administrations of both parties have done so without fail.

Since 1999, giant companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total, Italy's ENI, and Inpex of Japan have invested over $100 billion, over $100 billion, in the Iranian energy industry, and the United States has done nothing to stop them.

If we wish to impose serious and biting sanctions on Iran, effective measures that will change the behavior of the regime in Tehran, it is clear what we must do. We must take away the power from the administration to waive sanctions we pass.

Two days ago on 60 Minutes, the President of Iran had this to say about the issue of nuclear weapons: ``We don't need a nuclear bomb . . . In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union.''

I wish that we could take Ahmadinejad at his word, but we obviously cannot. This is the same man who yesterday said, ``Our people are the freest in the world'' and ``there are no homosexuals in Iran.'' We are all aware of the many other absurd and irrational statements that have emanated from Tehran since this man took power.

But there is one arena in which I agree with Ahmadinejad: when he says his country has the same right as every other country to use civilian nuclear power. Every country has that right. But if they all decide to get there by mastering the full nuclear fuel cycle, then the door will be wide open to an unprecedented global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

That is why earlier the House passed my legislation to authorize the creation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every country, including Iran, can draw from that bank the nuclear fuel necessary for the production of civilian nuclear energy under strict IAEA safeguards, but no nation will be able to divert nuclear materials for military purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency supports my approach, as do all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including our own administration.

One would think that the decision makers in Tehran would look upon this idea of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank as an elegant way to get Iran out of a difficult, unproductive, and singularly isolated situation. I hope that they will take this road and they will use this opportunity to move away from their current isolation in the international community.

And I hope as well that the administration will see its way clear to opening up serious and continuing dialogue with Iran. When I hear it said that it is somehow wrong to talk with Iran, I think back to the days when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States. Surely, the Soviets then were a great deal more dangerous to us than the Iranian leadership is today, and yet we talked with them daily. We maintained a very active diplomacy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. We were engaged in trade, travel, and cultural exchanges of many types.

Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in hoping that relations with Iran can and will be improved. But as long as irrationality prevails in Tehran, we must be prepared to employ all peaceful means at our disposal to ensure that the regime renounces its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran today faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick. It is my hope that they will take the carrot, but today we are putting the stick in place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Ackerman of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Sherman of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Texas for raising this issue. The Nunn-Lugar program is one of the most valuable international pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War. It has gone a long ways in preventing nuclear materials falling into dangerous hands. It is imperative that the Russian Federation work together with the international community to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. I very much look forward to working with my friend from Texas to ensure that that goal and the nonproliferation goals are fully met in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I submit a series of letters from other committees that have jurisdiction over parts of this legislation.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.

Hon. Tom Lantos,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 1400--``to

enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran

by imposing economic sanctions against Iran, and for other

purposes''--which was reported by the House Foreign Affairs

Committee on August 2, 2007.

As you know, the Committee on Ways & Means has jurisdiction

over import matters. Accordingly, certain provisions of H.R.

1400 fall under the Committee's jurisdiction.

There have been some productive conversations between the

staffs of our committees, during which we have proposed some

changes to H.R. 1400 that I believe I help clarify the intent

and scope of the measure. My understanding is that there is

an agreement with regard to these changes. Modifications were

made to section 202, relating to additional import sanctions

against Iran, and section 406, relating to certain tax

incentives, was removed. In addition, provisions were

included in section 201 and a new section 307 was added to

H.R. 1400 to clarify that other provisions of the Act did not

affect the President's authority under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, particularly as such authority

relates to measures restricting imports.

To expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the

Committee will forgo action on this bill and will not oppose

its consideration on the suspension calendar. This is done

with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this, or

similar legislation, in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with respect to H.R. 1400, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2347) to authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at Natans, the centrifuges are turning. Iran is perhaps half a decade away from a nuclear weapon. Iran, however, is not without its Achilles heels. The mullahs have mismanaged the economy to the point where they are rationing gasoline in Tehran. Iran has a vibrant political culture in which the behavior of the elites and the behavior of the people can indeed be influenced by outside information. The key is to be able to broadcast into Iran on RadioFarda a message. That message is that Iran will be diplomatically and economically isolated around the world, and especially from the United States, unless it drops its nuclear weapons program. The problem is, I can't lie that well in Farsi. The fact is we have not yet begun to use the economic and diplomatic levers available to the United States. And it is not yet true that Iran's nuclear program subjects it to the possibility of economic and diplomatic isolation.

The bad news, Mr. Speaker, is that we have not had the political will to reach into our economic and diplomatic tool box. The good news is we've still got a lot of tools lying there in the tool box. One of the best is divestiture. Divestiture needs to be part of a bigger economic and diplomatic strategy to isolate the government in Tehran. If we can dry up, however, Iran's access to foreign investment, if we can sever the ties between the multinational corporations and the government of Iran, we may be able to increase the cost of Iran's behavior and put enough pressure on that regime so either it decides, or its people insist, that it abandon its nuclear program.

Now, the key is to change the behavior of these multinational corporations, and the best way to do that is with American policies that make them choose between the benefits of doing business with the American people, American investors on the one hand, and the so-called benefits they might get from doing business with Tehran on the other.

So what does this bill do to begin and continue the divestment process? The bill mandates nothing except for the creation of a list by the administration, which I will get to in just a second. It provides a clear authorization from Congress for States to divest from companies conducting the certain identified activities in Iran, and it would shield both private pension plan managers, mutual funds and public sector pension plan managers from harassing lawsuits should they decide on their

own initiative to divest from those companies carrying out certain activities in Iran. In doing so, this bill sweeps away an excuse from those investment managers who, up until now, haven't wanted to be bothered to divest, even though their beneficiaries are demanding it.

This bill also provides some standards. I mentioned this in the discussion of the Sudan bill. First, people want to know what activities should cause them to divest. Now, I have more than sympathy with those who say one penny of activity, sell one candy bar in Tehran and I don't want my money invested in your company. That's a purist approach. That's an approach some may choose to take. I think the better harnessing of America's economic power and the power of individual investors, individual decisionmakers, pension plans, mutual funds, et cetera, is to focus on three activities, and that is what this bill does.

It requires that 6 months after enactment, the U.S. Government, the administration, probably the Treasury Department but whichever department is identified by the President, produce a list of those international corporations that engage in any one of these three activities. The first is to invest $20 million in the energy sector of Iran. That is a standard we have adhered to for a long time since the adoption of what was then called the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, now the Iran Sanctions Act.

The second are those firms selling munitions to the government in Tehran. And the third are those who extend credit of $20 million or more to the Iranian Government.

And at this point, let me pause, because the question arises, what is it to extend credit to the Iranian Government when the Iranian Government issues a long-term bond?

Is it just the company that buys the bond or the financial institution that buys the bond, or is it directly from the Iranian Government, or is it those that provide a secondary market by buying those bonds from the original purchaser?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman and agree with him completely. This bill is designed to cause the list prepared by the administration to include those who invest in bonds issued by the Government of Iran.

I should point out that in identifying the three activities that are going to cause multinational corporations to be listed, that we are paralleling what we did just last week when this Congress passed the bill dealing with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which also focused on pretty much the same standards and said those multinational corporations engaged in those activities with the Government of Iran would not be able to be partners of OPIC in its activities around the world.

Now, the bill also provides that any State statute enacted prior to the publication of the first list of firms by the administration would be grandfathered. States do not have to wait and should not wait for the publication of this list by the administration.

States such as Florida, Ohio and California, which are proceeding with divestment measures, and any other States which might consider a divestment program need not wait for the Federal list, and whatever they choose to do will be grandfathered in this legislation.

Now, this bill states explicitly what I think was clearly true of both the Sudan bill we just discussed and this bill, and that is it provides a safe harbor but does not imply that that which lies outside the safe harbor is somehow forbidden. Section 7 of this bill would make it clear that the authorization that's been provided by this bill is just that, a safe harbor, that this bill in no way implicitly restricts or takes away whatever authorities the States, the pension managers and mutual funds already have

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I thank the gentleman and agree with him completely.

I believe that divestment is already clearly authorized in the terms of the fiduciary trying to meet their fiduciary obligation. Investing in terror is bad business for States. I don't think they have an obligation to, in making their own investment policy, to conform to some Federal foreign policy. But if they do, Federal foreign policy for a long time has been very clear: don't invest in Iran. That's why we've had the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, now the Iran Sanctions Act for quite some time.

So this bill will eliminate an excuse for those who do not want to, that have not yet, divested. It will provide a safe harbor, and it will provide guidance for those who want to use their investments to get multinational corporations to take the actions that will be most effective.

It provides a list of companies not to invest in, and it provides a standard to define what particularly it is we want the business community worldwide to desist from doing.

I'll yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7112) to impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, and to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, to me, is one of the great national security challenges of our age. A nuclear- armed, fundamentalist Iran would become the dominant power in its region. The global nonproliferation regime would crumble. Already today we know that many of Iran's neighbors are contemplating their own nuclear programs. And can anyone be sure that Iran, with a leader who speaks like he speaks now, would not resort to either the use of nuclear weapons or to the handoff of those weapons to terrorist organizations?

The sanctions that the United States and the international community have thus far placed on Iran have squeezed Iran's economy somewhat, but clearly not enough to slow down its nuclear program. The present strategy is not working. I'm disappointed--and I believe the Iranian regime is surely heartened--by the failure of the administration's program to produce the kinds of results we need regarding Iran's nuclear program.

We need to make our foreign policy priorities clear. And Iran must be at the very top of the agenda in all our dealings with other countries. Sanctions will never work unless we have buy-in and support from other key countries. And if the process of achieving that buy-in requires us to engage directly with Iran, that is certainly something we should do.

Two months ago, the Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany offered Iran all kinds of generous incentives to persuade it to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Just for the sake of initiating further talks on this package, they offered what they called a ``freeze-for-freeze,'' meaning we will agree not to pursue further sanctions for 6 weeks and Iran agrees not to increase the number of its centrifuges. But these offers weren't good enough for Iran, which responded only with a noncommittal letter.

If Iran won't change its behavior as a result of the sanctions the international community has already imposed, and if it won't change its behavior as a result of the generous incentives package offered in Geneva, then we should be pursuing tougher and more meaningful sanctions.

The legislation before us won't put an end to Iran's nuclear program, but it may help to slow it down. It will send a strong signal to Tehran that the U.S. Congress views this matter with urgency. And it will send a message to companies and countries that invest or consider investing in Iran's energy sector.

This bill before us contains a somewhat diluted version of two measures put together in the other body that had previously been passed by the House by votes of 397-16 and 408-6.

This legislation would codify and expand export and import bans on goods to and from Iran. It would freeze assets in the U.S. held by Iranians closely tied to the regime. It would render sanctionable a U.S. parent company if that parent company uses a foreign subsidiary to circumvent sanctions. It expands the Iran Sanctions Act to

cover not only oil and all natural gas but related industries. It authorizes State and local governments in the United States to divest from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. It increases U.S. export controls on countries that are directly involved in trans-shipment or illegal diversion of sensitive technologies to Iran. And it requires the administration to report all foreign investments of $20 million or more made in Iran's energy sector, an action which they have not done notwithstanding the existing law, and determining whether each such investment qualifies as sanctionable.

Since 1996, the executive branch has never implemented the sanctions in the Iran Sanctions Act, even though well over a dozen sanctionable investment deals have been concluded with Iran by international companies. The administration hasn't even made a determination as to whether any of those investors are sanctionable. This bill will close that loophole.

This legislation before us also reaffirms our Nation's commitment to multilateral diplomacy to increase pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it exclusively states that nothing in this act authorizes the use of force.

Based on previous votes, this body is committed to ending Iran's illicit nuclear program by taking measures that are peaceful but meaningful. I believe this legislation is a useful step forward toward that end.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, two issues: first, the gentlelady has mentioned several times that this bill is not as strong as we wanted, and she is right. But it does many good things, many important things.

If we went on and fully extrapolated her comments, we would know the reason it isn't quite as strong as we wanted. It is because the White House, working with the other body, has worked very hard to not make it as strong as we would like.

Even this good, but not good as we wanted bill, would have been much stronger. I would love to see a letter of support from the administration for this measure.

On the issue she asked me to clarify, she got a very important piece of legislation through a couple of years ago that codified our sanctions and did not contain waiver authority. We don't believe this bill did, but we have made clear, by the language in section 108, that this waiver does not affect the provisions of the executive order codified by the Iran Freedom Support Act, that the waiver in this legislation has no impact whatsoever on her legislation, which passed in 2006, I am glad of that, and the specific provisions of section 108.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place two exchanges of letters with the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means in the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2008.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 7112--to

amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, to expand and clarify

the entities against which sanctions may be imposed--is

expected to be on the suspension calendar today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over import matters, such as the import ban and

restrictions on imports imposed by the Iran Sanctions Act and

the International Emergency Powers Act. Accordingly, the

certain provisions of H.R. 7112 fall under the Committee's

jurisdiction.

There have been some very productive conversations between

the staffs of our committees, during which we have proposed

some changes to H.R. 7112 that I believe help clarify the

intent and scope of the measure. My understanding is that

there is an agreement with regard to these changes.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill

and will not oppose its consideration on the suspension

calendar. This is done with the understanding that it does

not in any way prejudice the Committee or its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this, or similar legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with

respect to H.R. 7112, and would ask that a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Record.

I look forward to the bill's consideration on the floor and

hope that it will command the broadest possible support.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.