Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, what we are saying is that in my friend's interest of making sure that there is an opportunity for Members to speak on the various sides here, you want to make sure the time is evenly divided for the underlying bill and also for the extension of time?

The additional time is going to be evenly distributed.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Ron Paul.

I'll reserve the time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

MR. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. I also come here with enormous respect for Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and my friends. And if I thought for 1 minute that this bill would help the United States or protect Israel or undermine Mr. Ahmadinejad, I would support it. But I do not. I do, however, take great comfort in the chairman's and the chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference process he is open and willing to adjust the bill. And perhaps if these adjustments and improvements are made, I can support it at that time, but I am faced with the bill before me.

And let me just say that I think that this bill will help Ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect as we have seen with other embargoes and other sanctions. I point to a couple of examples, one being the example in Cuba where we put in an embargo there, and ever since then, the Castro regime has been able to blame everything that has gone wrong in Cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, on the U.S. embargo. It has helped that regime stay in power. We see the same effect happening in Gaza. I have been there a couple of times. The fact that we've got an embargo there and a blockade has caused many in Gaza to rally around the flag--in this case, Hamas--and the blockade has helped them. That is the effect that this bill will have in Iran.

We have watched very closely. This past week, tens of thousands of students in Iran in the Green Revolution have come to oppose and call for the ousting of Ahmadinejad and his regime. What this will do, however, is this will undermine that opposition. This bill is focused on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to the middle class and families, the very people who are supporting the revolutionary movement there to get rid of Ahmadinejad.

We are, in a way, I think, substituting a plan that will not work for one that could very well work. We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this bill. I hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, the chairman, Mr. Berman, that there will be important changes perhaps made during the conference process. I hope that does happen, and I hope that I am able to support this bill when it comes back from conference based on those changes.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This legislation obstructs the Obama administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran, amounts to economic warfare against the Iranian people, and brings us closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. I would like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill.

First of all, I agree with Mr. Paul that the bill is opposed to our national security. I have a letter here, as Mr. Blumenauer submitted to the Record, from the Deputy Secretary of State which points out the ``serious substantive concerns of the administration, including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences.'' This letter is from the Obama administration, December 11, 2009. I would like it be included in the Record.

Second, I would like to include an article from the National Journal Online, dated November 2, 2009, in the record of debate. In this article, it points out that a gas shortage will be created in Iran, that Iran subsidizes its gasoline,

and that the regime wants to shrink the program. So here the U.S. will be creating the gas shortage, and the regime, which wanted to shrink the program, is going to blame the U.S.

Third, the Revolutionary Guard has already been able to build its coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. It's widely understood that these sanctions would put the Revolutionary Guard in a position where they can make more money selling oil on the black market.

Number 4, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region into chaos, and the broader geopolitical landscape is thrown into chaos. Russia, Venezuela, and our European allies all come into play in ways at odds with stated U.S. policies.

Number 5, it undermines our diplomacy. It isolates us from our allies. It isolates us from our trading partners.

Number 6, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a back-channel role to try to help us with our diplomacy.

Number 7, it undermines democracy in Iran. All of us have seen those pictures. They have been all over the TV and the Internet in the last few months about a growing democratic movement in Iran. This sanction will force all people to close around the Iran's leadership. It will strengthen the hard-liners and will undermine democracy.

Next, it will make the U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan even more dangerous for our troops.

Number 9, it's a path to military escalation, and I will be discussing that later.

The Deputy Secretary of State,

Washington, December 11, 2009.

Hon. John F. Kerry,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I wanted to follow up on our

conversations regarding Iran, and possible sanctions

legislation to be taken up by the Senate (S. 2799). We share

Congress's concerns on Iran and its nuclear program, and the

need to take decisive action. One of the top national

security priorities for the Obama Administration is to deny

Iran a nuclear weapons capability. As we discussed, we are

pursuing this objective through a dual track strategy of

engagement and pressure; and we are engaged in intensive

multilateral efforts to develop pressure track measures now.

It is in the spirit of these shared objectives that I write

to express my concern about the timing and content of this

legislation.

As I testified before the Congress in October, it is our

hope that any legislative initiative would preserve and

maximize the President's flexibility, secure greater

cooperation from our partners in taking effective action, and

ultimately facilitate a change in Iranian policies. However,

we are entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to

impose significant international pressure on Iran. This

requires that we keep the focus on Iran. At this juncture, I

am concerned that this legislation, it its current form,

might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and

support for our efforts. In addition to the timing, we have

serious substantive concerns, including the lack of

flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty

levels, and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign

policy consequences.

I have asked Department staff to prepare for and discuss

with your staff revisions that could address these concerns

on timing and content. I am hopeful that we can work together

to achieve our common goals.

I hope that consideration of this bill could be delayed to

the new year so as not to undermine the Administration's

diplomacy at this critical juncture. I look forward to

working together to achieve our common goals, and I will stay

in close contact with you as our diplomatic efforts proceed.

Sincerely,

James B. Steinberg.

I will yield to Mr. Paul 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I would like to point out that the organization of Iranians in the United States known as the National Iranian American Council have issued a statement in a staff report dated Monday, the 14th of December, 2009 that this sanctions act ``will only contribute to the Iranian people's suffering by seeking to restrict Iran's supply of heating oil and gasoline. Prominent members of Iran's opposition movement, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, as well as human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, have all spoken out strongly against such sanctions that punish innocent Iranians.''

I enter this report from the National Iranian Council into the Record.

IRPSA Hurts Iranian People, Undermines International Unity on Iran

NIAC released the following statement today in response to

yesterday's news that the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions

Act (H.R. 2194) will be brought up for a floor vote on the

suspension calendar within the next two weeks.

The National Iranian American Council is deeply concerned

that the House of Representatives' plan to bring H.R. 2194,

the Iranian Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, IRPSA, to a vote

the week of December 14,

2009, is a move in the direction of punishing the Iranian

people instead of the Iranian government.

NIAC supports the Obama Administration's ongoing engagement

efforts and, though the Iranian government's response has

thus far been frustrating, the U.S. must remain committed to

working in concert with its international partners.

Considering unilateral sanctions at this time threatens to

preempt and undermine the President's multilateral efforts.

A successful strategy for dealing with Iran must have

diplomatic engagement as its basis. Sanctions can play a

constructive role within that process, but in order to be

effective they must target the Iranian government and the

individuals responsible for the government's reprehensible

behavior, with a special emphasis on those guilty of human

rights violations.

As Congress moves forward, NIAC encourages Congressional

action to meet the following standards:

Do not harm the Iranian people--No one has suffered under

the repressive rule of the Iranian Government more than the

Iranian people. Unilateral sanctions such as those included

in IRPSA will hurt the people of Iran immensely and do little

to target the actions such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard

who have consolidated power under the shadow of outside

threats and profited under the sanctions economy.

As the Iranian people continue to stand up to their

government, prominent members of Iran's opposition movement,

such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, along with

human rights defenders like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji,

have all spoken out strongly against broad, untargeted

sanctions such as those contained in IRPSA.

Do not undermine the President--The Obama Administration

has invested in a strategy of engagement with Iran because it

is the best option to change the Iranian Government's

behavior. While this process has been predictably difficult,

Congress must not rush to pass legislation that will

undermine multilateral efforts and tie the President's hands.

The President has been consistent in stating that he will

evaluate progress on the engagement process once the year has

ended. This commitment was reiterated on December 3 by White

House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who stated that the

Administration's deadline for Iran is the end of the year. If

the House passes IRPSA now, they send the world a signal that

the U.S. Congress does not support the President's plan and

is taking steps to preempt it.

Do not undermine the unity among U.S. partners--On November

26, the IAEA voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution

censuring Iran. Significantly, all five veto-wielding members

of the Security Council voted in favor of the measure, which

opens up the potential for another round of Security Council

sanctions. The significant progress is uniting the Security

Council is attributable to President Obama's investment in

diplomacy. If Congress moves forward with sanctions that

target our allies, that unity will collapse. Trying to coerce

the support of the rest of the world with threats and

penalties will not isolate Iran; in fact, it may only isolate

the United States.

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

I will submit this analysis for the Record.

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

Act--December 2009

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Could I ask how much time remains.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Though this bill claims to express international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program, it actually undermines those efforts. Passing legislation effectively forces our President's hand in one direction, diminishing the power of the President and his diplomatic team by significantly limiting the tools the administration can utilize.

Furthermore, it projects a negative image of the United States in a region at a time when we need broad international support to succeed in our negotiations.

Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has repeatedly stated that sanctions against Iran will be ineffective in forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. In a speech to the Board of Governors in September of this year, Mohamed ElBaradei recognized the important developments with respect to Iran's compliance with IAEA inspections, stating that, We are not in a state of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material. We have not seen components of nuclear weapons.

In addition, he states, We went through this during the time of Iraq, when the Agency went exactly through that hype, fabrication, and it took a war based on fiction and not fact. It took a war and thousands of people dying for the Agency to become strong and more credible because we were sticking to the facts.

Subsection A(1) of section 2 of this bill says, The illicit nuclear activities of the government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles in support of international terrorism, represents a serious threat to the security of the United States and allies in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world.

This language makes dangerous accusations that have been repudiated by the IAEA and paves the way for the same mistakes we have made in Iraq. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes at the cost of the innocent lives of the people in Iran.

May I ask how much time is remaining for all sides?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

One of our colleagues talked about, well, what are our alternatives here, as though the only alternative we have is to impose sanctions. We know from a report 2 days ago in The New York Times that Iran's foreign minister has said that his country was willing to exchange most of the uranium for processed nuclear fuel from abroad, as the United Nations has proposed. The article goes along to say, but only according to the timetable Western powers appear to have rejected.

Well, we need to get back into those negotiations. I have some points here I want to share with Members of Congress. Here is what we can do.

The debate in Iran is focused on two shipments of 400 kilograms each of low-enriched uranium. What is being proposed by Tehran is a phased delivery to the IAEA control of Iran's low-enriched uranium within 3 to 5 months of each other, for a total of 800 kilograms.

Officially, we know Iran's foreign minister said they would put 400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in Kish Island--that's in the Persian Gulf--under IAEA custody. The Iranians want objective guarantees, the guaranteed delivery of highly enriched uranium from Russia and France.

Once it's delivered to Iran for medical purposes, they would then send another 400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to the IAEA control at Kish Island. The simultaneous shipment of high-enriched uranium to Iran and low-enriched for medical purposes, and low-enriched uranium from Iran to Kish Island, are confidence-building measures which can form the basis for further cooperation.

Second, we need to pledge a guaranteed delivery by the U.S. and other P-5-plus-1 participants.

Third, the U.S. offer of assistance with modernizing the instruments for the Tehran reactor.

Fourth, Iran's willingness to continue with its nuclear transparency and full-scope IAEA safeguards, including short-notice inspections.

Five, Iran's willingness to participate in Geneva II.

Six, Iran's willingness to participate in multilateral expert meetings on nuclear, non-nuclear, that is, regional issues, and consideration of a broad range of confidence-building steps.

We don't need these sanctions. We need diplomacy.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

One of my colleagues cited The Washington Post, but if you read The Post article, they couldn't authenticate where the information came from. So after a while it has the ring of uranium from Niger.

We have to be careful that this sanctions debate doesn't put us on the path of a military escalation. We have to think why is the Obama administration, as has been quoted several times in this debate, expressing concern about this legislation, that this legislation might weaken, rather than strengthen, international unity and support for our efforts, that there are serious substantive concerns, the lack of flexibility that this would put on our President in his negotiations?

I submit for the Record Mohamed ElBaradei's September 9 comments as Director General about the Iran situation.

We've got to be careful that we're not making a situation worse and we're not giving our President the time that he says he needs for diplomacy.

Summary of the Director General's Comments Made at the End of the Board

of Governors' Discussion on Agenda Item 6(d)

(``Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007),

1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran'')

Vienna, September 9, 2009.

Thank you, Chairperson.

A few comments on the debate this morning and on what has

been transpiring over the past few days. Clearly, we all need

to break the logjam. Merely giving speeches here is not going

to do that. We have to put our heads together. There is

stalemate, as I have said. Iran has made some positive

progress and I recognize that. It was partly, I hope, as a

result of my private and public appeal to them to move in a

positive direction. That is the only way to move.

I don't think that talking about formalities--whether the

work plan has been fully implemented or not, how we should

write our reports, or whether to have an annex, or whether

something is routine or not routine--that is not the issue.

The issue is to clarify the substance and to make sure that

all outstanding issues are dealt with. It has been six years

and I don't want this to continue, as in the case of the

DPRK, for 17 years. One lesson I learned from the DPRK is

that it is only through dialogue that you can move forward.

There is no other way.

There is a positive development. Iran has agreed to our

visiting the heavy water reactor and to strengthen

verification in Natanz. These are all positive. But there is

a lot more Iran can do. As Ambassador Soltanieh knows, I put

a lot of premium on the Additional Protocol. I know it is not

considered legally binding. But for us at the Secretariat, as

we have repeatedly said, the Protocol is key for us to build

confidence, not only about declared activities, but also

about undeclared activities. And you (Iran) have implemented

the Protocol before. I know Iran can do it again. I know you

have been reacting to others, but frankly, you are not

penalizing others, you are penalizing yourself. The Protocol

will help us to move forward with the process.

Iran implemented the Code (3.1), before. I don't see any

impediment to Iran doing it again.

There are a number of checkable facts, such as procurements

by military establishments, and production by military

establishments. These are issues, as Iran has said before,

that Iran can help work with us to clarify. I hope you will

do that because we need, both of us, to work together in a

constructive, positive direction.

Coming to the alleged studies: they are alleged because the

whole question is not really about assessment or analysis, it

is about the accuracy and authenticity of the information

about the alleged studies. That it is the 64,000 dollar

question, frankly, and that is where we are stuck. We have

limited ability to authenticate the allegations. It is one

word against another. When we deal with nuclear material, we

are very comfortable; we know the litmus test. We do

measurements, we do environmental sampling. When it comes to

paperwork, that is quite different for us because we have

very limited tools.

We need Iran to help us to clarify these issues. We have

said that we are not in a position to say these allegations

are real, but we have serious concerns, because of what we've

described--the detail, the different sources. We need to work

with you to clarify these issues. I would be the first one to

want to bring this issue to closure. I would hope that you

would work with us and try to help us.

I would also hope that the suppliers of the information

would help us by providing us the authority to share with you

as much information as possible.

People talk about assessments. I am not a scientist, but I

can tell you this: if this information is real, there is a

high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have

taken place. But I should underline ``if'' three times.

With nuclear material, we can give you full assurance. With

certain documentation, it is quite difficult unless one side

or the other will help us to establish the facts. However,

there are other issues like procurement, like manufactures,

where Iran can work with us. These are checkable facts and we

need simply to clarify them.

We have in our reports always tried not to understate the

facts and not to overstate the facts. We have serious

concerns, but we are not in a state of panic because we have

not seen diversion of nuclear material, we have not seen

components of nuclear weapons.

We do not have any information to that effect. But I need

the Protocol in order to be on more solid ground to make such

a statement. That is why I say a Protocol is absolutely

essential for us to verify the absence of undeclared

activities.

When I hear Ambassador Davies and Ambassador Soltanieh, I

don't see where the problem is. The U.S. is making an offer

without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.

Ambassador Soltanieh said they are

ready to have a comprehensive dialogue. The offer by the U.S.

is an offer that should not and cannot be refused, because it

has no conditions attached. I hope your response to that is

positive. We can spend days and nights talking about the

issues, but unless we talk to each other and not at each

other, we will not move forward. Dialogue is key. The Agency

can provide some confidence, but there are many other issues

that need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner and there

have been a lot of opportunities lost over the past six

years. We should not lose any more opportunities.

Finally, I will talk about this issue which has come to the

media about withholding information. I mentioned that in my

opening speech. Obviously, people are trying to undermine the

Agency, but they are really undermining an institution that

is absolutely essential to the maintenance of international

peace and security. All the information we got came from

people sitting in this room. If anybody has any information

that we have not shared, that has passed muster, that has

been critically assessed in accordance with our practice,

please step forward today. Otherwise, as a preacher would

say, ``You should forever hold your peace.''

This is where we are. If you have information, please step

forward. We have no more information. The assessment is in

our report. As I said, if this information on alleged studies

is true, the likelihood is high that military activities have

taken place in Iran. But, that hinges on the word ``if,''

which is where we are stuck right now.

As for the idea that we did not share all the information

and that we only gave information in a briefing--I can't for

the life of me understand how we can share information in a

briefing with 150 Member States and at the same time be told

that we have not shared information. That briefing is open to

all Member States, every single one. But the briefing is

simply to explain the report. It had nothing different from

what is in the report.

We went through this, I'm sorry to say, during the time of

Iraq, when the Agency went exactly through that--hype,

fabrication. And then it took a war based on fiction and not

fact, a war President Obama called euphemistically ``a war of

choice''. It took a war and hundreds of thousands of people

dying for the Agency to become stronger and more credible

because we were sticking to the facts. I don't want to go

through that process again; you do not want to go through

that process again.

So let us all work together on the basis of diplomacy, on

the basis of facts to be able to resolve the issues as early

as possible.

Mohamed ElBaradei,

Director General.

I will use the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is starting to sound like the debate over Iraq.

My concerns are that this resolution is opposed to our national security, that it undermines diplomatic initiatives, that it creates a gas shortage in Iran which, in a sense, the regime would blame on the United States. It will benefit the Revolutionary Guard in its effort to gain profit off of a black market. It will throw the energy politics of the world into chaos with Russia, Venezuela and our European allies all coming in to play. It will undermine our diplomacy. It will isolate us from our allies. It will isolate us from trading partners. It will undercut international energy companies which try to work with the United States in back channels in diplomacy. It will undermine democracy efforts in Iran, and it will strengthen the hardliners. It will make U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan more dangerous for our troops.

This sanctions resolution is, unfortunately, a path towards military escalation. As such, it should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We come together tonight to talk about a very important issue and a very important relationship that we enjoy with our only true democratic ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel.

We've seen in the last week this issue come to light with the instability in that region, with the new facility that was just discovered and made public on Friday by the United States, Great Britain and her allies. This just reinforces in the minds of many of us in Congress the importance of us remaining steadfast in making sure that the State of Iran, that country, does not receive a nuclear weapon and that we do all that we can to support our ally, the State of Israel, and peace in that region.

I was fortunate to be a part of a delegation that traveled to Israel. In fact, there were 25 Members who traveled the first week of August to Israel on a fact-finding trip; 25 Republicans, which was the largest delegation of Republicans ever to visit the State of Israel at once. The Republican delegation was led by our whip, Eric Cantor. The following week the Democrats were led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and my understanding was there were over 30 Democrat Members who went on that trip, which is the largest number of Democratic Members to travel to Israel all at one time.

If you do the math, that's over 50 Members, which is well over 10 percent of the Congress traveling to that region within a 2-week period and I think underscores the importance that this Congress believes that relationship is and the need for us to press for peace and the need for us to support our allies.

I want to take some time to reflect on my views of what I learned on that trip and some reflections of what I learned on that trip. Also here tonight, I have one of my good friends and allies who has joined me to share his experiences as well.

I would like to take this time to yield to my good friend, Mr. Thompson.

Well, thank you for your insights, and obviously I share those observations and would like to take the opportunity to share some of my own. First, let me say that I thought the trip to Israel reinforced what I had already known and that was that the Israeli citizens want peace. I saw this message on the faces of young soldiers. I've heard a passionate thoughtful cry for peace in Prime Minister Netanyahu's words, and I even prayed for peace with Israelis as they ended their prayers on Shabbat.

Furthermore, I found that like every nation in this world, Israel is a nation of contrasts. Specifically, it is a land hemmed by unambiguous borders, yet filled with lines that have been blurred beyond recognition. New and old, the archeological and the militarily strategic, the political and the religious were all indistinguishably bundled together until each lost its own identity and had become part of the same interwoven fabric.

Each day's itinerary was packed with life-changing events; the oppressive heat that hit me every time I stepped off the bus also seemed to also challenge all of my preconceived ideas about Israel. And while I found our agenda to be filled with the study of distorted lines, there were always those stark borders which clearly separated Israel from her neighbors and delineated fact from fiction.

I found this truth as we toured the Western Wall. As I watched old rabbis press their heads against the blocks of Herod's Temple, I found no ambiguous lines. I was clearly standing at the foundation of modern Israel. Conversely, I did not hear Israel's genesis in the echo of my footsteps through the solemn corridors of Yad Vashem. True, I heard an irrefutable argument against the unforgettable atrocities that happened when the world's Jewry does not have a land to call its own. While important, Yad Vashem's lesson does not speak to Israel's birthright. Plainly, Israel does not exist because of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, I believe President Obama crossed this unmistakable border in his Cairo speech, linking the history of Israel not to the Western Wall or Masada but to the actions of a mad man. President Obama implied that Israel was thrown together to ease the guilt of a post- World War II Europe. I find this absurd. One can easily trace the tenacity of Masada straight through 2,000 years of history to the weary resolution on the faces of David Rubinger's famous photo ``Paratroopers at the Western Wall.''

Israel does not date to the instability caused by Adolf Hitler, but to the stability engendered by Abraham. Additionally, the President spoke of mutual respect but failed to show the Israelis the same respect he displayed to Palestinians. He spoke of the daily humiliations endured by Palestinians, but did not mention the daily fears endured by the residents of Sderot as they go about their lives tethered to bomb shelters.

The President also crossed the border between fact and fiction when he put settlement construction on a pedestal as the principal bargaining chip for peace, thereby providing cover for Palestinian leaders to harden their opposition to all construction in the settlements. This misstep was completely unnecessary. It is well known that Israel has no intention of building new settlements. However, the nation also has no intention of stopping normal life in the settlements; and, unfortunately, the President inadvertently called for the latter.

Admittedly, this is a difficult topic for us to understand, and it was only on my trip that I realized the line between Israeli parents and grown children is much more blurred than it is here in the United States. I love my mother dearly, yet I do not wish to have her live right next door to me. However, many Israelis want exactly that. They want to walk to their father's house for Shabbat and employ their mother as a readily available and reliable baby sitter.

Settlements need what is referred to as natural growth, but this term is a misnomer. The settlements have no intention of growing the geographic size of their settlements. Instead, they want a natural filling in of the existing land. They want their son to be able to build a house on the vacant lot next to their home. To deprive settlers of this ability is to deprive them of living the Israeli lifestyle. I wish President Obama had toured the Alfei Menashe settlement with us so he could have learned this lesson himself. The President also needs to learn that the world cannot preach from on high to Israel.

When the President tours U.S. cities, he does not encounter bus stops that double as bomb shelters. When he sees groups of crowded students around the White House, he does not see assault rifles slung over the chaperone's shoulders. He does not live in fear. And due to these facts, the President does not have the capability to lecture Israel on what she must do to keep peace or to make her citizens safe.

Finally, I turn my attention to the largest topic facing Israel, the Iranian threat. Using more than 7,000 centrifuges, Tehran has amassed enough uranium to produce a nuclear device. At their current pace, Iran would be able to produce two more atomic weapons each year, provided they find ways to further enrich this fuel. Never before--not India, not Pakistan, not even North Korea--has a group of criminals so defiant of international law had such destructive capability; and as the people of Iran have become more vocal in their pleas for responsible leadership, the ayatollahs have become more erratic and unpredictable.

As such, we must quickly and decisively act to end this danger. Without a doubt, the United States has failed to do enough to stop Iran from becoming a proud owner of the bomb. It is true, Congress has taken a multitude of votes on this issue. However, the majority of these were simply press releases disguised as legislation. To right this wrong, I have added my name in support of multiple bills this year to strengthen sanctions against Iran.

By no means are these pieces of legislation sufficient. The United States must use every unilateral and multilateral tool it has at its disposal to cut off Iran economically, diplomatically, and politically until this shadow of a state abandons its diabolical goals.

These actions can only help Iran make the decisions sooner. Iran must see it can stand with peace, prosperity, and the international community, or it can continue to live in squalor and obscurity, relegated to the trash heap of the international community with the other juntas, regimes, and cabals.

When I think about the threat of Iran, I am reminded of the saying that those who do not study history are destined to repeat it. I'm reminded of my tour of Yad Vashem. I recall an eerily similar declaration to annihilate Jews. I remember a leader who perverted a religion to justify his actions. And I am reminded of the famous British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke, who once said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,'' which is exactly what too many Christian leaders did in that day: nothing.

This eerie similarity exists today, not with a leader who quotes the Bible but with one who quotes the Koran. His comments echo those of Hitler's; his stated goal is the same.

So what is necessary for peace? I would contend that there will be no peace until leaders around the world regardless of faiths denounce such comments, until leaders within the Muslim community reject this rhetoric, and until leaders of the Islamic states shun such hate speak within their borders. Whether someone builds a second garage or a second home within a defined community is not what stands between war and peace. A community of citizens who pervert a religion to justify hate and murder are what stand in the way of peace. This is precisely what we should all fear. It was radical Islamic terrorists who attacked the United States on September the 11th, who blew up subways in the UK. This ideology is the true barrier to peace.

I am reminded of a note that was left by the terrorists in Spain during the Madrid bombings. They said, ``We will win and you will lose. Because you love life, and we seek death.''

Therein lies the real problem with Iran. Unlike the threat of mutual destruction during the Cold War with Russia and the U.S., both knowing that if one attacked, the other would retaliate, we are now dealing with a regime that is not a socialist state like Russia but a religious state, whose leader espouses no fear of death but rather a clearly defined goal to destroy the state of Israel. This threat must be at the center of our President's and Congress's attention for the sake of Israel's security but also for the sake of our own.

Settlements, the West Bank, and a President who seems more interested in giving dictation rather than providing assistance--when spoken aloud, these problems seem rather insurmountable. I believe they are not. There is a path to peace which is as clear as the border formed by the security barrier. We only need to have the courage to take the first step on this path by ensuring Israel has our undeniable support.

Fortunately, we are not alone. The vast majority of Americans support Israel. We recognize that Israel stands as a lone beachhead of democracy in the Middle East. We know that we take our security for granted and do not judge those who are not afforded this luxury. In short, regardless of the muted lines within Israel, we know where the stark borders between our supporters and detractors are in the Middle East.

During our meeting with Shimon Peres, he said, ``Israel and her neighbors seem to be able to live in peace. We just have a problem writing it down.''

Focusing on the real threats to peace and democracy around the world, requiring leadership on the part of the Arab states to root out terrorists within their borders, and continuing to support and stand by our ally in the region, as, Mr. Netanyahu definitively stated, ``With God's help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.''

With that I yield to my good friend from the state of Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for his impressions of his trip to Israel and the state of the region there in the Middle East.

Will the gentleman yield?

Okay. To your point, I think what you're suggesting is, number one, should any of these properties be, quote, given back or surrendered, but, number two, should that really be the focus of our effort towards peace.

It seems to me a little disingenuous on the part of our administration to suggest that somehow what stands between the current situation and a path road to peace is the issue of settlements is really a misnomer.

The reality is the State of Israel has shown throughout their history that they are the ones who have bargained in good faith and time and time again shown a willingness to give up lands as they have and only to their own peril; as you mentioned, what you saw in Sderot with the bomb shelters and the people who have suffered as a result of them giving up the Gaza Strip.

But the issue of Israel willing to give up this settlement or that settlement or redraw the boundaries, you and I both heard from Netanyahu's own words that they're not wedded to any set boundary. But what we also heard was out of the lips of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, which was his unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Therein lies the real problem with the pathway to peace and a two- state solution: the Palestinians' unwillingness at this point to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I would only also add that while we are talking about settlements, Iran continues to march towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. While I certainly respect this administration's plans to begin talks and to negotiate and to try and solve this diplomatically, I would remind the American people, and my colleagues here, that this is the same administration that we want to talk to that has lied to the international community and hidden from them a nuclear facility which

the world was just made aware of last week.

So I would only question the sincerity and the ability for us to truly negotiate with trust with this regime who up until last weekend we were not even aware of an additional nuclear facility. So it's very alarming. I will tell you, I don't know what my distinguished colleagues here feel, but we have two bills that are still in this Chamber, H.R. 2194, which is the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, and then the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which was H.R. 1327. Both of those bills have a majority of Members of Congress supporting it. And it just seems to me a shame that this body has not acted on that legislation to put another tool in the chest of President Obama as he goes forward to negotiate with Iran, the fact that these sanctions are there if and when they become necessary to use.

And I would just yield back.

Well, I agree, and it's why it's so important that we impress on this body the importance that we take up the legislation that we mentioned earlier dealing with sanctions, but also, we raise this issue in this body.

You know, we've been so focused on the issue of health care the last couple of months, and while this is an important issue that the President has made throughout the past year, the reality is we need to look no further than September 11 to know that, if this country

is not safe, if your allies are not safe, and that if terrorism is allowed to breed around the world, that really nothing else matters, and that nothing can be more detrimental to our economy and our way of life than for terrorism to breed, to be successful and, ultimately, be able to attack democracy, as we saw with our markets here after September 11, the great job loss, the great tumble that it took as a result of the attacks of September 11.

We need to remain vigilant in not only keeping our country safe but also supporting the allies around the world, and I think it's why my friends here tonight have spent some time talking about this important issue, which has been raised last week by the discovery of this facility, that the State of Iran has attempted to keep from the international community.

And one has to ask the question: why? If their intentions are what they say they are, if their intentions are pure and simple, if their intentions are non-nuclear or non-weapons grade, if their intentions are simply to provide energy to their people, certainly that is not something that requires the dark of night or secret. That is something that you would think one would be happy for full disclosure.

And our own estimates suggest that the centrifuges in that facility are not designed to produce energy-grade uranium but, rather, weapons- grade uranium. And so I think it adds to the doubt in many of our minds and the concern for our President to move rather quickly for, if not this facility, perhaps some others that we don't know about that are still out there.

So I thank the gentlemen for being here tonight and sharing their perspectives of our trip to Israel and also impressing on the public the importance of us taking up the issue of Iran and dealing very swiftly with sanctions and, if not sanctions, supporting Israel's efforts to stop a nuclear Iran.

I thank Dr. Fleming for being here.

I thank Mr. Thompson.

I thank my friend and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

The three of us here this evening spent really an awesome time in Israel during August. But I want to take you back in time, Mr. Speaker, in history 71 years to today. Literally 71 years to today, and what we see in the newsreels. And that was that Lord Chamberlain waved a stack of papers in front of the camera and he uttered, We have peace in our time. And what was he talking about? He had just come from a meeting with Herr Adolph Hitler, and along with France and a few other nations, but not Czechoslovakia, they had come to an agreement to cede to Hitler the Sudetenland, which at that time was the strategic part of Czechoslovakia that was so necessary for their protection. He ceded that. Of course, Hitler claimed that it was mostly populated with Germans, but, nonetheless, Lord Chamberlain and others agreed to let him have it. And we know that today as a policy of appeasement.

He also said that he actually went there for the purpose of honor and peace. And then Winston Churchill, who was in the Parliament, replied that he went there for honor and peace but he returned with neither. Because we know that within months, Hitler began a very aggressive campaign and went on to, of course, not only take Czechoslovakia but also Poland. And, of course, as we say, the rest is history.

And what is that history? The history is that there were 20 million people killed during World War II, Mr. Speaker; 6 million of them were Jews. And in visiting the Holocaust Museum in Israel, in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, something very interesting, I think, occurred in my mind that I never thought about until it was brought out.

We saw a lot of very interesting things there. A lot of personal stories about families who were broken apart, most of whom died in the Holocaust, people who were in death camps, a lot of personal letters and books and eyeglasses and things like that that told individual stories. We know the factual parts of this. We have all seen the documentaries that talked about the gas chambers and the ovens. And we, of course, have heard about and read about the Final Solution and Hitler's attempt to take executing human beings to a whole new scientific level, which he was able to achieve. Nothing before and nothing since has been done.

But the important thing, Mr. Speaker, about this that we must understand that really teaches us a second lesson today: The first one being the danger of appeasement, but the second is that while the Jews were being carted off to the death camps, and, of course, many of them attempted to reach safe harbor in the United States and many other countries and were denied that and, in fact, in many cases were thrown out of other countries, there was no one to speak up for the Jews. No one, not even the United States. Even we have the blight of having turned our backs on the Jews. And there was no state, there was no country to speak up for the Jews, who at that time lived in many places of the world. And because of that, after World War II and all the countries began to come together, it was decided that the Jews would have their own homeland.

And of course we know that the U.N. provided for that, and what was then called Palestine today is called Israel. Israel is a state, and that's so important because now Jews have a country to stick up for them. They have a people who will never back down from an evil dictator like Adolf Hitler. They will stand up for their people, and they will stand up as our ally against these things.

But the interesting thing is it's often said that what we don't learn from history is destined to repeat itself. And what we have today is a Hitler-like figure, Mr. Speaker, of course, Ahmadinejad, who is saying many of the same things that Adolf Hitler said in those days, giving the same threats.

Very few people took Hitler seriously when he said that he intended to kill the Jews, and that is what he did. Now we have Ahmadinejad who is making the same statements, and we watch before our very eyes he's building a nuclear arsenal.

And what are we doing, Mr. Speaker? Well, we are talking about sanctions. And how effective are these sanctions going to be when it's necessary to have Russia and China to help us with that? And of course, all we are getting from them is rhetoric. In fact, the only thing structurally that's been done in all of this discussion is we've given up missile defense in the Czech Republic and in Poland. So we are already beginning the appeasement process in this world while we have another Hitler-like figure out there beginning to plan the destruction of the Jews once again.

So I think we need to stand, Mr. Speaker, with our brothers and sisters in Israel, in their protection. Because in as much as Israel is so capable of taking care of itself--we all know just what a small strip of land that is--and while Israel can protect itself in many ways, there is no way that Israel can protect itself from an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, and that is precisely what Iran is doing today.

And apart from that, Iran is exporting terrorism around the world. We know that Hamas and Hezbollah; we, know that al Qaeda--who is providing al Qaeda, Mr. Speaker, with the weapons they are using to kill our own sons and daughters? Again, it's Iran. So Iran is emerging as, I guess-- Ahmadinejad and certainly the mullahs behind him, are really, I think, showing a tremendous parallel to pre-World War II Germany.

And I think that we need to learn from the lessons of the past, and that is that number one, we should never allow a policy of appeasement. It never gets peace and it never gives honor. It always leads to war. It's always a matter of people overseas, folks who really are out for the destruction of others, it gives them an opening to attack other countries.

And then secondly, never again should Israel be without its own country and certainly without its friends around the world. Never again should we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, as we did during World War II that was a holocaust which, of course, we know that Ahmadinejad denies to this day.

And there are many that say, look, this is just a little strip of land out there in the middle of the desert. You've got Arabs out there and you've got Jews and they're fighting over this land. Really, if you think about it, the Jews occupied this land as far back as 3500 B.C. Islam didn't even come into existence until thousands of years later, and in fact, we know that Christianity started even before Islam.

So of course there have been three major religions that have existed there and still exist there today, and as far as I'm concerned, they can exist there forever. But I think that there's no reason to think that there isn't a legitimate right for Israel to claim that as its own state.

And in summary--and this is, I think, to kind of tie it all together, Mr. Speaker--we talked about the issue of the two-state solution, and Mr. Netanyahu believes that is the way to go. We should have two states: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. But remember that Israel is a democracy, and just simply by being outgrown by Palestinians or Muslims, it could lose its status as a Jewish state. And I think that it's essential that we not only support this two-state solution in supporting Israel, but that we support the right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state and always will.

If the gentleman will yield back, I will just simply say that my first impression beyond the fact that Israel is such a lovely country--I mean, just gorgeous, right in the middle of the desert next to the Mediterranean Sea. And of course we were able to see the Dead Sea and many sites that are holy to us as Christians. But just how small that country is, like a postage stamp, as narrow as 5 miles at its waist. And we saw a patchwork of villages, one being Palestinian and one being Jewish, all throughout the country.

And even though, often cases there were checkpoints and there were fences between them, you couldn't really see that. All you could see looking over is you would see evidence of a Palestinian village and you would see evidence of a Jewish village all sitting there peacefully. It's almost difficult to believe how much war and how much violence has existed there for so long.

And of course with that we visited Sderot, which is, I guess, a flash point where there have been rockets hurled and that sort of thing.

So I think that was really what I found to be very impressive.

Yes, sir.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

I appreciate the gentleman pointing out the fact that what we are doing in fact is removing a missile shield that is just before deployment, that would go into the Czech Republic, that would go into Poland. It would be, of course, subsurface. It would be something that would help defend much of that region of the country, including 80 American military bases; and, instead, we are going to exchange it for a whole different, a ship-based system which requires, first of all, a lot of development that is not yet in place.

As you point out, it is going to be another decade before it will even be capable. It would require ships being in exactly the right place at the right time. And it also begs the point: If Iran is developing nuclear material just for civilian purposes, why do they need all of this rocketry ability? They just ran a test, a three-rocket test, one of which had a range of 1,500 miles. Now why do you need that? I'm pretty sure Iran is not planning to go to the Moon. So for what purpose is that?

And what is also, I think, ironic is the fact that our President is talking about renewing the STAR treaty and taking our already reduced nuclear weapons down to an even lower level. If we do this with Russia at the same time as there are more countries than ever that have more nuclear weapons and more capability to deliver those weapons than ever, so again it goes back to the appeasement question: Does it make sense to unilaterally disarm yourself while your potential enemies, and I would say in this case with Iran, our enemy, because they are killing our men and women through their proxies and through their surrogates and their weapons. Why in the world would we be doing that when in fact we have a growing threat from them?

And going back to Israel, it seems that wherever you see the U.S. military around the world, peace breaks out. You look at World War II, troops were in Japan, troops were in the Philippines, they were in France, they were in England and Germany. All those countries now are very peaceful democracies. And of course we went into Iraq, and Iraq is evolving into an oasis, if you will, of democracy, as is Israel.

So it seems to me that we need to stay on the same post-World War II course of certainly using Theodore Roosevelt's old philosophy, ``speak softly but carry a big stick,'' rather than using a lot of rhetoric about all the things that we want to do and all the sanctions we want to take and yet disarm ourselves and our friends at the same time.

Certainly, one only has to ask around the world who is happy with this right now and who isn't. Well, it turns out our friends are unhappy with us and our enemies are happy with us all the way from Venezuela to Iran to Russia. They are all happy with everything we've been doing lately and the decisions our President has been making. We found out while we were in Israel that the President has a 4 percent, yes, 4 percent favorability rating. They are very unhappy with his position on Iran right now and also on the Palestinian question.

So I think that it's certainly nice to be liked overseas; but when you're liked by your enemies and also of course Poland and the Czech Republic are unhappy with us right now because we left them in the dust after agreeing to put a missile shield there and then pulling out after they've gone out on a limb for us, I think we are going, Mr. Speaker, in the wrong direction in the way we deal with our friends and our enemies in and around this question of Iran and the nuclear weapons that they have.

With that, I will yield back to my friends.

I would just say I would like to thank Congressman Schock for having this Special Order hour this evening so that we could talk about this important issue, and it's one that we're going to be talking about a lot more in the coming days because it's pretty apparent that all of these issues are beginning to line up. They're beginning to stack up very rapidly.

And of course, the issue that we know our friends and Israel are facing is that if we are unable to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table or to have sanctions that work, then they're still the last option left on the table, which they reserve the right as a sovereign Nation to do, and that is, potentially take out the nuclear facilities in Iran.

We pray that it doesn't come to that, but it has already of course in Syria and Iraq back in the Hussein days, and we are looking for peaceful solutions. But we have counterweight around the world in Russia and China that as soon as we try to do one thing they want to reverse it. Russia is a very significant trading partner with Iran. They're providing Iran with a state-of-the-art SAM missile system which is going to close the window for the capability of Israel to potentially attack Iran's nuclear facilities if that needs to be done, which is all the more important why decisions are having to be made at an even faster pace.

So, once again, I thank Mr. Schock for bringing us together for this hour.

The chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. That isn't even as powerful a statement as was made that enticed us into the Iraq war. There was the claim that they already had them. But now, this is a pretense, and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. My main reason for opposing this bill is that I think it's detrimental to our national security. There's no other reason. It doesn't serve our interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it.

In the late 1930s and the early 1940s the American people did not want to go into war, but there were some that were maneuvering us into war, and they used the argument that you needed an event. So, in June of 1941, sanctions were put against Japan, incidentally and ironically, to prohibit oil products from going into Japan. Within 6 months there was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And there is now talk,

there's been talk in the media, and we've heard about it, we need to bomb Iran. And that's what the people hear.

The sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the dissidents. We'd like to encourage them to overthrow their government. But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things happen. We've been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it doesn't serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us.

One of the goals explicitly expressed by al Qaeda and their leaders has been they would like to draw us into the Middle East because it would cost us a lot of money and it could hurt us financially. And the second reason they want us over there is to get us bogged down in an endless war. And for the last decade, that is what we've been doing. We are bogged down to the point where it's very discouraging to the American people, very frustrating, no signs of victory, no signs of peace. But we're bogged down. These were the precise goals of the al Qaeda leadership.

And also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals who become violent against us. And this has been unbelievably successful. So we've been involved in Iraq. We've been involved in Afghanistan. We're bombing Pakistan and almost, this is like another bonus for those who want us to be attacked, is that we're over there and just fomenting this anger and hatred toward us.

That is why I believe this is not in our best interest. It actually hurts us. Once we say that we're going to do something like using force and prevent vital products from going in, it means that we've given up on diplomacy. Diplomacy's out the window. And they're not capable of attacking us. You know, this idea that they are on the verge of a bomb, you know, our CIA said they haven't been working on it since 2003. And the other thing is, if you want to give them incentive to have a bomb, just keep pestering like this, just intimidate them. Provoke it. This is provocative. They might have a greater incentive than ever.

They can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. I mean, they are not a threat. They don't have an army worth anything. They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. They don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles. So it is not a threat to our national security. I see the threat to our national security with this type of policy which could come and backfire and hurt us.

I want to read number 5 in the bill, that particular item, because it makes my case, rather than making the case for those who want these sanctions. I think this literally makes my case. Number 5 says, on October 7, 2008, then-Senator Obama stated Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down. If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis, that starts putting the squeeze on them.

The squeeze on whom? On the people. This will unify the dissent. This will unify the Iranian people against us. If we want to encourage true dissent and overthrow that government, which is more spontaneous and honest, I would say this is doing exactly the opposite.

I thank the gentleman.

If the gentleman from California didn't like my analogy about how we were maneuvered into war in World War II, I think it might be much more appropriate to compare it to the sanctions on Iraq. There were those in the 1990s that wanted us to go to war with Iraq. We were looking for an excuse, and we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their country and bombing. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of kids died because of those sanctions, and eventually they got their war. We ended up in the war.

Anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in Iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their Ayatollah--it's the Ayatollah that carries the power--that's not going to happen. It just does exactly the opposite. So this is why I believe this is a much greater threat to our national security. It does not help us. It doesn't achieve the goals that are set out.

For instance, we now commonly say that the Iranians have no right to enrich. Well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty, and they have not ever been told that they are making a bomb. And what we are saying in this bill is that they can't enrich anymore. So in a way, you're violating international law by saying they can't enrich, period. So that is just looking for trouble.

Now, what else this bill will do:

It is going to push the support of the Iranians in another direction. It's going to push them towards India, China, and Russia, and these countries have special associations with Iran. So we are going to separate us. We will be isolated from that, and they are going to have a much closer alliance with these countries. That will not serve our interests.

It's going to serve the interest of one country mostly, and that's China. China acts only almost like capitalists. They take our dollars they have earned from us and they are spending the dollars over there. They would like to buy the oil, refine the oil, and drill the oil. But here, we assume that we have to do it through force, through sanctions, threats, intimidation, and secret maneuvers to overthrow their regime. It just doesn't work. It sounds good. It sounds easy, but it does backfire on us. You get too many unintended consequences.

And besides, our national security does not depend on what we do in the Middle East. Our national security is threatened by this. We are overstretched. We're broke. And this is part of the strategy, as I mentioned before. Our archenemies in that region want to bankrupt us. They want to stir up hatred toward us, and they want to bog us down. And they're achieving what their goals are.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I talked to somebody today that will be voting for these, but admitted that they won't work and it is mere symbolism. So already they don't think these will do much good, even those who will vote for it. They're impossible to enforce, is one reason, and it will create a black market. And these particular sanctions are most difficult to enforce just because of the nature of the way it's written.

One must understand a little bit about the pressures put on this country to act in a defensive way. They happen to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear bombs. And they don't have a history, the Iranians. As bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, they're not expansionists territorially. I mean, how many years has it been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over another country? It is just not in recent history at all. But the countries around them, India--India has nuclear weapons, China has nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Israel, the United States. I mean, they're all around them, so I'm sure they feel like a cornered rat.

What I see here is propaganda, propaganda to build fear into people, to prepare the people for what is likely to come, just as we did in the 1990s, fear that there were weapons of mass destruction, but this one is, well, someday they might get a weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately, I am just really concerned that this is going to lead to hostilities because this is the initiation. The fear is building up. Too often in this country we talk of peace at the same time that we pursue war. We pursue war, and we use these efforts to push our policies on others.

And quite frankly, we don't have any more money to pursue this policy, whether it's used by the militarism or even to try to buy friends by giving them a lot of money. It just doesn't work.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution in the interest of United States security.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few more points as to why I oppose this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for ``non-controversial'' business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices?

This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran's ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran's ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications.

Recently, the Financial Times reported that, ``[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran's oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries--adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.''

Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state- owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran's petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the US economy if it is actually enforced?

As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.

This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that ``[i]t shall be the policy of the United States . . . to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.'' Article V of the NPT states clearly that, ``[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.'' As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT--has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes--this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S. demands. I would remind them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to split the time evenly, the 20 minutes, in support of the bill with my colleague, the ranking member from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time of the debate on H.R. 2194 by an additional 20 minutes, with my control of 10 of those additional 20 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio's control in opposition of 10 of those 20 minutes.

Perhaps, more accurately, you want to make sure the time is divided, and I am prepared to say the rules require that; and the extension of time I have in mind of an additional 20 minutes--

Mr. Speaker, I have a further unanimous consent request: that the 10 additional minutes of time on behalf of the supporters of this legislation be split, 5 minutes for the majority and 5 minutes for the ranking member.

Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it correct we are now in a situation where we will have a 1-hour debate on this bill in which I will have 15 minutes to yield, the ranking member will have 15 minutes to yield, and the gentleman from Ohio will have 30 minutes under his control?

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 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has one overriding goal: to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is the most serious and urgent strategic challenge faced by the United States, and we must use all of the diplomatic means at our disposal--including tougher sanctions--to prevent that from becoming a reality.

A nuclear-armed Iran would spread its influence by intimidating its neighbors; it would, with near impunity, continue to support terrorists and destabilize the Middle East; it would spark an arms race in the region that would tear the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to shreds; and, most frightening of all, it could, in the light of Iran's repeated threats to wipe another nation off the map, result in the actual use of nuclear weapons.

When one considers the regime's ideological nature, the fact that it sent thousands of children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, and its current disregard for the human rights of its own citizens, it is clear the Iranian regime is anything but a rational actor, and we certainly cannot take the chance that a nuclear Iran would behave responsibly.

With each passing day, the situation becomes more urgent as Iran takes additional steps to develop its nuclear weapons capability. By many estimates, it would have that capability by sometime next year, and even the predictions that they could not be ready to deliver a bomb within 5 years have to be reevaluated on a shorter time frame based on recent revelations about Iran's nuclear program.

In September, Iran's efforts to construct a new secret uranium enrichment facility were exposed to the world. And what was Tehran's response when the international community rightly condemned it for that action? To declare that it will build 10 more.

The Iranian nuclear issue could have been resolved without further sanctions. President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but regrettably Iran has not unclenched its fist. The regime has refused to endorse even a confidence-building measure--agreed to by its negotiators in Geneva--that would have seen Iran ship most of its low- enriched uranium abroad to be further enriched for use in Iran's civilian nuclear medical research reactor. That deal would have bought everyone significant time, delaying Iran's nuclear-arms clock for up to a year as negotiators dealt with the heart of the issue: Iranian compliance with the U.N. Security Council requirement that it suspend its enrichment program altogether. By rejecting the deal, Iran retains its full stock of low-enriched uranium, enough to serve as the basis for one nuclear bomb, and it forces the world to respond urgently.

The bill before us today is an important part of that response. It would take advantage of Iran's considerable dependency on refined- petroleum imports. It would sanction foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran, or help Iran with its own domestic refining capacity, by depriving those companies of access to the United States market. And in so doing, we are asking no more of foreign companies than we currently demand of American firms. I believe the passage and implementation of this act would have a powerful effect on the Iranian economy, and I believe it would force unpalatable budgetary choices on the Iranian regime, vastly increasing the domestic political cost of pursuing its nuclear program.

That said, I want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving forward with this legislation is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. As we move toward a likely conference with the Senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, I am open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as effective as possible in meeting that objective, including providing incentives to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral sanctions regime. One possibility would be to provide an exemption for companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in their national law.

But for now, it is sufficient to say that Iran has had ample time to respond positively to President Obama's generous engagement offer. Regrettably, the response has been only one of contempt. It is time for this body to act.

I urge the support of this legislation.

December 14, 2009.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the Iran Refined

Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (H.R. 2194, 111th Congress).

As you know, the bill was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means based on the Committee's jurisdiction over

international trade.

There have been some productive conversations between the

staffs of our Committees, during which we have proposed some

changes to H.R. 2194 that I believe help to clarify the

intent and scope of the bill, particularly with respect to

U.S. international trade obligations. I appreciate your

commitment to

address the concerns raised by the Committee on Ways and

Means as this legislation moves forward.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee on Ways and Means will forgo

action on this bill and will not oppose its consideration on

the suspension calendar, based on our understanding that you

will work with the Committee on Ways and Means as the

legislative process moves forward in the House of

Representatives and in the Senate, to ensure that our

concerns are addressed. This is done with the understanding

between our Committees that it does not in any way prejudice

the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to the

appointment of conferees or the full exercise of its

jurisdictional prerogative on this bill or similar

legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

our understanding with respect to H.R. 2194, and would ask

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

included in the Congressional Record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, a few unanimous consent requests. I first recognize the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a further unanimous consent request to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

(Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, someone who's has been very focused on this issue, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, could we get a little summary of the time remaining on this complicated issue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee on our House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 1 minute to one of the great supporters of this legislation, the Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) on behalf of the legislation.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Engel.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman who first introduced legislation on this subject, who I worked closely with, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very patient member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, I have heard, I guess, three reasons put forth about why people should not support this legislation.

The first is some hint of a belief that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Our report lists activity after activity that Iran has undertaken to hide its activities from the IAEA to build enrichment facilities that have no purpose in the uranium enrichment program and to talk about neutron triggers, which only have one purpose, which is to detonate a nuclear weapon. It is a country that has been offered by Russia, with the support of the P5, a chance for a nuclear energy program, and it has spurned all of those offers to pursue this. To me, there can be no serious doubt about that.

The second argument is that they get a nuclear weapon, and we can contain them. For the reasons I gave in the beginning and because I believe it totally destroys the nonproliferation regime, containment is not the right policy.

The third argument is that these sanctions are going to hurt the Iranian people. Well, I was here in 1986 when we took up a prohibition on any new investment, not investment in the energy sector, but any new investment in the apartheid regime of South Africa.

What was the argument against it? Banning new investment, curtailing economic growth, hurting the majority of the population in South Africa. Don't do it. Don't wreak havoc on the poor people.

We did not listen to that argument. We enacted those new sanctions. Europe soon followed in banning new investment. The South African business community went to the regime in South Africa and pointed out the economic devastation they faced if they continued with their apartheid policies.

It is ludicrous to think that the people who are risking their lives and their liberty and their limbs and who are doing everything they can to express their opposition to this regime in Iran are going to turn into a unifying force behind that regime because the price of oil gets higher. We are working with them to weaken that regime and to stop this nuclear weapons program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.