Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

For the past year, I have met with Iranian dissidents who continue to protest the presidential elections that occurred a little more than a year ago. Many of them have urged me to ensure that Congress enacts strong sanctions. We are all too well aware of the existential threat that a nuclear-powered Iran would be.

Today we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect Americans and our allies. Yet if that was our goal, I believe we only have partial success.

As a conferee representing the Financial Services Committee, I do admit that the sanctions themselves have been improved. I was pleased to see that the legislation includes financial sanctions that would cut off the connections between the U.S. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran.

Yes, the conference report does add additional types of sanctions, and it extends the range of current sanctions. But I remind my colleagues that these punishments are hardly crippling, they're hardly tough, they're hardly sweeping or even expanded if they are never enforced.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this time they'll work. But let me remind them of a little bit of history. In 1996, Congress passed the original Iran sanctions legislation; but in the last 14 years, no President has imposed sanctions, even though he has had the authority from Congress to do so. In fact, only one investigation was ever initiated. I say that this conference report is really only a half measure, a half bill, because 50 percent of it depends on who? On President Obama's willingness to implement the sanctions and to do it quickly.

This legislation does in fact have seven separate waivers which the President may invoke. In addition, there are three different waiver thresholds. The end result is that the President has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the report.

Now, of course multiple Democrats have attempted to reassure me. They say that they will now pressure the President to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation. But we've been hearing that for 16 months. We've been told that the President's attempts to engage the U.N. about Iran would produce diplomatic gains. Yet the recently passed U.N. security resolution was hardly that significant of a success. Furthermore, President Obama himself recognized 2 weeks ago that, A, Iran concealed a nuclear enrichment facility; B, Iran further violated its own obligations; C, Iran is enriching uranium up to 20 percent.

Mr. Speaker, for the past year, I have read about and met with Iranian dissidents who continue to protest the presidential elections that occurred a little more than a year ago. Many of them have urged me to work to ensure that Congress enacts strong sanctions. They say that they long to be free from the current regime, especially since they too are afraid of what would happen if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon.

Today, we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect Americans, our allies, and the Iranians who suffer under tyrannical leaders. Yet if this was our goal, I believe we can proclaim only partial success.

As a conferee representing the Financial Services Committee, I do admit that the sanctions themselves have been improved. I was pleased to see that this legislation includes financial sanctions that would cut off the connection between the U.S. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with iran's Islamic Guard Corps or Iranian banks under sanctions.

In addition, it establishes a legal framework for U.S. states and local governments to divest from foreign businesses that have economic ties to the Iranian energy sector. I am also thankful for the provision that sanctions those who commit egregious human rights violations against the Iranian people.

Yes, the conference report does add additional types of sanctions, and extends the range of current sanctions. But I remind my colleagues that these punishments are hardly ``crippling'' or ``tough'' or ``sweeping'' or even ``expanded'' if they are never enforced.

My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle claim that this time sanctions will work. but I would like to remind them of a few historical facts:

1. In 1996, Congress passed the original Iran Sanctions legislation.

2. Yet for the past 14 years, no U.S. President has imposed sanctions--even though he has this authority and mandate from Congress.

3. In fact, only one investigation was ever initiated.

I say that this conference report is really a half measure. It's ``half a bill'' because 50% of it depends entirely on President Obama's willingness to implement sanctions, and to do so quickly.

This legislation has at least seven separate waivers which the President may invoke. In addition, there are three different waiver thresholds. The end result is that the President has the option of enforcing most of the punitive measures outlined in the conference report.

Of course, multiple Democrats have attempted to reassure me. They say that they will now pressure the President to implement the sanctions outlined in this legislation.

But I've been hearing the same claim for the past 16 months!

1. We have been told that the President's attempts to engage the U.N. about Iran would produce great diplomatic gains.

2. Yet the recently-passed U.N. security resolution was hardly a significant success.

3. Furthermore, President Obama himself recognized two weeks ago that:

a. ``Iran concealed a nuclear enrichment facility.''

b. ``Iran further violated its own obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment.''

c. Iran is ``enriching [uranium] up to 20 percent.''

d. Iran ``has failed to comply fully with IAEA's requirements.''

e. Iran is the only [Non-Proliferation Treaty] signatory in the world--the only one--that cannot convince the IAEA that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.''

How can you justify the 18-month lapse you've already given to President Obama?

If the majority hasn't been pressuring President Obama for the last year and half, why haven't they? After all, the original Iran Sanctions legislation has been in effect since before President Obama took office.

If they have been pressuring the President--without results--why do they think that he will listen to them now? What articulation can they invoke that they failed to give before? Why would the President be more likely to listen to them now?

President Obama seems concerned only about pressuring Iran through diplomatic means; he has begged Congress to delay passage of sanctions--as if the threat of sanctions would be a distraction or roadblock to his negotiating success. And why would he seek broad latitude and carve-outs for nations like Russia if he were serious about imposing sanctions on Iran?

Given the pressure that the State Department put on the conferees, I do wonder if sanctions investigations will ever result in the actual application of sanctions.

And even if they did, the bill doesn't require prompt action. Some of the waivers allow the president to postpone sanctions for up to 12 months if a company falls into certain categories.

For example, this means that the president could choose not to enforce sanctions against BP, since BP is based in a ``cooperating country''--one which voted for the U.N. Iran Sanctions resolution. In other cases, the president is given flexibility in issuing a waiver if he determines that a company has achieved a 20-30% reduction in sanctionable activities.

In other words, the president could claim that he is complying the day after he signs the conference report. But a year or even a year and a half could go by with no activity or tangible outcome. Even so, the president would technically be in compliance with this legislation.

Just think about this: we could have a new president (in 2012) before this bill would require the president to actually enforce a single sanction. He could simply continue doing what he is doing now: cite one of the seven waivers.

So . . . how did we come to this point? Why are we now considering a weaker bill than the one that passed the House last December? Why are we faced with the potential for such an ineffective outcome?

I'd like to be able to thank the Democrats for considering this in a bi-partisan and constructive manner. But the process was neither bi- partisan nor constructive.

In fact, one is hard pressed to describe to this conference as a ``process'' at all. I certainly don't think that one meeting--which involved opening statements only--could ever be defined as a ``process.''

During that first (and only) meeting, Members pledged to work together to pass tough sanctions. But Chairmen Dodd and Berman never called another meeting. I heard nothing

more. Then, my staff received an e-mail at 2:42 p.m. yesterday. The e- mail simply read: ``Attached please find a final text of the conference report . . . Signature sheet will be available from 3-4 o'clock today.''

In the end, we wind up right where we started--with lots of promises from the majority that they will pressure the president to do the right thing.

The numbers tell the exasperating story quite effectively:

We were allowed zero chances to offer amendments.

We were allowed zero up or down votes on any section of the report.

We were given zero chances to revise the draft conference report.

We have zero ability to offer a Motion to Recommit.

We had one official meeting between the conferees.

We had one hour to read the 41-page final conference report before the deadline for signing it had elapsed.

These actions clearly show that the majority never intended to be held accountable for watering down the original legislation. They never wanted to give us an opportunity to oppose the demands of the White House. They never desired transparency and openness so that the American public could examine the true positions of their elected leaders.

What are the Democrats afraid of? If the answer is a veto threat, I think we should remember our oath which includes the words: ``I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.'' Particularly in this case, our principles should have come before our politics.

We all know that the president of Iran has called Zionists, ``the true manifestation of Satan.'' We also know that he has said that since the U.S. recognizes Israel, it will ``burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''

If we truly agree that sanctions are the best non-violent deterrent and if we agree that Iran is as little as a year away from obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities, why does this legislation grant the president so many waivers and so much time to act? Time, unfortunately, is most decidedly not on our side.

As the Joint Explanatory Statement reads, I hope that we will all now ``urge the President to vigorously impose the sanctions provided for in this act.''

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

Throughout history, there have been many examples of states that were openly targeted by rising enemies but which failed to take effective action to prevent a potential threat from becoming a mortal one. This is at the crux of today's debate. The Congress will be sending to the President a long list of sanctions for him to implement. If all are implemented vigorously, this legislation could constitute decisive action to compel the Iranian regime to end its nuclear weapons pursuit, to end its chemical and biological weapons and missile programs, to end its state sponsorship of global jihadists; and in doing so, cease being a significant threat to our Nation, to our interests, and to our important critical allies, such as the democratic Jewish State of Israel.

If, as successive U.S. administrations have done, the sanctions are ignored, then we will have failed the American people. The Iranian regime has been constructing the means to make nuclear weapons, along with the missiles with which to strike other countries, for decades. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. took the lead to stop Iran. The U.S. demonstrated its commitment by withdrawing from commercial activities involving this rogue state. Congress then enacted the Iran Sanctions Act, hoping to use it as leverage for cooperation from our allies in preventing the Iranian threat from escalating.

The 1996 law sought consultations first, but called for the imposition of sanctions unless allied governments had ``taken specific and effective actions, including, as appropriate, the imposition of penalties to terminate the involvement'' of their nationals in the sanctionable activity.

But as the Iranian threat has grown, our allies have taken very limited steps regarding Iran. The international community has merely supported tepid U.N. Security Council resolutions that impose modest sanctions on the regime while restating the willingness to engage in negotiations and offer concessions to Tehran. Some countries have actively opposed placing any punitive measures on the Iranian regime despite the fact that its violations of its international obligations have been repeatedly demonstrated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia and China, in particular, have acted as surrogates for Iran and have watered down every proposed Security Council resolution. The regime in Tehran has reason to be grateful for their efforts and their tireless work on their behalf. How sad.

Now the U.S. has chosen to reward the likes of Russia by removing sanctions on entities assisting the Iranian nuclear and missile programs and offering the Russian Federation a nuclear cooperation agreement on the same day that the Russian president offered the same nuclear deal to the Syrian regime.

We are at a defining moment, Mr. Speaker. The opportunity we have before us in the form of this conference report may well prove to be one of our last best hopes to force Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and its policies that threaten our security.

When appointed as a conferee for this bill, my goal was for the final product to have a comprehensive crippling sanction policy targeting the Iranian regime. In principle, this conference report is a step forward. It expands the types of sanctions and the range of actors and activities to be sanctioned in an effort to strike at the Iranian regime's key vulnerabilities, especially its dependence on refined petroleum. The most important are a set of financial measures that, if implemented, would force foreign financial institutions to choose between doing business with Iran or with us in the United

States. It also increases penalties on violators.

Unfortunately, this act also contains a key element that could significantly undercut its effectiveness, multiple exceptions and waivers for the President and executive branch officials.

That means by a stroke of a pen, substantive provisions can be transformed into mere recommendations or options. We must not allow this to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the esteemed minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a House conferee on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, as well as a House conferee on this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Ed Royce, the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, and a House conferee on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the ranking member on the Financial Services Subcommittee on

Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, as well as a House conferee on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), an esteemed member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the National Security Working Group of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), a member of the Agriculture, Veterans' Affairs, and Transportation Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it may surprise some to learn that the penalties in the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 have never been imposed on a single individual or a company. Only once has a company even been found to be in violation of its provisions, but sanctions were immediately waived by the Clinton administration due to the protests by the Russian, French, and Malaysian Governments, which did not want their companies penalized for doing business with Iran. It should be noted that the same companies--Russia's Gazprom, France's Total, and Malaysia's Petronas--are still providing the Iranian regime a vital economic lifeline through energy-related investments.

I and other members of the conference committee had hoped that this bill before us would avoid repeating past mistakes--that is, avoid undermining its effectiveness by giving the President an option of doing nothing. This was not to be.

The result is that the President is authorized to waive not only the imposition of sanctions for refined petroleum transactions, investments in Iran's energy sector, and aid to Iran's programs on weapons of mass destruction, missile, and advanced conventional weapons, but even on basic investigations and determinations of some sanctionable activities.

With respect to the inclusion of financial sanctions and a visa ban against those committing serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people, not only can the President waive the sanctions, but he can waive the requirement to name and shame these human rights abusers by listing them publicly.

Some will argue that this bill goes further than any before in forcing the President to act. However, it is disingenuous to make such a claim given that the President could have issued an

Executive order to implement a wide array of additional Iran sanctions, but he didn't.

The version passed by the House prohibited the entry into force of a nuclear cooperation agreement with any country assisting Iranian proliferation. Its purpose was to prevent a country that is undermining U.S. efforts to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program from being rewarded with a lucrative nuclear cooperation agreement.

That prohibition is not included in the conference report. The text before us does include the prohibition in the House-passed bill on transfers of U.S. nuclear technology to a country that has jurisdiction over entities that have assisted Iran's proliferation programs. However, it provides the President with what amounts to a waiver to approve such transfers on a case-by-case basis, and if the President deems it to be in vital national security interest. It also wipes the slate clean regarding any proliferation violations that took place before the date that this bill is enacted. Some of us view this to be a carve-out for Russia.

Mr. Speaker, at long last, the time has come for us to act. The time is now. We should support the conference report and ensure that the sanctions are vigorously enforced.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the

conference report on 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.

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 ask unanimous consent to extend the period of debate on this conference report by 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, equally divided between the ranking member and myself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

The conference agreement for H.R. 2194 is by far the most comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation Congress has ever passed. This legislation greatly strengthens our Nation's overall sanctions regime regarding Iran, enhances the prospect that we will be able to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions in blatant defiance of the international community as reaffirmed once again this month in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.

Like the House bill passed in December, the conference agreement imposes sanctions on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also plugs a critical gap in our sanctions regime by imposing sanctions on foreign entities that sell Iran goods or services that help it develop its energy sector.

Some believe that Iran has prepared itself for tougher energy sanctions by reducing its dependence on the import of refined petroleum. To ensure that our sanctions are as effective as possible, we added a potent new financial measure in conference that, if applied effectively by the administration, has the potential to be a game- changer. That provision sanctions foreign banks that deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or other blacklisted Iranian institutions, including Iranian banks involved with WMD or terrorism. Foreign banks involved in facilitating such activities would be shut out of the U.S. financial system, and U.S. banks would not be allowed to deal with them.

The conference report also requires the executive branch to pursue all credible evidence of sanctionable activity. We have been profoundly unhappy over the years that successive administrations failed to implement the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act. Our bill will also put an end to the absurd practice of the U.S. Government awarding contracts to companies engaged in sanctionable activity. In addition, the legislation imposes penalties on Iran's human rights abusers and sanctions foreign entities that provide Iran with the means to stifle freedom of expression. This portion of the bill will absolutely not terminate until Iran unconditionally releases all political prisoners, ends unlawful detention, torture, and abuse of citizens engaged in peaceful activity, and punishes the abusers.

Finally, the conference agreement will help empower Iran's democratic opposition by exempting from our embargo the transfer of technologies that can help them overcome the regime's apparatus of oppression.

I don't know if sanctions will work in bringing Iran's leadership to its senses. But I do know this: doing nothing certainly won't work. In light of Iran's rapid progress toward achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Tehran's repeated rejection of President Obama's diplomatic overtures, the measures in this conference agreement, if implemented effectively by the administration, are our best and, I believe, only hope for a positive and peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue.

The two alternatives to strong sanctions are both horrible and horrifying--either employing the military option or, even worse, accepting the inevitability of Iran as a nuclear power.

The U.S. Congress needs to do everything it can to ensure we avoid both of these miserable results. We have taken some steps in the past, but we can do far more today by voting to pass the enhanced sanctions in H.R. 2194.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, who has been a wonderful partner on this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a key member of the conference committee on this bill, a bill that has a number of areas within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from California raises, as others have, the issue of waivers. I just want to remind the body this legislation has increased the standard for waivers, tightened the situations when waivers can be given. And, remember, we're talking about a process I hope will be rarely used, and I think we have to push that notion. We're not talking about Ahmadinejad giving the waivers, the Supreme Leader giving the waivers, the violating company giving the waivers. We're talking about a President of the United States, hopefully quite rarely, utilizing the enhanced standard waiver authority, a President who has spent more time diplomatically and in every other way trying to estop Iran from achieving this goal than any other President in the history of this country has ever done.

I'll stand with this legislation, with this authority, with this President as the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions ever on the Iran nuclear weapons program.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a key supporter of this legislation, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Eliot Engel.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a key member of the conference committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time there is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a very distinguished member of the conference committee, the vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Nuclear Nonproliferation, Terrorism and International Trade, my friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa), a member of the committee and the conference committee and very helpful in our efforts here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate be extended by 10 minutes, divided equally between the chair and ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, a tough taskmaster on this issue because of his passion for this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the remaining time on each side?

I am very pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Jared Polis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to a valued member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2194, to avoid the nuclear attack that Iran represents to the world and to Israel. I rise to give strong support to H.R. 2194, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides another tool for the President to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons by allowing the administration to sanction foreign firms who attempt to supply refined gasoline to Iran or provide them with the materials to enhance their oil refineries. These sanctions would further restrict the government of Iran's ability to procure refined petroleum. Currently, the availability of petroleum products is stagnant in Iran. Private firms have decided that the government of Iran's refusal to cooperate with the multilateral community on nuclear proliferation generates a significant risk to doing business with Iran.

I would like to thank Chairman Berman for incorporating my concerns about the human rights situation in Iran into the findings of this legislation. It is important that we acknowledge that, throughout 2009, the government of Iran has persistently violated the rights of its citizens. The government of Iran's most overt display of disregard for human rights happened in the presidential elections on June 12, 2009. As I said on June 19, 2009, ``we must condemn Iran for the absence of fair and free Presidential elections and urge Iran to provide its people with the opportunity to engage in a Democratic election process.'' The repression and murder, arbitrary arrests, and show trials of peaceful dissidents in the wake of the elections were a sad reminder of the government of Iran's long history of human rights violations. The latest violations were the most recent iteration of the government of Iran's wanton suppression of the freedom of expression.

It is important that we are clear that our concerns are with the government of Iran and not its people. The State Department's Human Rights Report on Iran provides a bleak picture of life in Iran. The government of Iran, through its denial of the democratic process and repression of dissent, has prevented the people from determining their own future. Moreover, it is the government of Iran that persecutes its ethnic minorities and denies the free expression of religion. As we proceed with consideration of this legislation, we should all remember that the sole target of these sanctions is the Iranian government.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Iran has repeatedly shown its disdain for the international community by disregarding international nonproliferation agreements. Iran's flagrant violation of nonproliferation agreements was evidenced most recently in the discovery of the secret enrichment facility at Qom. The government of Iran's continued threats against Israel, opposition to the Middle East peace process, and support of international terrorist organizations further demonstrates the necessity for action. Iran with nuclear weapons and a mindset to destroy Israel cannot be tolerated by the world community.

We must stop Iran's determination to become a nuclear power. Iran's recent actions towards the international community reflect a very small measure of progress. Iran's decision to allow International Atomic Energy

Agency, IAEA, inspectors to visit this facility was a positive sign, but not a sufficient indication of their willingness to comply with international agreements. The recent announcement that Iran will accept a nuclear fuel deal is also indicative of their willingness to engage in dialogue, though it remains to be seen what amendments they will seek to the deal. While these actions indicate a small degree of improvement in Iran's position, the legislation before us today demonstrates that only continued dialogue and positive actions will soften the international community's stance towards Iran.

I would also like to emphasize that the legislation before us provides only one tool for achieving Iran's compliance with international nonproliferation agreements. I continue to support the administration's policy of engagement with Iran and use of diplomatic talks. I believe that diplomacy and multilateralism are the most valuable tools we have to create change in Iran. After those tools fail, I believe that the sanctions are an appropriate recourse.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my good friend, for the leadership she continues to show on a repeated basis on this issue and so many other issues. I want to thank Mr. Berman. I very much wanted to get this to the floor to move this week. He has done that. I want to thank Senator Dodd as well for his work. And I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee. I also want to thank Rob Andrews of New Jersey, who was so vital to the central idea of how we could put appropriate pressure on this.

I want to say to my Republican friends who have been talking about the Obama administration, frankly, the Bush administration and the Obama administration have both been working towards trying to resolve this issue with Iran. Frankly, the Obama administration has, for the first time, gotten a strong resolution through the Security Council. We had the opportunity of just meeting with the President of Russia, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, the Speaker and I, and others, and Mr. Berman. He said it was a tough thing to do, but he worked very closely with President Obama and they were able to get it done. So this is not a time for pointing fingers. We're united on this. This is not a difference, but this is a unity, a unity of purpose and commitment.

Every one of us understands the deep danger of a nuclear Iran. That danger includes a new nuclear arms race as Iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing arsenals, plunging the world into a new era of proliferation. No one wants that. The danger includes as well a nuclear umbrella for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to stage more brazen and deadly attacks, especially on our ally Israel, but not exclusively. There are 250,000 Americans in harm's way from Iran as we speak.

And the danger includes, on a more basic level, a new era of fear for all of those in range of Iran's missiles. All of those consequences will be felt even if Iran's missiles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons remain buried. Could we imagine those weapons being used? We would be foolish not to, as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime whose President denies the Holocaust, stokes hatred, and openly threatens Iran's neighbors.

Even so, our administration has pursued a dual-track strategy with respect to Iran.

On the one side is the administration's policy of engagement. I support that policy. John Kennedy said that we should never fear to negotiate, but we ought never to negotiate out of fear. I think he was correct. Jim Baker, in the days before we went into Kuwait, was talking to Saddam Hussein to see if the matter could be resolved.

On the one side, as I said, is that policy of engagement. This engagement reversed years of diplomatic silence during which Iran's nuclear program grew. It showed the world our patience; it tested Iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith, and it built international support for sanctions.

Sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. It is time to pursue the second prong of the dual-track strategy--pressure. The International Atomic Energy Agency tells us that Iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs; Iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities, and has refused to cooperate with the demands of the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to suspend enrichment.

Let's be clear: Iran is blatantly defying the will of the international community. This is unacceptable. That is not a partisan position. It is almost a unanimous position of the administration and of this Congress. That is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the Iranian regime.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. I urge its support.

I, again, thank Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this critical resolution to the floor.

I join my colleagues as well in saying that enforcement of the resolutions that Iran has adopted, that our European colleagues have adopted, and this resolution will be critical, and the understanding that it is to be enforced needs to be understood by Iran.