To clarify certain provisions relating to the interests of Iran in certain assets, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, are we apportioning that 5 minutes from each side?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Ron Paul, an American patriot, someone who has been relentless in his efforts to stop America from blundering into foreign adventures.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

What this is doing is essentially stopping any kind of a negotiated deal and putting us on a path towards war with Iran. You know, it is likely that any negotiated deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the nuclear nonproliferation weapons treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. So we're taking a path here that guarantees that we're put on a glide slope right to war. Why are we doing this, we don't have enough wars in this country? We aren't involved in enough places around the world in war?

This is a bad resolution.

I would like to include for the Record a statement by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which says that the new sanctions push the U.S. and Iran closer to war.

New Iran Sanctions Push U.S., Iran Closer Toward War--Friends Committee

on National Legislation

Washington, DC.--FCNL's Lobbyist on Middle East issues Kate

Gould issued the following statement opposing the Iran Threat

Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (H.R. 1905) that

could reach the House floor as early as today:

The Friends Committee on National Legislation strongly

opposes the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act

of 2012 (H.R. 1905). We believe this legislation would

undermine human rights in Iran and cripple the accountability

of the diplomatic process now underway to prevent a nuclear-

armed Iran, pushing the U.S. and Iran closer toward a

devastating war.

War is the ultimate human rights violation, and this bill

lays the groundwork for war by escalating the scale of

economic warfare that Congress would impose on ordinary

Iranian citizens. As in the case of the decades of U.S. and

U.N. sanctions against Iraq that culminated in a U.S.

invasion of that country, economic warfare punishes

civilians, emboldens hardliners in Iran's regime, and

forecloses diplomatic options to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran

and war.

Punishing Iranian Civilians

FCNL and ten other national advocacy and religious

organizations from the human rights and peace and security

community wrote to Senator Tim Johnson, Chair of the Senate

Banking Committee, last week to oppose this bill, and to

highlight the importance of keeping channels open for

Iranians to have access to food, medicine, and other

humanitarian goods and services.

Ordinary Iranians already face tremendous difficulties in

accessing basic medicine under sanctions. For example, this

week, the board of directors of the Iranian Hemophilia

Society informed the World Federation of Hemophilia that the

lives of tens of thousands of children are being endangered

by the lack of proper drugs, as a consequence of

international sanctions.

The Iranian Hemophilia Society notes that U.S. and

international sanctions technically do not ban medical goods.

Yet, despite the `humanitarian exemption' in U.S. sanctions

laws, medicine is not getting in to Iran because the

``sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and the

country's other financial institutions have severely

disrupted the purchase and transfer of medical goods.''

The humanitarian exemption is of profound importance, as

the U.S. business community and humanitarian organizations

have pointed out. We are relieved that this legislation does

not directly prohibit Iranians from accessing food, medicine,

and humanitarian trade. However, if the Iranian civilian

economy is destroyed by sanctions, then millions of Iranians

will be deprived of their livelihoods, and unable to purchase

the food, medicine, and other goods that the humanitarian

exemption is supposed to protect. Further destabilization of

the Iranian currency and decimation of the Iranian economy

will push Iran closer to the state of Iraq when it was under

sanctions. During that time, UNICEF estimated that U.N.

sanctions contributed to the deaths of half a million

children.

Emboldening Hardliners in Iran

This bill would embolden hardliners in the Iranian regime,

at the expense of the civilians who will overwhelmingly bear

the brunt of these sanctions. Just as Saddam Hussein never

missed a meal under the decades of sanctions against Iraq,

top Iranian officials will not have difficulty accessing food

and medicine. National security expert Fareed Zakaria has

noted that the U.S./U.N. sanctions' ``basic effect has been

to weaken civil society and strengthen the state'', and that

``the other effects of the sanctions has been that larger and

larger parts of the economy are now controlled by Iran's

Revolutionary Guard--the elite corps of the armed forces.''

Foreclosing Diplomatic Options, Laying Groundwork for War

As countless U.S. and Israeli security officials have

pointed out, diplomacy is the single most effective way to

prevent war and a nuclear-armed Iran. This bill would be a

setback to achieving a near-term diplomatic resolution of the

standoff over Iran's nuclear program, foreclosing diplomatic

options to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and a devastating

war.

This bill would tie the President's hands, eroding the

little flexibility that Congress normally allows the

executive branch to conduct negotiations with Iran and allow

for sanctions relief in exchange for serious, verifiable

Iranian concessions. We are particularly concerned about

section 217, which effectively endorses regime change. The

provision would prohibit the President from lifting sanctions

against the Central Bank of Iran unless Iran agrees to a host

of conditions that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot

reasonably be expected to agree to.

As veteran intelligence officer Paul Pillar has pointed

out, requiring Iran to end efforts to ``acquire or develop

ballistic missiles'', [section 217 (d)(1)(A)(iii)] ``goes

beyond any United Nations resolutions on Iran, which talk

about nuclear capability of missiles, and even beyond

anything ever demanded of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for which

range limits were imposed. It would be understandable if

Tehran reads such language as further evidence that the

United States is not interested in any negotiated agreement

but instead only in regime change.''

The bill even requires the President to certify that Iran

does not ``construct, equip, operate, or maintain nuclear

facilities that could aid Iran's effort to acquire a nuclear

capability'' [section 217 (d)(1)(A)(ii.)]: in order to lift

sanctions against Iran's Central Bank. It appears that

Congress is requiring that t broad indiscriminate sanctions

remain in place unless Iran surrenders its nuclear program

entirely, even if it is a verifiably peace program.

FCNL strongly urges members of Congress to speak out and

vote against this broad, indiscriminate sanctions legislation

on the House floor today.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Representative Ron Paul.

I would like to include for the Record a publication from the International Civil Society Action Network, ``What the Women Say: Killing Them Softly: The Stark Impact of Sanctions on the Lives of Ordinary Iranians.''

What the Women Say: Killing Them Softly: The Stark Impact of Sanctions

on the Lives of Ordinary Iranians--Brief 3: July 2012

The unprecedented, devastating and counterproductive impact

of sanctions, coupled with the on-and-off threat of war, is

an ever-growing reality in the lives of ordinary Iranians.

For the generation of Iranians whose childhood was punctured

by nightly bombings, fear of chemical attacks, and eight

years of death and destruction resulting from the Iran-Iraq

war, the current state of uncertainty, prospects of hardship

and unraveling of the lives they rebuilt is overwhelming.

In New York, London, Washington and Brussels the rationale

for sanctions vary. Central to the case is the notion that

only crippling sanctions can slow Iran's nuclear program and

bring about change. A number of the sanctions also target

state institutions and individuals implicated in human rights

violations. Regardless of their political leanings, among

western leaders, policymakers and pundits, no one denies that

economic sanctions are blunt instruments that typically harm

the civilian population far more than the state. Western

policy makers, however, respond that `this is the price that

has to be paid'--the questions of price for what, how much,

how long and by whom are left hanging.

Iranians have the answers. The earliest sanctions imposed

in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Iranian revolution

(and American hostage taking) had less direct impact on the

public. But since 1995, when the Clinton Administration honed

in on the oil and gas sector to the current day where the

banking and financial sectors have been targeted, private

enterprise and ordinary citizens are the primary and

overwhelming victims. Needless to say, they are skeptical of

western politicians or institutions that claim to care about

the well being, human rights or aspirations of the Iranian

populace.

It is not uncommon for Iranians in every walk of life to

recall the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), when the Western world

was complicit with Saddam's Iraq and its use of chemical

weapons. With the impact of current sanctions seeping into

every day life now, many Iranians consider them to be a

profoundly insidious and destructive force and source of

basic human rights violations, affecting a wide cross section

of Iranians.

As one women's rights activist stated, ``the international

community's sole focus on the nuclear issue has resulted in

the adoption of policies that inflict great damage on the

Iranian people, civil society and women. Militarization of

the environment will prompt repressive state policies and the

possibility of promoting reform in Iran will diminish.''

Iranians' wariness of the international community, however,

has not quelled criticism of their own government. They have

neither an appetite for war nor for the bellicose language of

the state. They criticize the government's mishandling of the

economy in recent years. They balk at the continued

imposition of social restrictions. Those involved in civil

rights activism including students, workers, women and

leaders from ethnic groups and religious minority communities

are among the first to feel the endless pressures and

limitations imposed on them. Not least because the sanctions

and threat of war allow the state to invoke ``a state of

emergency'' and in so doing suppress critics and voices of

dissent.

In its ongoing series of MENA region `What the Women Say'

briefs, ICAN provides a gendered analysis of the impact of

sanctions, echoing the voices and experiences of Iranians,

particularly women's rights activists, regarding the social,

economic, political and security consequences. At a time when

the United States, the European Union and others are

heralding their national action plans on women, peace and

security that highlight the need for women's protection in

times of crisis and their participation in conflict

prevention and peacemaking, this brief offers the

international community recommendations on limiting the

immediate and long-term damage being wrought on women,

Iranian society and ultimately regional security.

1. Current sanctions cut deep and wide into the social and economic

life of ordinary Iranians

Iranians know war and they know sanctions. The experiences

of women, men, the elderly and the young who lived through

the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war are rarely recounted

today, but the long term impact is still evident. Though

their plight is rarely discussed, women of child bearing age

and soldiers exposed to chemical warfare still suffer from

complex health problems. Similarly the thousands of men

handicapped by landmines and war wounds are rarely a topic of

conversation. Another long term impact has been the rise of

female headed households in part due to war deaths among men.

Throughout the 1980s war years, Iranians also suffered from

sanctions and lived under a strict rations policy. But it was

a very different society then. Some 50 percent of Iranians

lived in rural areas and were largely self sufficient through

domestic agricultural production. The sanctions too were

limited to key sectors pertaining to military equipment. As a

result the public impact was less evident. International

trade relations were sustained including with the U.S.

private sector. Today only 29 percent of Iranians live in

rural areas. Continued migration to urban areas has led to

the expansion of cities and their peripheries. The majority

of migrants eke out their living in the service industry and

informal economy on the margins of cities. The sanctions

regime is doing most damage to those who are already

vulnerable--the urban poor. As the pressures increase,

economic class and social divisions are also being

exacerbated.

2010 sanctions choking insurance and shipping sectors with

implications for public health: Sanctions introduced in the

summer of 2010 directly targeted insurance companies that

insured Iranian shipping involved in the import and export of

products. Despite denials by proponents of the sanctions

regime, this round of sanctions directly affected the

availability of foreign-made medication and other healthcare

products to Iranians including vitamins for children and

pregnant women and sanitary products. The implication for

serious illnesses including cancer is particularly profound.

As one women's rights activists recounted, ``foreign made

medicine became difficult to find in 2010, and with the

intensification of sanctions this trend has continued.

Domestically produced drugs, which are dependent on imported

ingredients, are also more expensive and difficult to find.''

Others echo this experience. ``Many Iranians can no longer

afford the high cost of cancer treatment drugs that have

become hard to find,'' says the daughter of a female cancer

patient. ``Family members have to go from one hospital to

another and to multiple pharmacies to find and then purchase

the medicines at high costs for the treatment and life of

their family members. Patients with poorer prognoses or those

who cannot afford it are forgoing treatments and opting for

an early death so they don't burden their families

financially.''

Sanctions targeting Iran's oil and gas sector were also

intensified in 2010, through limiting or ending the sale of

gasoline products to Iran. In anticipation, the Iranian

government initiated a number of steps including ending of

subsidies for gasoline, rationing gasoline and increasing

domestic refining processes. As a result, the price increase

has been significant, with unrationed gasoline

costing 4000 Rials per liter in 2009 and projected to

increase to 8000 Rials in 2012. Free market prices for

gasoline are currently at 7000 Rials per liter. Additionally

the quality of the domestic product is much lower than

imports, according to experts.

One significant impact of the increased use of domestically

produced gasoline has been a noticeable decline in air

quality, particularly in Tehran. Reports note that Tehran's

air quality, which was already poor, has worsened

significantly since gasoline imports were sanctioned. Even

the New York Times report explained the connection between

the ban on gasoline imports, the push to use domestically

produced gasoline and the rapid air quality deterioration:

``According to e-mails circulated to industry experts . . .

lran's new supply of domestic gasoline may contain high

levels of aromatics--more than twice the level permitted by

Iranian law. Burning aromatics in car engines produces

exhaust packed with high concentrations of ``floating

particles'' or ``particulates'' that, added to the typical

smog caused by nitrous oxides and ozone, can cause a range of

health problems, from headaches and dizziness to more serious

cardiac and respiratory complaints.'''

In the same year, Mohsen Nariman, MP from Babol said, ``air

pollution is on the rise at an unusual rate and it seems that

one of the main causes is the substandard gasoline that is

being used in Tehran.'' One newspaper, the Hamshahri Daily,

reported that 310 persons died per day as a result of poor

air quality in Tehran in the months of October and November

2011. The cause of death included increased respiratory

complications, heart attacks and stroke.

Unprecedented banking sanctions targeting Iranians in all

areas of life: The banking sanctions that went into effect in

December 2011 have also wreaked havoc in people's lives. The

Iranian Rial has almost halved in value against the US dollar

and other currencies. With memories of the Iran-Iraq war

still fresh for many Iranians, across Tehran and other

cities, people, including shopkeepers and merchants reacted

by hoarding products. Consequently the price of a wide range

of goods and products including foodstuffs rose between 20-

100 percent, and continues to fluctuate.

The knock-on effect is evident in all areas of life. While

incomes have not increased, rents have doubled in some areas

of the city. The price of bread--a staple of the Iranian diet

especially for the poor--has increased by some 1500% in the

past 2 years, in part due to the removal of state subsidies.

The uncertainty is causing stagnation for the private sector,

while some businessmen point out that companies affiliated

with the state are exploiting the situation as they have

access to government exchange rates. Sanctions were imposed

to prevent a nuclear weapons program. Instead, as one

commentator notes, the price of manure has risen.

Iranian students studying abroad have also been impacted

seriously. Many are being forced to give up their education

as their families can no longer afford the tuition. Some UK

universities are refusing to register Iranian students

because they cannot prove that they can transfer the

necessary fees. But the sanctions--or the way that banks and

other bodies currently interpret them--make it impossible for

most Iranian students to do so.

In addition countless Iranians who have relatives living in

the EU and US and those who travel for medical treatment have

become entangled in the vast banking sanctions net. Thousands

have personal bank accounts and savings in western banks,

some dating back decades. Now they are being forced to shut

down their accounts and find themselves caught in a financial

no-man's land; being forced to close existing accounts, while

barred from transferring their savings to other accounts

internationally or in Iran.

In effect the banking sanctions are forcing massive

reliance on a cash based economy, making already vulnerable

Iranians dependent on black marketeers for the transfer of

funds to cover educational, health or other legitimate costs.

It is also fostering the rise of informal power structures

and contributing to the lack of accountability and

transparency. Even the Iranian Vice President has

acknowledged this development, stating, ``in the framework of

these sanctions we [the Iranian government] have to begin

negotiations with goods traffickers near the borders and use

them to buy products which are included in the sanctions.''

Not surprisingly many Iranians are left questioning if the

banking sanctions are intent on forcing Iran's rulers to come

to the negotiating table or if Iranian society and the

country's infrastructure at large are being deliberately

targeted and weakened. The timing of the intensification of

sanctions is particularly questionable. Iranian observers,

notably civil and political activists are asking whether

sanctions are in fact intent on balancing power in the region

in favor of regimes that ``despite their authoritarian nature

accommodate the west and its security agenda in the Middle

East, at a time when revolutions may threaten the existing

security dynamics in the region.''

In an interview with Radio Farda, Mehrdad Emadi, Economic

Consultant to the EU, stressed the destructive nature of

these sanctions, noting:

``This particular form of sanctioning a nation has been

unprecedented in the history of the world. The only similar

type of sanctions, were implemented for a short period of

time, and were intended to prevent the illegal transfer of

funds by Qaddafi within the framework of the activities of

Libya's Central Bank. But even during that time, [the

sanctions] weren't implemented in this fashion [as we see

against Iran's Central Bank], . . . not all the transactions

of the Libyan Central Bank were sanctioned and the sanctions

focused only on the illegal transfer of funds and money

laundering . . . [The Iranian sanctions] are not related to a

specific sector or industry nor to business entities or

specific individuals. In this framework, all monetary

transactions, currency transactions and business credit

accounts for imports as well as exports and for the coverage

and payment of insurance, which in every country falls under

the responsibilities of the Central Bank of that country,

will be made illegal in Iran. Iran's Central Bank will no

longer be able to carry-out these duties, because it has now

been identified as a center for money laundering. In this

framework, international corporations, governmental

organizations, non-governmental bodies or security

organizations will no longer be able to transfer funds or

open credit lines for trade, using the Central Bank.''

In the same interview, Hossein Mansour, a UK-based

economist offered a bleaker analysis, noting, ``the negative

impact on Iran's economy, especially in the long run, will

only be addressed with the expenditure of billions of dollars

and after several generations, and will be devastating for

the infrastructure of the Iranian economy.''

2. Women are bearing the brunt of the economic and social impact of

sanctions

Women are especially affected by the economic fall out of

the sanctions. They are being pushed out of the job market

and bearing the brunt of increased unemployment. Women's

rights experts recognize socio-economic pattern emerging

similar to those in Iraq when sanctions were imposed. In Iraq

sanctions and the ensuing poverty resulted in the withdrawal

of girls from education and increases in child marriage

(families were forced to marry off their young daughters to

reduce the number of mouths to feed). Iranian girls are at

risk of similar developments.'' Moreover, women's rights

experts believe that the externally imposed sanctions will

allow conservatives to further their regressive social agenda

by relegating women back to the domestic sphere, limiting

their access to education and the job market and couching it

as an attempt to increase male employment.

Despite significant societal changes, Iran remains a male

dominated culture, reinforced by the government's

conservative ideology that considers men as the heads of

households and primary breadwinners. Programs in line with

this ideology, seeking to relegate women to the home as wives

and mothers only have been stepped up in recent years.

Indirect and immeasurable consequences of sanctions:

stifling women's education, a key engine of socio-political

change: Women's rights activists are also wary of the

indirect impact of sanctions--and the manipulation of the

economic hardships by conservatives--on women's access to

higher education. Educated women from middle and traditional

working classes across rural and urban areas, among the rich

and the poor, have been the primary engine of socio-political

change in Iran. The demand for equal rights and equal socio-

political, economic and cultural rights permeates every level

of society. From the outset of the Islamic republic, the

status of women has been a critical and contentious issue. In

2003, conservatives proposed the imposition of quotas to

limit women's access to higher education and the measures

were briefly implemented across some medical fields in the

2004 national university entrance exams. Massive outcry among

students and women's rights activists forced the withdrawal

of the quotas.

Conservatives have not backed down however. They continue

to argue that when women are more educated than men,

traditional family values are undermined, as women prefer to

marry at an older age, seek similarly educated (or more

educated spouses) and have higher expectations. These

traditionalists also posit that women in the work force take

away men's jobs. Concerns about the impact of women being

more educated than men have prompted some conservative

lawmakers to reinstate quotas limiting women's participation

in higher education. Women and student's rights activists

believe that during President Ahmadinejad's second term the

quotas have been introduced with greater zeal and less

accountability. They coincide with the intensification of

sanctions and increased economic hardships. As the economic

situation worsens, women's access to higher education, will

likely endure further limitations. Even school age girls are

at risk as economic pressures may force families to make

choices and opt for boys' schooling. This may lead to

diminished literacy rates among girls in the near future.

In effect, the marginalization of women from education and

employment enables extreme conservatives to kill many birds

with one stone. They prevent a high rate of women's entry

into the public space (via universities). They eliminate

women from the economy and job market, particularly, higher

earning and more influential positions. They sustain and

revive the power imbalance between women and men, as women

will have fewer choices in life, limited control of resources

and become (and remain) more economically dependent on men at

greater rates than already exist. Ultimately they

may quash the force of women's demands--the next generation's

voices--for progressive change in society at large. As one

conservative member of parliament and staunch supporter of

limiting women's presence in university has put it: ``when

women can't travel to far away cities without the permission

of their husbands, their expertise has no impact on improving

the situation of the country!''

There is also a significant reduction in women's share of

the national budget. In the past for example, housewives

received national insurance, but this has been eliminated,

while the military budget has doubled for next year.

Downturns in domestic production, increases male

unemployment and violence against women: There are also more

insidious effects, difficult to quantify but increasingly

evident. The sanctions have caused massive downturns in

domestic production. The fledgling private sector is unable

to import the necessary raw materials for manufacturing. The

banking sanctions are causing a virtual standstill in imports

and exports by legitimate businesses. Even domestic

agriculture will lose its markets.

Meanwhile those with political connections are exploiting

the situation often by importing cheaper Chinese products.

This downward trend in domestic production will give rise to

lower wages, increase unemployment among men and women and

ultimately put pressure on families. As evident in other

settings, women will bear the brunt of dealing with their

unemployed spouses and the men of the family within the home.

These new dynamics are likely to lead to increased incidences

of domestic violence and family conflicts, as men's inability

to live up to social expectations can lead to depression and

attacks on women. Reduction in family income inevitably is

forcing women to find new sources of income. Their coping

strategies will likely include cutting back on their own

health, wellbeing and dietary needs to provide for their

dependents. As in other countries, for the most vulnerable,

poverty will likely lead to risky survival strategies

including child labor and sex work--informal sectors which

have expanded in Iran in recent years.

The most vulnerable are at the greatest risk: Afghan

refugee women and children: Vulnerable groups, such as Afghan

refugees and migrants who have been living in Iran legally

and illegally as a result of decades of war and unrest in

their own country, are also at greater risk. The situation is

most severe for Afghan women and children refugees or Iranian

women married to Afghan men and their children who do not

have identity cards. The intensification of government

crackdowns and forced repatriation programs, against Afghans

(including their Iranian wives and children) with illegal

status in Iran, has already had a negative impact on the

livelihood of these groups, but as the economy has worsened

the hostility they face from Iranian society and the

government has also increased. Afghans have been targeted

with segregation programs in public spaces and are facing

increased state and other forms of violence, while their

access to income and jobs has also been severely limited.

Comprising a large percent of those employed in the informal

sector as household help, street peddlers and in the service

industry Afghan women and children are at risk of facing

worsening working conditions and abuse in their place of

employment.

3.Independent civil society and civic activism are among the first

casualties of current international policies

Many of the men and women who founded and run Iran's civil

rights movements including human rights and women's rights

activists, workers unions and journalists spent their

childhood or young adulthood at war. They have tasted and

experienced the impact of war and sanctions on a personal

level. They are also fierce advocates of international human

rights and humanitarian norms and ideals.

The public outpouring in the aftermath of the disputed 2009

presidential elections prompted the state to impose heavy

security measures against civic actors. But debilitating

sanctions coupled with the daily rhetoric of war has elevated

national security concerns and further diminished the state's

tolerance of dissent internally. Activists are regularly

accused of working in concert with the west to destroy the

Islamic Republic. The uncertainty and fear has also affected

the public's receptivity to social activism. It is seen as a

secondary issue compared to the urgent realities of poverty

and prospect of war.

The sanctions are having a long-term negative impact on the

source of societal change in Iran. The urban middle class

that has historically played a central role in creating

change and promoting progress in Iran are key casualties of

the sanctions regime. Many civil society organizations and

charities survive on the basis of voluntary activism and

support. But facing economic uncertainty, many people are

retreating from public voluntary work. Even the most

committed have less time, as they are working longer hours

and often at multiple jobs to meet their economic needs.

Moreover with private enterprise in demise, more people will

become dependent on the state and thus unable and fearful of

engaging in civil activism. Additionally, sanctions and in

particular the limitations placed on transfer of funds, has

created serious impediments for charity organizations engaged

in health and medical services, education efforts, support

for orphans and disadvantaged women and children to carry-out

their work. Many of these organizations have ceased their

activities.

Sanctions are isolating Iranians from international forums:

Beyond the economic impact, civil society, including the

women's movement in Iran has been further isolated from their

international counterparts, as a result of the sanctions.

Security challenges imposed by their own government already

curtail civil society's ability to attend regional and

international conferences, workshops and other events. But

the policies of other governments further complicate their

lives. Visas that Iranian passport holders need to travel

internationally, take considerable amount of time and

resources. The new banking sanctions have ended the

possibility of financial exchanges, while the falling price

of the Rial has increased the financial burden for those

activists who want to participate in conferences and training

opportunities. Activists, like regular Iranians, cannot use

banks to transfer funds for conference participation, hotel

reservations, or to attend courses abroad. Finally, for years

despite state restrictions, activists have used the internet

as a critical tool for communication. But the sanctions

policies have led many large hardware and software

manufacturers in the United States to deny services and

products to Iranians. Thus just when contact with and

solidarity from the outside world are most needed, Iranians

are faced with the greatest level of isolation.

4. What Women Do: resilience, courage, voices of peace and a window to

the future

Women's rights activists have never had it easy. They have

fought against an assault on their legal and political rights

as well as their demand for equal opportunities in the

economic, social and cultural life of the country. In 2006,

when a group of women initiated the Million Signatures

Campaign to demand the reform of laws that discriminate

against women, they immediately faced state scrutiny and

obstruction. The movement thrived however, transcending age,

economic, rural, urban and even political and religious

divisions to draw in a mix of volunteers. Using new and old

media, improvised street theater and small group education

and outreach initiatives they raised public awareness

about the impact of gender based discriminatory laws and

called on people to sign up and join their campaign in

favor of legal changes. Despite security pressures the

movement elevated issues of gender equality to the

national level both politically and within wider society.

After the summer of 2009, and the mass post-election

protests, women's rights activists faced increased

restrictions as the space for dissent became ever more

limited. With the rise of sanctions and ratcheting up of the

war rhetoric, these activists are under immense pressure to

become silent and conform. Countless social and political

activists have been imprisoned and or forced into exile.

Students--female and male have been expelled from

universities because of their civil activism. Under these

circumstances, with economic hardships and prospects of yet

another devastating war, longterm planning and the

development of sustainable programs to maintain the gains

already made and push for basic rights are increasingly

difficult, if not impossible.

Women's Demands: no sanctions, no war, talk it out! Despite

these pressures, the Iranian women's movement has not been

silenced. The call against war, in favor of a negotiated

settlement, and an end to sanctions has become a primary

issue for many, despite the risks they incur. They are using

every opportunity to send their message to the world.

Women's rights activists now living outside of Iran draw on

international platforms to echo the concerns and voices of

their counterparts inside the country. Meanwhile, despite the

risks, women in Iran have not been silenced either. One

group, the Mothers for Peace, representing different sectors

and ideologies began its activities in 2008, with the aim of

preventing war and violence in the country and promoting

peace regionally. They, along with other women's groups, have

issued several statements opposing the possibility of war.

Echoing this, in 2011, on the International Day to Fight

Violence Against Women (November 25th), another group of

Iranian activists issued their antiwar and violence

statement, noting:

``We a group of women's rights activists in Iran, are

worried about the increasing violence against women and

children [that is the result] of the polarized and hostile

atmosphere [and] dead-end national and international politics

of tension and violence. As a result of these policies,

violence against women and children infiltrates the deepest

social and political and familial layers of Iranian

society.''

On March 8, 2012, in honor of International Women's Day,

several activists involved in the One Million Signatures

Campaign recorded video messages opposing war. They reject

the official narratives that often pose the problems in the

terms of good and evil, just and unjust, and call on all

sides--including their own government--to engage in

constructive dialogue rather than the rhetoric of war and

threats.

Recommendations to the international community, particularly the US and

European countries

Fundamentally rethink policy on Iran:

1. End the sanctions policy against Iran. Recognize that

sanctions as a general rule have a poor record of influencing

the behavior of states and in many situations have severely

harming the population at large, particularly vulnerable

groups and democratic movements. Ninety-nine percent of the

current sanctions against Iran are too broad to impact the

behavior of the government, instead they target the

population.

2. Sanctions are not a substitute for war. they are a step

closer to war. Failed sanctions will only work to strengthen

the position of those advocating for another war in the

region. Resolve to address the differences in a mutually

respectful manner immediately.

3. Recognize that sanctions weaken society not the state.

Iranian society is already witnessing the emergence of

radical groups. As one women's rights activist notes, in

countries of this region, including Iran, growing gaps

between the rich and poor do not make governments vulnerable,

rather they make the population vulnerable to increased

radicalization against the West as a way of coping with

humiliation. In border areas, where poverty is severe, we

already witness the increasing influence of terrorist groups.

If this trend continues we will be faced with a weakened

Iranian society--at risk of being radicalized, with

detrimental consequences for regional security in the medium

and long term.

4. Recognize that sanctions undermine women's security and

empowerment. The US and EU have been strong proponents of the

global women, peace and security agenda with the development

of priorities and action plans to ensure women's empowerment.

But sanctions undermine and contravene these policies. The

contradictory nature of US and EU rhetoric, policies and

actions increase the Iranian public's suspicion about them,

and credence to charges of hypocrisy.

On negotiations with the Iranian government:

5. Engage Iran on the full range of issues. including

regional security, economic issues. human rights, culture.

etc. Incentives, especially those that reduce the hardship of

ordinary Iranians, should be put forth to encourage a

peaceful settlement to the disputes of the international

community with Iran.

6. Call for the inclusion of civil society in engagement

with Iran. Should Iran and the international community reach

an agreement that would allow for negotiations and dialogue

on a wider set of issues, civil society, including women's

groups, human rights groups and peace activists, should

participate.

On immediate steps for redressing the impact of sanctions

on ordinary citizens:

7. Do not force an entire nation to adopt nontransparent

means of financial transactions. Revise the banking sanctions

so that ordinary people are not caught in them. Specifically,

adopt measures to facilitate the transfer of funds by

ordinary Iranian citizens and Iranians with dual nationality

(EU, US, UK etc) for travel, tuition, and medical care, in

the case of sale of property, inheritance or for other

personal and familial purposes. Forcing Iranians to move

toward a cash economy reduces transparency and fosters the

growth of shadowy actors.

8. Address the adverse healthcare impact of sanctions

immediately. Sanctions including limitations impacting the

import of medicines, medical equipment and forced usage of

substandard gasoline are affecting people's health and lives.

These issues should be investigated and alleviated

immediately with cooperation between the US, European and

Iranian governments.

9. Help ease and enable visa applications for Iranians

seeking to visit relatives. Throughout the EU, US, Canada and

Australia there are millions of citizens of Iranian descent.

They have elderly parents and relatives living in Iran who

visit them regularly. Visas for relatives should be expedited

and offered for longer periods.

10. Encourage student visas and conference attendance.

Student visas and visas for conference participation should

be processed more quickly and with less financial burden on

applicants.

11. Facilitate free and safe access to the internet to help

foster independent civil society. Sanctions have severely

limited Iranian civil society's safe access to the internet

including necessary software and hardware. The international

community should help provide this access and limit the

imposition of sanctions in this sector.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The Senate Banking Committee summarized this bill by saying that it ``aims to prevent Iran from repatriating any of the revenue from sale of its crude oil, depriving Iran of hard currency earnings and funds to run its state budget.''

Spoken plainly, this bill would destroy the Iranian economy and further hurt the Iranian people that we claim to support. Iranians are already suffering under stifling sanctions as they experience rising food prices and lack of access to basic medicine. For example, the sanctions against the Iranian banking sector have greatly diminished the value of Iranian currency and have a negative effect on nearly every aspect of the lives of ordinary Iranians. The price of rent, education, and bread have all increased.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We went to war against Iraq under the assumption they had weapons of mass destruction. Iran doesn't have weapons of mass destruction.

One of the problems with this bill is that it effectively states that sanctions on Iran's Central Bank would not be lifted unless there's a regime change. So we're bringing a whole new dimension here. It's about even more than nuclear weapons; now we're talking about regime change, because this resolution creates a new requirement for the termination of sanctions that are dependent on the cessation of the Central Bank's financing of the Revolutionary Guard, and it imposes new restrictions on the President's ability to waive sanctions.

So, what are we doing here? Setting the stage for another war. Regime change, and then upping the bar for Iran and essentially laying the groundwork for a conflict.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Collectively, the provisions in this bill move the goalpost from negotiations over Iran's nuclear enrichment program to regime change. I just want to point out that the record of our country on regime change isn't all that good. Yes, we knocked out Saddam Hussein under the lie that he had weapons of mass destruction, and now al Qaeda is all over Iraq.

So, what are we about here? We're setting the stage for another war where we syphon the revenue out of this country, send it to war machines, can't meet our own needs. Since when does Iran achieve greater importance than our own country? That's what I want to know. I want somebody to explain that to me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

These sanctions are hurting ordinary people in Iran. I pointed out earlier, matters like the price of rent, bread--Americans can understand that--education, all of these things are increasing. And these sanctions then directly undermine Iran's civil society by giving the regime a chance to crack down even harder on internal dissent. These sanctions will ensure that those crackdowns continue.

Ordinary Iranians are struggling simply to make ends meet under this sanctions regime that already exists. They cannot afford to suspend the time necessary to participate in social movements which provide basic social services to push for democratic change in their country.

Are these the intended effects that we wish to have on the Iranian people and Iranian Americans?

And if not, passing this kind of a broad, indiscriminate sanctions bill sends the wrong message. If the sanctions imposed on Iraq are any precedent, we know that sanctions are not an effective tool in promoting or supporting domestic democracy movements.

We also know those sanctions did not prevent an unnecessary and wasteful war with Iraq. In effect, the expansion of the broad and indiscriminate sanctions, including this legislation, hurts our ability to negotiate with Iran, imposes long-term harm detrimental to the Iranian people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Sanctions are a form of war in this case, and it will lead to war. And remember, we're not talking about--some time ago we were talking about if Iran would have a nuclear weapon, but then the bar's been lowered to say nuclear weapon capability. And now the game's being changed to say not just nuclear weapon capability, but we want regime change as well.

I mean, if this isn't a prescription for war, then I didn't participate in the debate in this House of Representatives in October of 2002 warning this Congress, chapter and verse, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no role with al Qaeda in 9/11, did not have any intention or capability of attacking the United States. This is a version of that debate all over again.

I mean, come on. What are we doing here? Why is this more important than our country?

You know, our postal service is going into default tonight, a manufactured default, mind it. No debate on the House floor about this today, but an attempt to manufacture a war with Iran.

What are we about?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask how much time remains?

And how much time does the gentlelady have?

I yield myself 1 minute.

This legislation also requires the President to impose sanctions on those who are responsible for or are complicit in certain human rights abuses in Syria, but it fails to acknowledge that our own country and a number of our allies are actively participating and stoking the violence on the ground. Divisions and infighting within the various militias operating on the ground are already occurring. And we also read that al Qaeda's also been involved in Syria.

So, look, we have to get serious about what America's purpose is in the world. It's not to be a heavy foot. It's not to proliferate wars all over.

The first thing we have to do is take care of things here at home: jobs for all, health care for all, education for all, retirement security for all. When we can do those kinds of things, then we can pretend that we can be the policeman of the world. But until we've done that, we don't have any right to go all around the world trying to tell people how to live.

And we can settle this matter with Iran without war. We can settle it through diplomacy. Diplomacy. It would be real interesting to try it. And we ought to support any efforts of the Obama administration to use diplomacy here. Let's not use this political climate to push us into a war.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 750) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1905, with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by prior agreement with the gentleman from California, who will do the same, I would like to yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control those 5 minutes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this floor many times about the Iranian threat and the need for action to stop it, but ultimately we will all be judged by a simple question: Did we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability? If the answer is ``no,'' if we fail, then nothing else matters. If we fail, it would be of no comfort to the American people whose security and future would be put in danger. If we fail, it would be of no comfort to our ally, Israel, whose very existence would be put in danger.

History is full of avoidable tragedies, of foolish countries that have allowed their enemies to prepare to destroy them. The entire world now is fully aware of Iran's true intention. Now is the time to take a stand. As Sir Winston Churchill said:

You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word:

victory. For without victory, there is no survival.

To get us on that path to victory, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to render their full support to the Iran Threat Reduction and the Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, a bicameral, bipartisan agreement that represents the strongest set of sanctions ever put in place against the regime in Tehran. It blacklists virtually all of Iran's energy, financial, and transportation sectors, and cuts off companies that keep doing business with Iran from access to our markets in the United States.

This legislation also imposes sanctions to prevent Iran from repatriating any proceeds from its oil sales, depriving the Iranian regime of 80 percent of its hard currency earnings and half of the funds that support its budget. This bill also imposes tough new sanctions on the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It also targets Iran's use of barter transactions to bypass sanctions, the provisions of insurance to Iran's energy sector. It also targets provisions of specialized financial messaging services to the Central Bank of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the late former Secretary of State, Warren Christopher said:

In terms of its organization, programs, procurement, and

covert activities, Iran is pursuing the classic route to

nuclear weapons, which has been followed by almost all states

that have recently sought a nuclear capability.

That was in 1995.

Secretary Christopher added:

There is no room for complacency.

Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in '96. That law, now called the Iran Sanctions Act, sought to target Iran's economic lifeline--its energy sector--and denied Tehran the financial resources to pursue its nuclear ambitions, to sponsor violent Islamic groups, and to dominate the region.

Regrettably, just a couple years after enactment of that law, the Clinton administration issued a blanket waiver of energy sector sanctions that has been continued by successive administrations.

In 1996, U.S. concerns were not shared by our allies in Europe and Asia, who argued that trade, dialogue, and engagement toward the Iranian regime would succeed in moderating Tehran's behavior. This allowed the Iranian threat to flourish.

However, Congress continued to develop new legislative countermeasures in the form of the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 to address these Iranian threats and to hold the regime accountable for its human rights violations, for its state sponsorship of violent extremists, and for its pursuit of a nuclear capability.

We have analyzed Iranian reaction and behavior in response to these new sanctions. We have looked at what steps our allies have undertaken and considered the actions, or the paralysis, of the United Nations. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we have intensified our response as the Iranian threat has evolved and grown.

We know that ``the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' But far more than vigilance is needed in this case.

Which brings us to the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, which we are considering today. This bipartisan, bicameral agreement seeks to tighten the choke hold on the regime beyond anything that has been done before. It sends a clear message that the American people, through their elected representatives, are fully committed to using every economic and political lever at their disposal to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.

Through this bill, we declare that the Iranian energy sector is off limits, and it blacklists any related unauthorized dealings. It will undermine Iran's ability to repatriate the revenues it receives from the sale of crude oil, depriving Iran of hard currency earnings and funds needed to sustain its nuclear program. It prevents the purchasing of Iranian sovereign debt, thereby further limiting the regime's ability to finance its illicit activities. It also expands sanctions against Iranian and Syrian officials for human rights abuses, particularly those facilitated by computer and network disruption, monitoring, and tracking by those governments.

Yet we should be under no illusions, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is a magic wand that we wave, and we will resolve the problem overnight. Sanctions have helped to knock the regime off balance. But unless the executive branch fully implements these measures immediately, the regime is likely to regain its footing and further speed up its nuclear march. So let us act now to stop that march.

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

Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by the Iranian regime is not just a threat to the United States, or to our allies, or to the Iranian people.

The Iranian regime is also a threat to the Syrian people, because of Iran's close ties and assistance, including weapons that have helped the regime in Syria to slaughter thousands.

Like Iran, Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism that poses a threat to the U.S., to our ally Israel, and to other responsible nations.

I hope to be back on the House floor in the near future with the Syria Freedom Support Act to address the totality of the Syrian threat, but today we stand ready to hold the Assad regime accountable for its gross human rights violations.

Today, we seek to ensure that neither of these brutal regimes has access to resources that would enable them to perpetuate their cruelty.

Those allies who, 16 years ago, wanted to engage and continue business as usual with Iran and who, until just a few years ago, were proposing expanded trade agreements with the Assad regime in Syria, have awaken to take a stand against the threatening activities of these pariah states.

Congress must carry out its responsibility to the American people and overwhelmingly adopt the bicameral, bipartisan agreement we are considering today.

I urge the President to quickly sign it into law and immediately and fully implement the sanctions it contains.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Turner), a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is our subcommittee chairman on Middle East and South Asia of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), an esteemed member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I will retain my time to close, so if Mr. Kucinich could wrap up his part of the debate, we can conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I would like to recognize the commitment, the dedication and tireless efforts of the members of our House Foreign Affairs Committee family, particularly of our staff director, Dr. Yleem Poblete, who Ranking Member Berman once described as driving a hard bargain. Just ask her hubby, Jason. Also, thanks to Matt Zweig and Ari Fridman.

Thanks to Chairman Johnson of the Senate Banking Committee and to his staff, particularly Colin McGinnis, Patrick Grant and Steve Kroll, as well as Ranking Member Shelby and his staff.

A strong and warm thanks and big hug to my good friend Mr. Berman-- the ranking member--and to his staff, particularly Shanna Winters, Alan Makovsky and Ed Rice, as well as minority staff director Richard Kessler.

I would like to thank Senators Menendez and Mark Kirk and the critical Representatives, Deutch, Sherman and Dold.

Let's stop Iran before it's too late. Let's pass this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2012.

Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Rayburn, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Ros-Lehtinen: I write concerning the House-

Senate negotiations on H.R. 1905, an Act to strengthen Iran

sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling Iran to abandon

its pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening

activities, and for other purposes. I understand the House

and Senate have reached an agreement on provisions related to

an Energy Information Administration report on Iran's natural

gas sector.

I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and

Commerce will forgo action on this House-Senate compromise

language so that the bill may proceed expeditiously to the

House floor for consideration. This is done with the

understanding that the Committee is not waiving any of its

jurisdiction on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to this provision of the House-

Senate compromise to H.R. 1905, and I ask that a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during its consideration on the House

floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

At the point where I am recognized, I will be also seeking unanimous consent for the same kind of referral of time to your control.

Mr. Speaker, I would also yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control those 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a national leader on the issue of nonproliferation and human rights and particularly our efforts to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, the Democratic whip of the House.

I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 750, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

The bill before us today marks a significant step forward in our sanctions effort against the Iranian regime and its illicit nuclear program, the sanctions effort which even Tehran acknowledges is already having a stressful impact on Iran's economy. I want to commend my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her work on this legislation; and I'm proud to be the bill's chief cosponsor in the House.

Building on previous sanctions, this bill adds to what the gentlelady and I set out to do when we introduced it. For example, through further limiting transitions with the Central Bank of Iran, an initiative I originated, this legislation restricts Iran's ability to repatriate the revenue it receives from its diminishing oil sales. It includes provisions that clamp down on Iran's oil exports by targeting the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company; and it expands sanctions on Iranian shipping, insurance, and financing in the energy sector.

The bill also increases sanctions on transactions with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the spearhead of Iran's nuclear proliferation and terrorism effort and the dominant player in the Iranian economy. Further, at my suggestion, this bill now includes a measure which expands CISADA sanctions beyond financial institutions to include more than 200 additional individuals and companies that have been linked to Iran's nuclear weapons of mass destruction and terrorism programs.

And of critical importance, this bill vastly strengthens sanctions on both Iranian and Syrian human rights abusers. These provisions are very important, but the Iranians should not be fooled into thinking this is the last word on sanctions. Far from it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to call on the administration to implement the authorities we have given them, fully and without delay. Iran's nuclear clock is ticking, and time is not on our side. The actions the executive branch took yesterday, including the first-ever CISADA sanctions on foreign banks--more than 2 years after CISADA became law--are a good beginning, but Iran's nuclear weapons program continues apace. Every day, it is enriching more uranium and at higher levels.

The only hope we have for a peaceful solution is to apply enough pressure to ensure that Iran ends its nuclear weapons program. The bill before us and the action the administration has taken applies significantly more pressure; but let there be no doubt, there is more we can do and more that we will do if Iran doesn't end its nuclear weapons program verifiably and completely. We have more work to do.

Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List Search

(Updated: 6/25/2012)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Nonproliferation and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the author of the bill which declares Iran's energy sector a zone of proliferation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who organized the Iran Working Group 7 or 8 years ago to focus congressional attention on the looming threat of a nuclear Iran, my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, could I get another indication of the time remaining?

In this case, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, a longtime member and leader on the Foreign Affairs Committee and a very active legislator on the issue before us today--that is, the effort to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon--my friend from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further requests for time.

And I'd like to just raise a couple of the issues that my friends, Mr. Paul from Texas and Mr. Kucinich from Ohio, have put forth in the context of opposition to this bill.

This is not the next step to war. This is the alternative to war. Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable for many, many reasons:

It means the end of the nonproliferation regime;

It means countries all through that part of the world will seek their own nuclear weapons;

It raises the specter of nuclear weapons being passed on and dirty bombs being passed on to terrorists, and there is nothing in the comments of the regime that could let one relax and think they would never be the first to use those nuclear weapons.

That is unacceptable. Our alternatives are either war or finding a diplomatic resolution of their nuclear weapons program, the end of that program.

They've been found, not by the White House, not by some Vulcans in foreign policy, but by the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, over and over again, to have violated their obligations under the nonproliferation treaty to which they are a signatory. They don't ratify the additional protocols. They move ahead with enrichment plants that they don't need for a peaceful weapons program.

They do not have a right to enrich. You could argue they have a right to a nuclear energy program, but not a right to enrich. They conceal information in violation of their treaty obligations.

This is, hopefully, the final step, but if not we will have to intensify the sanctions to achieve that diplomatic program.

And Iran is not some bucolic, peace-loving state that has never done anything against its neighbors. Everyone knows that Hezbollah is a direct foreign agent of Iran that gets its funding, its training, and its sponsorship and its directions from Iran.

We know what they've done to the marines in Lebanon. We've known what they tried to do to the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington. We know that in Delhi and in Bulgaria and a number of other capitals around the world, their effort to commit terrorist acts against Israeli diplomats and Israeli citizens. Their record as a state sponsor of terror is the largest and most impactful in the world.

They are pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. It is our obligation to do every measure we have to stop them from getting that, and we want to do it peacefully. This strategy that we are embarked on is an effort to find a way to do this without resorting to war, and I urge my colleagues to stand strongly behind this bill.

This is the alternative. It is the only feasible alternative. Otherwise, we are faced with two very dismal prospects: a military action or an Iran with nuclear weapons and all that means.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think this bill would be better named if we called it ``Obsession with Iran Act of 2012'' because this is what we continue to be doing-- obsess with Iran and the idea that Iran is a threat to our national security.

Iran happens to be a Third World nation. They have no significant navy, air force, intercontinental ballistic missiles. The IAEA and our CIA say they are not on the verge of a nuclear weapon.

It's so similar to what we went through in the early part of this last decade where we were beating the war drums to go to war against Iraq. And it was all a facade. There was no danger from Iraq. So this is what we're doing, beating the war drums once again.

Since the bill has come back from the conference, if we are to deal with civil liberties in Syria--well, I happen to be a civil libertarian. I am very concerned about civil liberties. But let me tell you, this bill is not going to do anything to enhance the civil liberties of the individuals in Syria.

If we were really interested in civil liberties, why wouldn't we look to ourselves? Why wouldn't we look to the things we do here? What about our warrantless searches under the PATRIOT Act? What about the policy of assassination, assassinating American citizens? What about arrests by the military, the National Defense Authorization Act? What about the drone warfare that we go on? Do you think we are protecting civil liberties by arbitrarily dropping drones or threatening to drop drones anyplace in the world, with innocent people dying?

If we want to really care about civil liberties in Syria, why don't we care about the secret prisons we have and the history of torture that we have had in this country?

What about the fact that kill lists are being made by the executive branch of government, and we sit idly by and approve of it by saying nothing, and the American people put up with it, and we march in this direction, marching into a determination to have another war?

When you put sanctions on a country, it's an act of war, and that is what this is all about. The first thing you do when war breaks out between two

countries is you put sanctions on them. You blockade the country. So this is an act of war.

What would we do if somebody blockaded and put sanctions on us and prevented the importation of any product of this country? We would be furious. We would declare war. We would go to war.

So we are the antagonists. We're over there poking our nose and poking our nose in other people's affairs, just looking for a chance to start another war. First it's Syria and then Iran. We have too many wars. We need to stop the wars. We don't have the money to fight these wars any longer.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm still rather impressed with the obsession over a weapon that does not exist and no concern whatsoever about many nuclear weapons that are held by countries that never even joined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

It's called for in the debate that Iran should end all its nuclear programs, but they're permitted to have the nuclear program under the nonproliferation treaty. And the other countries that have weapons, including the countries that hold the weapons that came from the Soviet system, it seems like that would be a much greater danger.

The investigation by either the U.N. or by our CAs has never indicated that they have ever enriched above 20 percent. And they said they won't even do it to 20 percent if the West would cooperate and sell them this material. They said, we don't need it, but we need 20 percent enrichment for nuclear isotopes, medical isotopes. So our refusal to deal with them prompts them to take up enrichment to 25 percent; 5 percent, of course, is what they're allowed to do for nuclear energies.

But this idea that we can badger people and then defy the law, what we're asking them to do, to close down their program, is you're asking them to defy international law. They agreed to this. They have a right to do this under this treaty. And for us to come and say, well, they must quit it, I think it really is very close to an obsession on a country that is incapable of attacking us, or attacking--they don't have a history of invading their neighboring countries. The last time they were at war was with Iraq, and we bugged Iraq to go into Iran.

So I find this very distressing that the obsession continues. I find it very, very upsetting that this vote will, of course, be overwhelmingly in support of correcting the civil liberties of Syria and making Iran toe the line and give up on something that they're permitted to do. A vote for this, in my opinion, in time will show that it's just one more step to another war that we don't need.

We have not been provoked. They are not a threat to our national security, and we should not be doing this. We've been doing it too long. For the last 10, 15 years we have been just obsessed with this idea that we go to war and try to solve all the problems of the world; and at the same time, it is bankrupting us.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the House amendment to the previous Senate amendment to H.R. 1905. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, former President George H.W. Bush said that Iran was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exporting terror. A decade later, Iran's global threat is greater than ever.

We are currently embroiled in a standoff with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear capability. We find ourselves on the brink of conflict over potential Iranian armed interference with oil and other shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and its persistent threats against Israel. Even prior to 9-11, Hezbollah, supported by Iran, was responsible for more American deaths around the world than any other terrorist organization. Since 2001, Iran has embarked on more direct efforts to harm American interests as evidenced by last year's foiled Iranian- backed assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

The current state of Iranian sanctions clearly has not worked to reduce Tehran's threat to global peace. That's why we need the enhanced approach this legislation will take in countering efforts by Iran to evade the impact of international sanctions. H.R. 1905 as amended tightens reporting on countries violating sanctions on these countries and strengthens measures against those who would aid and abet these disturbers of global peace.

It also effectively blacklists Iran's energy sector and anyone doing business with it. By preventing Iran from repatriating the proceeds from its oil sales, this rogue government will be deprived of 80 percent of its hard currency earning and half of the funds used to support its national budget.

Iran has used many tricks to subvert current sanctions--from oil for gold swaps to selling energy bonds to other trading and bartering schemes. They have been successful because there are governments who care more for making profit from doing business in Iran than in preventing threats to world peace. International efforts to rein in the nuclear ambitions of Iran have been stymied particularly by China.

Despite expressing formal support for United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran since 2005, China has stepped in where other nations have curtailed trade with Iran. China's Bank of Kunlun and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq have facilitated transactions worth millions of dollars for Iranian banks already under sanctions. Stronger sanctions will make such unsavory alliances more difficult. This is why the reformulated bill we consider today is so vital in eliminating to the extent possible all avenues for Iran's allies to play enabler to its nuclear ambitions and to its patronage of terrorist operations.

I want to congratulate House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Tim Johnson and other members for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan, bicameral bill that works.