Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of TAA assistance and therefore oppose this weakening amendment.

But we should recognize that TAA is a Band-Aid on a self-inflicted wound. Our trade policies are gutting the American economy far beyond the ability of TAA to ameliorate the pain.

What is obvious is the loss of individual industrial plants. What is less visible is the increase in our interest rates and a decline in our national industrial base.

Today, let us adopt the Band-Aid, but let us not use the presence of those Band-Aids as an excuse for further self-inflicted wounds.

Today, we should pass TAA. Tomorrow, let us stop the bleeding. Let us not adopt trade agreements that increase our trade deficit. And let us begin to renegotiate existing trade agreements so that they are based on results rather than based on form.

Let us build an economy where demand for labor is so high that instead of hearing stories of pain from workers, we are hearing from employers fighting for every available employee. Let us hear of a dollar that is more valuable than the Euro and let us have a trade policy that for every dollar of imports, we match it with a dollar of exports. Until then, there are workers who are in pain, who are casualties of our ill-conceived trade policies. They need and deserve our help.

Madam Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained, I was not able to vote on passage of H.R. 2102 (rollcall No. 973). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Rabbi Mark Stephen Miller, in honor of his 60th birthday, which occurred on October 5, 2007. For over 30 years, Rabbi Miller has served his Newport Beach congregation, Temple Bat Yahm, with distinction, setting a standard of excellence as a teacher, counselor, and spiritual leader.

Rabbi Miller has worked tirelessly to promote tolerance and understanding, and he continues to be an exceptional role model for young people. I consider myself fortunate to have been the benefactor of Rabbi Miller's kind heart and understanding and my family remain proud members of his congregation. I am also thankful that Rabbi Miller was able to participate in my wedding ceremony.

Rabbi Miller was ordained from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati in 1974, and in 1999 he received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Hebrew Union College. He joined Temple Bat Yahm in 1977 as its rabbi following a short time as assistant rabbi at Temple Sinai in Roslyn Heights, New York where he met his bride of 30 years, Wendy. Together they raised five wonderful children. During his tenure at Temple Bat Yahm the congregation has grown from one hundred plus families to approximately six hundred families, and its facility has moved from a one room portable classroom to a sprawling campus which includes a beautiful sanctuary, classrooms, social halls, an intimate chapel and a wonderful amphitheatre for outdoor services.

Rabbi Miller is a renowned lecturer on business ethics, bioethics, tolerance and interfaith relations. He spent over 20 years as a guest lecturer at University of California, Irvine and now teaches regularly at Chapman University. His commanding presence on the pulpit and dramatic storytelling and lecturing style is well known and respected.

Rabbi Miller has been recognized by the United States Congress before. He has given the invocation to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where he once served as an aide to Senator Walter Mondale. An avid baseball fan and diehard Chicago Cubs fan, Rabbi Miller was similarly honored by also giving the invocation at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY for its annual induction ceremony. It is most fitting that he was born on the same day as one of baseball's most remembered plays, Al Gionfriddo's game-saving World Series catch.

Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Rabbi Mark Stephen Miller on this significant birthday and for his many years of dedicated service to his family, congregation, community and faith. He is a shining light to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1612) to amend the penalty provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and for other purposes.

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 rise in strong support of this bill, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, has over the years enabled the United States on various occasions to impose significant economic sanctions and limitations on terrorists, terrorist groups and their supporters, on financiers and on some of the worst rogue regimes in the world. It has allowed three Presidents to keep the U.S. dual-use export control system in operation against the efforts of states like Iran and North Korea to require sensitive dual- use technology and equipment.

IEEPA has accomplished this goal, even though Congress has been unable to reauthorize the long-expired Export Administration Act, and I hope that later in this Congress we do reauthorize the Export Administration Act. That act was the original basis for the system of export control which is now handled through IEEPA.

Immediately after 9/11, IEEPA authority was used to freeze the assets of terrorist, terrorist organizations and their supporters and to hobble the international terrorist network that sought and still seeks to kill and maim innocent Americans. Yet the penalties for violating IEEPA's provisions are lighter than they should be. Send $1 million as a gift to Osama bin Laden and you get as a maximum penalty a $50,000 fine and 10 years in prison under the act. The same is true for unlawful exports of sensitive commercial technology, equipment and components that have military applications that are controlled for national security purposes.

If you send a milling machine for shaping nuclear warhead cores to either Iran or North Korea, the same maximum fine and prison terms under the act apply.

This bill increases the penalties to a level that I think is consistent with the importance of making sure that Americans do not, whether for ideological reasons or financial gain, deliberately violate our efforts to control terrorism and to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

S. 1612 increases civil penalties from $50,000 up to $250,000, or to an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed. It also increases criminal penalties for willful violations from $50,000 up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for not more than 20 years. This increase in penalties is appropriate given the importance of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of the bill. I thank Chairman Lantos and our ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their work in bringing this bill to the floor.

IEEPA is but one part of an overall effort to use the economic power of the United States to prevent terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons. I think we have adequately covered in today's debate the importance of this bill to strengthen IEEPA; but I now would like to put IEEPA into overall context and take a look at some of the other economic measures that we should also be employing in our effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

This House passed H.R. 1400 designed to improve the Iran Sanctions Act. We need to press our colleagues in the Senate to pass that bill as well. But even more important, we need to press the administration to enforce the Iran Sanctions Act.

Many of us know that as the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA. What happened is both the last administration and this administration applied those sanctions to investments in the Libyan oil sector. That was effective. Gaddafi changed his policies, and so we had to rename the bill the Iran Sanctions Act, as we lifted sanctions from Libya.

Unfortunately, both the last administration and now this administration have been unwilling to enforce what is now the Iran Sanctions Act, which would be our best tool to put pressure on the regime in Tehran.

We need to close Iranian access to the U.S. financial system. I applaud the Treasury Department for blocking access to the New York Federal Reserve Board branch in New York to two major Iranian banks, which begs the question: Why not the others as well?

We need to stop World Bank loans to Iran. We need to urge upon our colleagues in the Senate that they pass H.R. 2337, known in their house as S. 1430, to allow American pension plans to divest from those companies doing business in Iran, and we need to urge the Senate to pass similar legislation already passed through this House doing the same thing with regard to investments in Sudan.

Finally, we need to make sure that our procurement laws and our laws for assisting businesses like the Ex-Im Bank and OPEC also require that corporations stop investing in the oil sector of Iran if they want the support of U.S. Government agencies.

It is time for us not to assume that the only possible response is either to acquiesce in a nuclear Iran or to use military action. It is time for us to get the message to Iranian elites and the Iranian people that they face true economic isolation if they continue down the current course. The way to do that is to muster all of the economic power of the United States towards achieving our national security objectives, and one small step in that direction is for us to pass S. 1612 today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 635) recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for introducing this important and timely legislation, and I look forward to hearing her remarks as we proceed with this debate.

As we speak, millions of our Muslim friends and neighbors around the world are in the midst of Ramadan, a holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal. The observance of Ramadan requires devotion to faith, community and family, truly universal values we all share. During the month of Ramadan, observant members of the Islamic faith fast from sunrise to sunset and focus their attention on the teachings of their religion as well as purity of thought and action.

It is appropriate and necessary for the U.S. House of Representatives to mark the commencement of this important event which began this year on September 13 and continues for one lunar month. This legislation expresses the deep respect we all feel for Muslims in the United States and around the world.

Since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, unfortunately, peaceful patriotic members of the Islamic faith have been subject to hateful and demeaning threats, words, even acts of violence. This House must stand with these law-abiding citizens in this time of conflict. I strongly support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is the chairperson of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and, more importantly, is the author of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, who serves with me on both the Financial Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to wish all my Muslim friends, particularly those in the San Fernando Valley, a Ramadan Mubarak, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentlelady from Texas for introducing this legislation and our committee leadership, Chairman Tom Lantos and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for moving this bill to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 564) recognizing that violence poses an increasingly serious threat to peace and stability in Central America and supporting expanded cooperation between the United States and the countries of Central America to combat crime and violence, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to thank our colleagues, Congressman Eliot Engel and Dan Burton, the Chair and ranking member respectively of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, for introducing this important legislation.

The measure brings a long overdue spotlight to the serious and growing problem of violence in Central America. The February murder of three Salvadoran legislators and the subsequent shocking murder in prison of the Guatemalan policeman linked to the crime illustrate the very real daily threat posed by violence in this region.

While this high-profile incident brought violence into the spotlight, it is unfortunately nothing new. In recent

years, murder rates have been increasing throughout Central America. In 2005, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was roughly 56 in El Salvador, 41 in Honduras, and 38 in Guatemala. These rates are extraordinarily high by international standards.

Much of the violence in Central America is closely related to drug trafficking. A report released by the United Nations in May argues that Central American countries are particularly vulnerable to violent crimes, fueled by drug trafficking, because they are geographically located between South America and the United States; in other words, between the world's largest drug-producing and the world's largest drug-consuming countries or areas. In fact, 90 percent of the cocaine shipped from the Andean region to the United States flows through Central America. This clearly plays a major role in triggering violence in the region.

If drugs are the primary factor in the scourge of violence, youth gangs are a close second. There's estimated to be about 70,000 youth gang members in Central America. Many of these gangs have ties to the United States and pose threats to security in our own communities.

We are beginning to address this violence crisis. The United States and Central American officials have started to work together to combat violence in Central America, but more needs to be done. This July, high-level officials from the United States and all seven Central American countries met to discuss security in the region, particularly addressing gangs, drug trafficking and arms trafficking. This meeting marked the first time in almost a quarter century that high-level officials from the United States and all the countries of Central America met formally to discuss security issues.

At the meeting, the State Department announced the U.S. strategy to combat criminal gangs from Central America and Mexico and pledged $4 million to help Central America deal with the youth gang issue. I applaud this meeting and the State Department's initiative and encourage Central American countries to go beyond a police-based approach and address the social roots of violent crime.

With passage of the important measure today, the United States Congress will recognize that violence poses an increasingly serious threat to peace and stability in Central America. This resolution encourages Central American and U.S. officials to meet on a regular basis to enhance further cooperation in curbing violence in the region.

The measure also recognizes the U.S. has a commitment of $4 million to tackle this problem, and that is a welcome start. But, importantly, this resolution notes that greater resources should be considered in the future to fight the problem of violence in Central America.

Our friends in Central America are great and close allies, and we should do everything we can to bring stability to these societies and to end excessive violence. That is why I urge all Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to one of the co-authors of this legislation, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Engel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 203) condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank our colleagues, Mr. Kirk from Illinois, Mr. Andrews from New Jersey, for introducing this important and timely legislation.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons in support of terrorism and its abuse of the human rights of its own people collectively form one of the most serious threats to peace and freedom faced by our country and faced by the world. It speaks volumes that Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization and formally subscribes to the core ILO principles like freedom of association, yet continues to jail those who attempt to form independent labor unions.

The mistreatment of two courageous labor leaders, Mr. Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo, is yet another example of the unacceptable behavior of the regime in Iran.

Since 2004, Mahmoud Salehi, who comes from the Kurdish region of Iran, has been jailed on trumped-up charges for the crime of trying to organize a May Day rally in his own city. Unlike many well-known Iranian dissidents, Mr. Salehi is not a writer or a professor or even a politician. He is an ordinary man, a baker by trade, who has had the courage to stand up for the rights of working people. Since April 19 of this year, he has been imprisoned and denied access to the dialysis treatments he requires.

The same is true of Mansour Osanloo, who fell afoul of the regime for threatening in 2006 to lead his fellow bus drivers in Tehran out on strike. Mr. Osanloo was kidnapped from his bus by unknown parties and severely beaten. He too is now being held on vaguely worded charges.

It is appropriate and necessary for the United States House of Representatives to condemn the brutal mistreatment of these leaders and call for their immediate release.

I strongly support this resolution, and I encourage all my colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the coauthor of this legislation, the chairman of the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, the very distinguished Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 676) declaring that it shall continue to be the policy of the United States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, for introducing this important resolution and Chairman Lantos, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for moving this to the floor.

When it comes to military sales to Taiwan, U.S. policy is clear: We must ensure that the thriving democracy of Taiwan has the capacity necessary to defend itself from outside threats.

We in the United States provide defensive military equipment to Taiwan, not just because it is right to aid our democratic friends, but because it is the law of the land under the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Relations Act, which has been the core of our policy toward Taiwan for almost 3 decades, also states clearly that the United States should base its decision on whether to supply defensive military equipment to Taiwan solely on the basis of the security needs of the Taiwanese military, not on the basis of political concerns.

In the context of these guiding principles, the administration currently has before it a decision on whether to sell F-16C/D fighters to Taiwan, fighters which Taiwan has expressed a clear interest in purchasing and for whose purchase they have budgeted $488 million in their 2007 defense budget and another $764 million in their budget for 2008.

The answer of the United States should be obvious. We should agree to sell the fighters without delay. Yet the administration has dragged its feet and failed even to respond to our Taiwanese friends; and this, in spite of the fact that under Taiwanese laws the funds for the fighters will no longer be available after October 31 of this year. If we do not offer to sell the planes by that date, the rules governing Taiwanese defense spending require that these funds be deleted from their budget.

Some have argued that this delay is justified because in a tense political season in Taiwan, the United States does not want to be seen as taking sides in the upcoming Taiwanese election. This assertion is wrongheaded and shortsighted in the extreme. This resolution in no way indicates support for one political party or another.

Furthermore, under the Taiwan Relations Act, we are supposed to make our decision based upon the needs of the Taiwanese military, not based on some argument that we would be falsely seen as supporting one political party or another, which, of course, is hardly the case if we decide to follow our own law and provide the Taiwanese military with the planes they need for military security.

I support this resolution and the sale of the F-16C/Ds to Taiwan so that the people of Taiwan can protect their democracy and to advance our security interests in East Asia. My support does not in any way indicate support for any candidate in Taiwan for any elected office, nor would selling these planes or agreeing to sell them indicate the support of the United States Government for any particular political party or candidate.

There are still others who claim that the F-16 sale, and this resolution, will upset the balance of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan already has F-16 aircraft, so these additional planes will hardly upset the balance between Taiwan and China.

Moreover, no one puts forward the idea that Taiwan is today going to invade the mainland. It is obvious that the weapons Taiwan acquires are for defense, not for offense, and so a country acquiring military weapons to defend itself is not upsetting the balance of power but, rather, preserving the military status quo, preserving stability and peace.

I would also point out that the Taiwan Relations Act and our arms sales under this act have been instrumental in maintaining peace and security across the Taiwan Straits and in East Asia for 30 years.

Under this peace, Taiwan developed from authoritarian rule into a robust and lively democracy. Taiwan has asked our assistance in defending itself, and it deserves from us the respect of a prompt response.

I strongly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the very distinguished and dapper Ms. Berkley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for this outstanding piece of legislation.

Yesterday, at Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made two points that were newsworthy. First, there are no gay people in Iran. Second, there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. These two points are equally true.

To focus on Iran's nuclear program, we do not need military action. I want to emphasize that this bill does not authorize, it does not justify, it does not urge military action in any way. In fact, it gives us an alternative, and that is economic and diplomatic pressure.

Now, we owe a special debt of gratitude to the mullahs who are running Iran, because their mismanagement, corruption and oppression has made their government vulnerable, vulnerable even in an $80-a- barrel world. Today, Iran faces a slow decline in its oil fields. Without further investment, they won't be exporting oil in 10 years. Today, as I speak, they are rationing gasoline in Tehran.

We need to be able to use our considerable broadcasting resources to send a message into Iran for the people and elites of that country: that you face diplomatic and economic isolation if you don't abandon your nuclear program. The problem is that none of us can lie that well in Farsi. We have not imposed economic isolation on Iran. But with this bill, we can begin.

We have acquiesced in World Bank loans to the Government of Iran. With this bill, we stop putting money into the unit of the World Bank that is making loans to Iran. We ought to look at other things we can do to make sure that there are no further World Bank loans to Iran.

Currently, we import from Iran--not oil, but only the stuff we don't need, and they can't sell anywhere else. This bill ends imports from Iran.

With regard to oil companies, again, we owe a special debt of gratitude to those mullahs whose outrageous business practices and threats of expropriation have made oil companies reluctant to invest in Iran. But now we have got to make them more reluctant to invest in Iran. This bill turns to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. oil companies and bans their investment in Iran.

With regard to foreign-based oil companies, it sends a clear message: Don't do business with Iran if you expect to do business-as-usual in the United States. We have had that kind of sanction against foreign- based oil companies for quite some time under what was then called the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). We applied that act against Libya, and it worked. It is now time to apply that act with regard to oil companies investing in Iran. This bill moves us a long way in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I have cosponsored H.R. 3327 to amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit dog fighting ventures because of the terrible problem of dog fighting. The author of the bill has assured me that in the committee process the penalties imposed on spectators will be modified.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment affects the portion of the bill within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Lantos accepts the amendment and commends the gentleman for his excellent work.

The amendment affects a portion of the bill within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Lantos accepts the amendment and commends the gentlelady and her co-authors on their excellent work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and public service of Los Angeles City Police Officer David Rodriguez of the San Fernando Valley, whose achievements merit our recognition.

After graduating with honors from Van Nuys High School, he entered California State University Northridge, where he received a bachelor of arts in political science. During college he held several jobs, including an internship in my district office.

I was honored when I had the opportunity to recommend David for the Los Angeles Police Department Academy. I was proud when in 2003 he entered and graduated. David earned a reputation as an aggressive but by-the-book patrol officer and was recently promoted to the anti-gang unit. At 6 feet 2 and weighing 270 lbs he was a gentle and dedicated family man who took care of his ailing mother.

On July 29th, while on duty, Police Officer Rodriguez died during an automobile accident

when his patrol car skidded off the Ventura Freeway.

Words cannot express the sense of sadness we have for his family. David Rodriguez was a model first responder, whose bravery in death merits our admiration and respect.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, we have already banned U.S. companies from conducting business operations in Sudan. Now we need to enlist American investors to change the behavior of foreign-based multinationals, to make it clear that they cannot have the capital of well-meaning Americans and the supposed benefit of cozying up to the government in Khartoum.

The way to do this, the way to change the behavior of the Government of Sudan, is to change the behavior of multinational corporations. The way to change the behavior of multinational corporations is to change American investment policies.

Scores of private organizations in this country, including the University of Southern California, have already

divested; some 19 States have already adopted divestment policies. This bill helps divestiture in two ways. First, it provides some critical guidance to those who want to divest. Those who want to divest are faced first with the issue of what standards to apply: Do I want to divest in any company that sells a candy bar in Khartoum, or do I only want to divest against those companies selling guns to the Government of Sudan?

This bill focuses on those companies providing the strategic assistance that helps the Khartoum Government and empowers that government. It identifies the key investment sectors of the Sudanese economy that government relies upon. It draws the line that establishes a clear standard. Others may depart from that standard and have an absolute rule: I don't want to invest in anything, any company doing business in Sudan. But this bill provides guidance to those who want one.

Second, the issue is which companies do I not want to invest in. Here the bill provides a list published by the Secretary of the Treasury of those companies violating the standards identified in the bill.

As the chairman of our committee points out, investors already have the right to divest. They shouldn't wait for us to pass this bill. The fiduciary duty to protect one's beneficiaries is enhanced if you divest from those businesses doing business in Sudan, because investing in terror is bad business and the sign of bad management; it exposes a corporation to reputational risk.

Likewise, our cities and States have the right to decide for themselves how to invest their money. But even if you buy the constitutional view, and I don't, that they can only divest when consistent with American foreign policy, you don't have to wait for this bill. Sudan is on the terrorism list. There is no clearer statement of American foreign policy that we want all Americans, and all cities, counties and States, to join with the Federal Government in carrying out the Federal policy to put economic pressure on the government in Khartoum.

So I hope people will act now. To some extent, what this bill does in stating that fiduciaries are free to divest is simply provide an end to an excuse. They don't need the excuse. They ought to divest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman and agree with him completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we talked earlier today about the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. The purpose of that bill and the purpose of this bill is to change the behavior of multinational corporations so as to change the behavior of the Iranian Government.

This effort began perhaps with the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act over a decade ago. It worked so well vis-a-vis Libya, that we have renamed it the Iran Sanctions Act, as Libya has, indeed, changed its behavior. It is important that we clarify the law. The sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from Florida indicated that this bill makes a number of important improvements to the Iran Sanctions Act.

The first is to indicate that it covers financial institutions, insurers, LLCs and other business entities; second, that when we talk about investments in the petroleum sector, that term includes refining petroleum and it includes development of liquefied natural gas.

Finally, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for including language in this bill that I had previously gotten into the Iran Freedom Support Act that was passed last year but which was dropped in conference. I want to thank her for putting it in this bill. That language deals with subsidiaries of U.S.-based multinationals. We currently have a ban on U.S. companies doing business with Iran, a ban on most transactions and investments. But some U.S.-based multinationals have used as a loophole through those regulations, through existing law, their foreign subsidiaries. What this bill would do is apply basic U.S. sanctions to all the entities controlled by multinational corporations based in the United States.

As to contracts existing on May 22, 2007, those contacts would have to be wound up at the earliest opportunity and could not be extended to cover additional activities. We then face the issue of what happens when a U.S.-based multinational buys a company that is incorporated abroad and that company already has preexisting contracts with or in Iran.

The activities of such subsidiaries would have to be wound up at their earlier possible opportunity, but furthermore, the U.S. buyer could not even buy that foreign company if the U.S. buyer knew that the company had contracts with the Government of Iran.

The message is clear: If you are building a company abroad and you think you might want to sell it to a U.S.-based multinational, do not have that company do business with Iran; otherwise, it will not be a company that can be easily acquired by a U.S.-based multinational.

This bill is an important part of an overall effort to put economic pressure on the Government of Iran and to let the Iranian elites and people know that they need to desist from their nuclear weapons program.

Also coming before this Congress, I hope soon, will be H.R. 1400, the Iran Counterproliferation Act, which also strengthens the Iran Sanctions Act and whose sponsor is sitting right here with us, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lantos.

We have to call upon the administration to actually enforce the Iran Sanctions Act. Since 1998, despite overwhelming evidence, no company has been identified by the United States

Department of State as having $20 million of investment in the Iranian oil sector which triggers the Iran Sanctions Act. It is time for the administration to stop ignoring existing law. It is time to strengthen existing law