U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–137PDF 2010

IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT

OF 2009

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2194

OCTOBER 28, 2009

Serial No. 111–66

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

DAVID S. ABRAMOWITZ, Chief Counsel 

LAURA RUSH, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer 

GENELL BROWN, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

H.R. 2194, To amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United 

States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran ................................................................................................. 3

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2194 offered by the 

Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs ............. 18

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota: Letter ............................................................................................. 66

The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Evidence of Iran’s Military Nuclear Intentions and Iran’s Safeguard Violations ................................................................ 75

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 82

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 83

The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Prepared statement .................................... 85

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: Prepared statement ................................................................... 87

The Honorable Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 90

(1)

IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT 

OF 2009

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman BERMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Before we begin, I wanted to take a couple of moments to acknowledge the departure of two very key staffers for the committee, 

David Abramowitz, our chief counsel, and Kristin Wells, our deputy 

chief counsel. 

David has been on the committee since 1999, and prior to that, 

he served for a decade in the State Department’s Office of the 

Legal Advisor. 

Kristin has been with the committee since 2007, and previously 

served with the Committee on the Judiciary beginning in 2001. 

David and Kristin have made major contributions to the committee’s legislative agenda and to our Nation’s foreign policy. Both 

played key roles in the committee’s recent passage of the State Department authorization bill. 

David’s role while in the minority, as well as in the majority, 

working on such issues as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 

the Millennium Challenge Assistance Program and PEPFAR are 

well-known to many of us. I think it is fair to say that David has 

been instrumental in everything this committee has done. His work 

has resulted in improving the lives of millions of recipients of U.S. 

assistance programs, including trafficking victims. We will miss 

him greatly, but not for long, because he will likely be back in his 

new capacity working for Humanity United, an antitrafficking organization. 

Kristin, too, has been a major force in the committee, working on 

behalf of the innocent and disadvantaged. She too was instrumental in the Wilberforce Trafficking Reauthorization Act of 2007, 

the United States Caribbean Educational Exchange Act, legislation 

pertaining to Iraqi refugees, the International Violence Against 

Women Act, and she has played a key role up to today, up until 

late last night—today is her last day—in working with Mr. Smith’s 

staff on a bipartisan basis to further protections of the innocent. 

She put global women’s issues front and center for this committee 

and her contributions will be long remembered. 

2

So I thank you, both of you, for your service and say, ‘‘Good 

luck.’’ As I mentioned, they are going on to new professional challenges, David to Humanity United, a foundation which is dedicated 

to ending modern-day slavery and mass atrocities. Kristin will be 

a partner in Patton Boggs, where she will be a key figure in their 

widening practice. 

When you really realize the value of the incredible staff that we 

all have working for us is when they come in to tell you they are 

leaving and you can gauge how depressed you get when you hear 

that news. And in this case, the indicator definitely went up on 

that issue. 

We thank both of them, and we will miss you. 

And now, pursuant to notice, I will call up H.R. 2194, the Iran 

Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. 

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

before the members will be considered as base text for purposes of 

amendment, will be considered as read, and will be open for 

amendment at any time. A summary of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is on each member’s desk. 

[The information referred to follows:]

3


53137a-1.eps
4


53137a-2.eps
5


53137a-3.eps
6


53137a-4.eps
7


53137a-5.eps
8


53137a-6.eps
9


53137a-7.eps
10


53137a-8.eps
11


53137a-9.eps
12


53137a-10.eps
13


53137a-11.eps
14


53137a-12.eps
15


53137a-13.eps
16


53137a-14.eps
17


53137a-15.eps
18


53137b-1.eps
19


53137b-2.eps
20


53137b-3.eps
21


53137b-4.eps
22


53137b-5.eps
23


53137b-6.eps
24


53137b-7.eps
25


53137b-8.eps
26


53137b-9.eps
27


53137b-10.eps
28


53137b-11.eps
29


53137b-12.eps
30


53137b-13.eps
31


53137b-14.eps
32


53137b-15.eps
33


53137b-16.eps
34


53137b-17.eps
35


53137b-18.eps
36


53137b-19.eps
37


53137b-20.eps
38


53137b-21.eps
39


53137b-22.eps
40


53137b-23.eps
41


53137b-24.eps
42


53137b-25.eps
43


53137b-26.eps
44

Chairman BERMAN. In a moment, I will yield myself 5 minutes 

to explain the bill and then 5 minutes to the ranking member to 

allow her to provide her views on the legislation. 

If a member wishes to make a general statement on the bill, they 

may do so by asking to strike the last word once the bill is being 

considered for amendment. 

Without objection, I may recess the committee from time to time. 

In addition, I may exercise the chair’s prerogative under rule IV 

of the committee rules to postpone votes for the convenience of the 

members. I will give members as much notice as I can on when 

such postponed votes will occur. 

And without objection, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

In marking up H.R. 2194, I have one transcendent goal in mind: 

To maximize the chances that Iran, the leading state sponsor of 

terrorism, will be prevented from acquiring the capacity to produce 

nuclear arms. That capacity would pose perhaps the most serious 

strategic threat to our Nation. 

Why? Four reasons: First, a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to 

bully its neighbors and dominate its region and would be much less 

susceptible to pressure from the international community. Second, 

its terrorist prote ́ge ́s, like Hezbollah and Hamas, would be 

emboldened. Third, it would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the 

Middle East and the Persian Gulf that would lead to the collapse 

of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. And finally, and very 

importantly, we could never be sure that it wouldn’t share its nuclear know-how with others, including terrorists, or possibly even 

use nuclear weapons against Israel or other United States allies in 

the region. 

This legislation seeks to target Iran’s ongoing dependence on refined petroleum imports. It is not a magic bullet, but it will—at 

least—force the Iranians to think twice about continuing to flout 

the will of the international community. 

Unlike previous Iran sanctions legislation, which has been ignored by every administration, this bill requires the administration 

to report to Congress all activities that would trigger sanctions. 

Three hundred and thirty members of the House, including the 

overwhelming majority of this committee, are cosponsors of this 

bill. 

When I introduced H.R. 2194 6 months ago, I said that I did not 

want to mark it up right away because I wanted to give diplomacy 

a chance to succeed. And I still do. 

In recent weeks, there has been a potential development on the 

diplomatic front as the United States, its partners and Iran have 

discussed the prospect that Iran would ship 75 percent of its existing stockpile of low-enriched uranium outside the country to be further enriched for use in making medical isotopes. If this deal is realized, as agreed to in principle, and not with significant modifications—and assuming that Iran has no covert stockpile of low-enriched uranium—we will have pushed back Iran’s nuclear clock 

perhaps 9 months to 1 year. 

In marking up this bill today, we must recognize that whatever 

the progress on that recent arrangement, it does not address the 

international community’s central concern: Suspension of Iran’s 

uranium enrichment program. 

45

Iran is still refusing to suspend enrichment, as demanded in four 

separate United Nations Security Council resolutions, and has thus 

far not even committed to engage on that core issue in the recent 

round of talks. In fact, as we now know, Iran has been seeking to 

covertly expand its uranium enrichment program. 

The Iranian Government should know that the U.S. Congress remains intently focused on this issue, and that there will be consequences if it continues to stonewall. That is why, after 6 months 

of waiting, it is time to begin moving this bill through the legislative process. 

I am not giving up on the possibility that diplomacy will succeed 

in bringing about a suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. But if diplomacy does not produce the desired results within 

a very short period of time, there should be a robust sanctions regime imposed by the U.N. Security Council—or, failing that, by a 

coalition of economically powerful, like-minded states that, one 

hopes, would include the United States, the EU nations, Japan, 

and several of the key oil-producing Arab states. 

Only when we judge that these other options will not succeed in 

a timely manner should we turn to additional unilateral and 

extraterritorial sanctions such as those included in H.R. 2194. 

As I said in my statement 2 weeks ago announcing this markup, 

by approving the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, this committee will take the first key step to ensure that President Obama 

is empowered with the full range of tools he needs to address the 

looming nuclear threat from Iran, even as he pursues diplomacy 

and, if necessary, the multilateral sanctions track. Given the length 

of time it ordinarily takes the House and Senate to move a significant piece of legislation to the President’s desk, it is important that 

we initiate this process today. 

All of us are aware that if the provisions of this bill are ever implemented, they would likely have a significant impact on the Iranian economy, including quite possibly on average Iranians. While 

that is a distasteful—I ask for unanimous consent to have 2 additional minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. Of course. 

Chairman BERMAN. And I will give myself that. 

While that is a distasteful prospect—that is the significant impact on average Iranians—the urgency of dealing with the Iranian 

nuclear project—and the immense danger that a nuclear-armed 

Iran would pose to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people who 

will fall within the range of its missiles—compels us to go forward 

with this legislation. Should its implementation prove necessary, it 

would be our hope that the Iranian regime would come to its 

senses and suspend its enrichment program at the earliest possible 

time. 

Iranians should understand that Americans, while distressed by 

the actions of the Iranian regime, have feelings of real friendship 

for the Iranian people themselves, and we believe most Iranians reciprocate those feelings. Many of us regret that developments in recent decades have created impediments to our mutual friendship. 

We look forward to a day when the United States-Iranian friendship can blossom anew, when a government in Tehran is willing to 

restore Iran to membership in good standing among the community 

46

of nations. For Iran, the first step down that path is the complete 

abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. 

We know that sanctions can work. We have seen them succeed, 

for example, in the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe, when it 

was known as Rhodesia. But sanctions usually take time. Given 

the advanced state even of the overt Iranian nuclear program; 

given Iran’s achievements in missile development; and given persistent reports that Iran has made considerable progress on nuclear-weapon design, we have very little time to lose. Should diplomacy fail, we must be prepared. 

I urge all members of the committee to support this bill, and I 

turn to the ranking member to express her views on the legislation. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am extremely pleased that this urgently needed sanctions legislation is being marked up today. The extent of the Iranian threat 

is far greater today than when the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, also 

known as ILSA, was passed in 1996 or even when the Iran Freedom Support Act, which I authored to strengthen Iran sanctions, 

was enacted into law in 2006. 

Throughout, Iran has poured massive resources into its nuclear 

weapons program and has made great strides in its development 

of ballistic missiles and other advanced conventional weapons. Its 

support for militant, Islamic extremists has greatly expanded as 

well. And it has adopted increasingly aggressive policies toward 

other countries in the region. 

By sanctioning foreign companies that invested in Iran’s energy 

infrastructure, ILSA sought to cut off investment in Iran’s struggling petroleum sector, the regime’s economic life line. As a result, 

Iran’s petroleum sector has been denied critical foreign investment. 

Today’s legislation, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, 

seeks to ratchet up the pressure on the regime by targeting a new 

vulnerability, namely Iran’s inability to produce sufficient gasoline 

and other refined-petroleum products. 

The bipartisan bill, as you have stated, Mr. Chairman, also has 

330 cosponsors. There is no question that it will be adopted overwhelmingly when it is sent to the floor, which I hope will be soon. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute which we are considering today contains a number of important changes to the introduced bill. I will highlight just a few: A requirement that investigations into possible violations of the Iran’s Sanctions Act be concluded within 180 days; an expansion of sanctions beyond the maritime shipment of refined-petroleum products to Iran to also include 

truck and rail shipping; a prohibition on new nuclear cooperation 

agreements with governments that do not take effective action 

against those under its jurisdiction who provide Iran with materials and technology used in its nuclear weapons program; additional reporting requirements regarding the Iranian Revolutionary 

Guard Corps, activity by Iranian diplomats, quasi-official entities 

and proxies, such as Hezbollah in the Middle East, Western Hemisphere, Africa and beyond, and trade between Iran and the G–20 

nations; and an additional sense of Congress regarding newly discovered nuclear facilities, as well as additional statements of policy, 

such as calling on the Secretary of State to make every effort to 

assist the American hostages taken when Iranian militants seized 

47

our embassy in 1979 and their survivors in achieving full compensation for their injuries. 

These and other additions greatly strengthen the bill’s effectiveness. Major opportunities have been thrown away because successive administrations refused to use the many powerful tools that 

Congress has given to them or did so only halfheartedly. 

It is my expectation that we will work in a bipartisan manner 

to ensure that congressional mandates and intents are no longer ignored by the executive. I further hope that the current administration, as with its predecessor in the second term, does not allow 

itself to be manipulated by Iran into an indefinite holding pattern 

to delay and extract greater concessions while the clock on their 

break-out capacity continues to tick. 

I used a reference at last week’s Burma hearing with respect to 

the proposed new approach to that regime that, unfortunately, also 

fits perfectly when discussing dealings with the Iranian regime. 

And that is a Winston Churchill quote, when he warned, ‘‘There is 

no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, 

and timid policies offer a path to safety.’’ I fear that I will have 

many opportunities to use that Churchill quote in the future. 

After years of failed efforts at engagement and offers of inducement, it should be clear that unless we impose the maximum pressure on Iran, and this bill is a major step forward in that direction, 

the regime will continue its march toward acquiring nuclear weapons, dominating the Persian Gulf, and expanding its network of 

radical militants around the world. We still have time to act but 

we must do so quickly. 

And Mr. Chairman, one last note, I join you in wishing much 

success to David and Kristin in their new endeavors. And indeed, 

it is delight to work with all of your staff members on your side. 

I know that that is the feeling on our side of the aisle. 

I enjoy working with you as well, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan 

manner and will continue to do so as we move this bill along in 

other committees and on to the floor action. 

Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much, and I share that enjoyment of course. Sometimes at 11 o’clock at night, it is—for what 

purpose? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Move to strike next to the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized to next of 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been and remain a strong 

advocate for sanctions on Iran. For many years, through Democratic and Republican administrations, I have felt it to be vital to 

force Iran to pay a price, some price, any price, for its general subversion and state sponsorship of terrorism and, most of all, its nuclear proliferation. 

Today we are going to move forward a sanctions bill that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration’s ability to conduct 

effective diplomacy. The world, and I mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the U.S. Congress is dead serious about 

sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about 

Iran’s nuclear program. 

48

For those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, I would 

suggest that the opposite is true. With Iranian proliferation on the 

horizon, what is feckless is reckless. If you don’t want war, it seems 

to me that you must back the toughest possible sanctions. 

But sanctions alone almost certainly are not going to be sufficient to force the Iran regime to change course. The violence 

throughout Iran in June following the rigged Presidential election 

as well as the subsequent escalation of political repression have 

both demonstrated Iran’s rulers are ready to do whatever is takes 

to preserve their grip on power. And given the 10 years of sanctions followed by the war against Saddam’s Iraq and what hasn’t 

happened to nuclear North Korea, I suspect Iranian’s thugocracy 

sees nuclear arms as their ultimate insurance policy. 

So even as we proceed, as we must, on enhancing our capacity 

for unilateral sanctions and even as we continue, as we must, on 

developing crippling multilateral sanctions that can be applied if 

diplomacy proves to be ineffectual, we should bear in mind that 

there may not be any level of sanctions sufficient enough to compel 

a change in Iran’s nuclear program. I would suggest we need a 

strategy more comprehensive than just diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions. 

President Obama’s support for direct engagement with Iran has 

already helped to heal a variety of political woes. But by itself, diplomatic engagement still leaves too much initiative in Iranian 

hands. Likewise with political and economic sanctions if the Iranians remain recalcitrant and sanctions are applied, no matter how 

crippling, and I would want them to be absolutely suffocating of the 

regime, the initiative is still left to the Ayatollahs to decide when 

they have had enough. 

After bemoaning for years the insufficiency of our leverage over 

Iran, why have we chosen to ignore Iran’s green movement, which 

so clearly has the Ayatollahs absolutely terrified. Iran is sowing 

chaos and terror throughout the Middle East. Where is the Truman-like policy of declaring our support for any nation trying to remain free from Iranian threats? 

We do need to pursue engagement, and we do need to have sanctions ready in case it fails. But we also need a policy that supports 

the democratic movement within Iran, that strengthens our abilities to resist Iranian subversion, that enhances our political and 

military coordination within the Persian Gulf, that makes clear to 

all nations that political support for Iran will come at a price in 

their relations to the United States. 

If we don’t come up with a comprehensive policy, one that applies 

pressure to Iran across the board, I suspect President Obama is 

soon going to have to decide whether an Iranian nuclear weapons 

is truly unacceptable in the full meaning of the word and with full 

knowledge of what that really means. 

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, for what purpose 

do you seek recognition? 

Mr. BURTON. Strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

49

Mr. BURTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy we are 

finally getting to this legislation. You introduced it 6 months ago, 

and you and I have discussed this many times about how quickly 

we should bring it to the full committee. 

I would just like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you would yield 

to me. 

Chairman BERMAN. You have the time. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, I will yield to you for an answer, then. Do we 

have any assurance that the other committees of jurisdiction are 

going to work with us to bring this bill to the floor expeditiously? 

Chairman BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. BURTON. I am yielding. 

Chairman BERMAN. What I—I am not going to let—I will do—

put it this way, I will do everything in my power to make sure that 

the timing of this bill is not negatively affected by the sequential 

referrals to the three committees that come from this legislation. 

And I am not—I am not going to use the sequential referral process 

as an excuse to keep from bringing this bill up at the time I think 

it achieves its purpose. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that, but we have 

waited 6 months for this one. 

And if the other committees of jurisdiction drag their heels, we 

could be messing around with this for another 6 months or longer. 

I don’t trust Iran. You know, in I think 1939, Lord Chamberlain 

went to Munich to talk to Hitler, and he got assurances that Hitler 

wasn’t going to do anything to expand his aggressive moves. And 

yet a short time after that, we were in the middle of World War 

II that killed 50 million or 60 million people. 

We are in the nuclear age right now. We can’t drag our feet. 

More currently, the Clinton administration trusted and worked 

with and got some concessions out of North Korea which were 

thrown right down the receptacle we find in our bathrooms, and 

they went right ahead with their nuclear program. 

And so let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that 

this Congress move and move as rapidly as possible and try to get 

our allies to move as rapidly as possible to put these sanctions on 

them. I don’t believe that they are going to stop their nuclear program. 

We have heard time and again that one of their major goals is 

to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the face of the earth. They likewise 

call us the Great Satan. I haven’t heard anything in their rhetoric 

that would change that. And now they are saying, well, that they 

are thinking about it. At Geneva, they said that they would start 

trying to work out something so they could send part of their nuclear material back to Russia, 75 percent or whatever it is. They 

shouldn’t have any of that nuclear material. 

And right now, as we speak today, the centrifuges are still spinning. They are working today to develop a nuclear weapons capability and their missile capability as well. And the longer we wait, 

the more we risk a major conflagration other there. 

I know some of the leaders in Israel, and I know that their number one concern is protecting their country. It is a very small country and could be almost annihilated with a couple of nuclear weapons. And I truly believe, the longer we drag our feet, the more we 

50

risk a conflict over there that could kill an awful lot of innocent 

people both in Iran and in Israel. 

And so I think we need to move as quickly as possible, and I 

hope you will use all the power you have, as you just stated, Mr. 

Chairman, to get this legislation through the other committees and 

get it to the floor so we can vote on it. We get this thing passed 

and then start talking to our allies about working with us and the 

United Nations. Then, I think, we can start putting some real pressure on Iran. But right now, solving this problem with just words 

is not going to get the job done. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. For what purpose 

do you seek recognition? 

Mr. SHERMAN. To strike one of the words. You can decide which 

one. 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Our policy of engagement needs to be complimented by immediate, harsh and extraterritorial sanctions. And 

we need to get the administration to enforce the bills that have already become law, especially the Iran Sanctions Act. We need to 

pass several additional sanctions through this Congress; then the 

sanctions can be frozen or waived when the centrifuges are frozen, 

and then talks can continue in a more relaxed atmosphere. 

With that being said, this is a good bill. I am proud to cosponsor 

it. It is not comprehensive; it is not intended to be comprehensive. 

And I am not going to offer amendments that are outside the objectives of the author. Rather, I hope that those other objectives already embodied in bills that I have authored or cosponsored, or 

that others have put forward, will be taken up expeditiously so 

that we will pass every possible useful sanction through this Congress. That would include making sure that U.S. subsidiaries don’t 

do business with Iran, that is to say foreign incorporated subsidiaries of U.S. firms. Also, a ban on Iranian exports to the United 

States. It wouldn’t even be exterritorial to say that we are going 

to stop imports from Iran. We don’t import oil from Iran. We only 

import the stuff that we don’t need and they couldn’t sell anywhere 

else. 

There are a number of other sanctions, including those designed 

to prevent Iran from getting mining and milling equipment. I believe the ranking member and I are working on that. I look forward 

to working on these other pieces of legislation. 

Finally, I want to thank the chairman for including in this bill 

language that would target the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

That Corps has operated through hundreds of fronts and affiliates. 

It is time that we designate these entities under appropriate statutes and executive orders. The amendment put forward by the 

chairman would require that the administration identify these 

fronts and affiliates in reports required by the bill, and calls on the 

President to sanction these entities as well as those who do business with them. If you sell to the IRGC or any of its fronts or affiliates, you should not be selling to us. 

51

I look forward to the passage of this important legislation, commend the chairman for drafting it and yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the gentleman from Indiana, for what purpose——

Mr. BURTON. I will speak again. 

Chairman BERMAN. The other gentleman from Indiana. There 

are more than one. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PENCE. I am glad to be here today, and I appreciate the 

chairman and the ranking member’s leadership in bringing H.R. 

2194 before this committee, which has extraordinary bipartisan 

support in this committee and before the Congress. The bill before 

us today, if enacted, would amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 

to provide additional tools the administration should use to pressure Iran where words have failed. 

Despite the fact that the prevailing diplomatic wins these days 

blow in the direction of diplomacy alone, I believe with all my heart 

that diplomacy and sanctions are not mutually exclusive. And the 

action that this committee will take today. And I hope that this 

Congress will take in the very near future in moving and enacting 

the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act will greatly strengthen 

the position of the United States at the negotiation table with our 

allies relative to Iran. 

This past summer, we saw vivid images of violent acts the Iranian regime was willing to commit against its own citizens to maintain its illegitimate grip on power. Dissidents took to the streets, 

by the millions to express their opposition to the fraudulent elections. The crackdown began with tragic results. 

Mr. Chairman, it was a great privilege for me to partner with 

you in bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor of the Congress 

that gave the American people an opportunity to speak in solidarity with the dissidents in Iran and also to condemn the violence 

that took place there. 

The reality was at that time Iran effective declared war on its 

own people. We ought to ponder that as we think about the 

strength of this legislation and U.S. resolve. If this is the level of 

violence that a regime in Tehran is willing to use against its own 

citizens, what does that tell us about the level of violence they 

would be willing to use against other nations? 

Iran’s support for terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction have long threatened global peace and security. To the 

Iranian regime, the United States is the Great Satan and our cherished ally Israel has no right to exist. 

Last week Iran missed the deadline to respond to a proposed 

agreement between Iran and six world powers, including the 

United States. Under the deal, Russia and France would accept 80 

percent of Iran’s known low-enriched uranium, process it for civilian purposes, and then give it back to Iran. Yesterday, Iran agreed 

to this general framework we are told, but they said they would 

seek important changes. This announcement should be seen for 

what it is, little more than a two-step to keep the negotiation procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:36 Feb 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102809M\53137 HFA PsN: SHIRL
52

ess going while Iran continues in its headlong rush to obtain usable 

nuclear weapons. 

Iran’s failure to meet deadlines in this current ploy to drag out 

negotiations further should come as no surprise. Iran deceived the 

world community time and time again, and any assurance that 

their nuclear program is peaceful should be seen for what it is. 

The revelation last month of Iranian’s secret uranium enrichment facility near Qom has already shown Iran’s propensity—

Tehran’s propensity for double dealing. The world is left to wonder 

what other sites might be hiding thousands more centrifuges busily 

churning out highly-enriched uranium and how long it will be before they have enough for a bomb. Already the leading state sponsor of terror, it would only be a matter of time before a nucleararmed Iran made good on its threat. 

The international community and I would argue this country has 

talked long enough about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is time for 

deeds. It is time to take real concrete steps to begin to economically 

isolate this discredited regime in Tehran. And I urge support for 

the strongest possible measures to be included in the Iran Refined 

Petroleum Sanctions Act and, again, commend the chairman of this 

committee and the ranking member of this committee for their 

strong leadership in bringing this legislation before the Congress. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you. 

And the gentleman from New York seeks recognition. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I want to associate myself with Mr. 

Pence’s remarks, which I think are quite right and on the money. 

So I thank you for making those remarks, Mr. Pence, and I certainly agree with everything you have said. 

And Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of 

this excellent piece of legislation which seeks to increase the pressure on Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And I would especially like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for sponsoring this 

thoughtful initiative. 

As you know, I was the author of a Syria Accountability Act 

some years ago. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and I introduced that bill. It 

slapped sanctions on Syria for the first time ever. We pursued diplomacy while we pursued sanctions, and I think that is an important thing to remember. 

Only a few short weeks ago, the world learned of a secret uranium-enrichment facility near the city of Qom. If there was ever 

any doubt Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, I believe that 

this revelation dispels any shred of that doubt. The facility, kept 

secret from the IAEA, was built deep on a mountain, on a protected 

military base. This is how a country conceals a nuclear weapons 

program, not how it develops peaceful energy technologies. 

As Iran continues to disregard its legal obligations and flouts 

U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it halt its nuclear enrichment program, this committee can play a critical role 

in impeding Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. By 

passing this Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, Congress will 

53

create critical tools to increase the pressure on Iran. Although Iran 

is a leading producer of crude oil, it has limited refining capability. 

This bill seeks to increase leverage against Iran by sanctioning entities that export refined-petroleum products to Iran or support the 

development of Iran’s domestic refining capabilities. 

It is my hope that the administration will apply these additional 

sanctions to make absolutely clear to the Ahmadinejad regime that 

the world will not accept his nuclear ambitions. 

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere, I would like to raise one additional concern which 

arose at my hearing yesterday on Iran’s role in the Western Hemisphere. Last month, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez agreed to provide 20,000 barrels per day of refined gasoline to Iran. It is anyone’s guess as to whether this will ever be implemented, but the 

deal may be covered by the bill we are considering today. While 

some question whether Venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to Iran since it imports some gasoline to meet its own domestic 

demand, President Chavez is clearly approaching a perilous area. 

I hope he reconsiders this unwise step. And if he doesn’t, I hope 

these sanctions will apply in that regard. 

The United States, our allies and the United Nations Security 

Council have recognized that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger to the Middle East and to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. 

A nuclear-armed Iran is simply unacceptable, and we must not 

stand for it. And while the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs, 

this is obviously a very, very important issue, not only for us in the 

United States, but for the people of Israel. I think the people of 

Israel will make decisions on how they act, but I believe that we 

in the United States can make decisions to try to block Iran. So I 

therefore strongly support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanction 

Act, and I urge the committee to report this bill favorably, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all I, want to congratulate you and the 

ranking member in pushing this necessary tightening and enhancement of sanctions against Iran. It is important that sanctions 

against the Government of Iran be considered in the context not 

only of United States security interests and those of our allies and 

friends directly threatened, which includes especially Israel, but 

also in pursuit of respect for human rights and democratic freedom 

to which the people of Iran are entitled. 

In fact, the two goals cannot be separated, regional and global security depend on Iran having a stable government and a society 

where human rights and the will of the Iranian people are respected. This bill underscores that point. The bill makes clear within the department, within the statement of policy that the United 

States supports ‘‘all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of 

freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.’’

Mr. Chairman, I recently joined my friend and colleague Bob Inglis and other House members in sending a letter to Secretary of 

54

State Hillary Clinton expressing concerns about reports that the 

State Department and USAID are being ‘‘extremely cautious as to 

whether and how they provide funding to promote democracy, 

human rights and the will of law in Iran.’’

The how of it is an important issue for deliberation, but there 

should be no question whatsoever as to whether United States actively supports these essential goals of the Iranian people. There 

are reports that important initiatives are being undertaken by 

highly reputable groups such as Freedom House and the International Republican Institute, both here in the United States, in 

furtherance of these goals have had their U.S. funding renewal requests denied. And as a result, those initiatives may be discontinued. This would seem to be contrary to the best interest of the 

Iranian people and the United States. 

The letter to Secretary Clinton asked for information as to what 

strategy the U.S. Government is pursuing in support of the green 

revolution. 

In the meantime, this bill does provide the committee the opportunity to send the clear, unmistakable message to the Iranian Government that there are consequences to attempting to develop nuclear weapons, unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and 

supporting international terrorism. I am very pleased to be one of 

the cosponsors of the bill. 

And finally, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will deeply miss David Abramowitz and Kristin Wells. David and I and the 

members of this committee for years worked on human rights legislation. As a matter of fact, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 

would not have become law without the bipartisan cooperation and 

the insights and the wordsmithing that he provided, as well as 

members of our own committee and the members of our own staff. 

That kind of bipartisan cooperation is what it is all about. I think 

this bill is another example that that tradition continues to live on. 

I thank you and yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition? No. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, for what purpose do 

you seek recognition? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 

word. 

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 

their continued efforts on the complicated issues surrounding Iran 

and their dedicated work on this bill. I am a proud sponsor of this 

bill and the broad bipartisan support behind this initiative is commendable. 

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act will expand our options under the Iranian Sanctions Act by defining more 

sanctionable offenses and by expanding the available types of sanction. This bill allows sanction on firms that send refined gasoline 

to Iran or that send equipment to Iran that could support domestic 

oil refineries. These provisions are both appropriate and necessary 

as we confront Iran’s nuclear threat. 

Talks are ongoing, and Iran has allowed U.N. officials to visit a 

previously unknown uranium enrichment site. But this type of engagement is buying Iran more time to stall. As we have seen beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:36 Feb 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102809M\53137 HFA PsN: SHIRL
55

fore, these developers do not put me at ease about Iran’s nuclear 

program, and I believe we must pursue tighter sanctions. 

The country’s dependence on gasoline import is widely known, 

and this bill will weaken Iran by limiting the country’s ability to 

access the energy it needs to continue its nuclear ambitions. Our 

Government has been extremely generous with the often infuriating Iranian regime. Now it is time to move forward with these 

sanctions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I identify myself with the remarks made by Mr. Pence earlier in this hearing. 

With that said, I would hope that this act does not have a loophole that will permit the administration to turn a blind eye to China’s significant involvement in Iran’s oil and gas industry. It has 

been reported that China has already surpassed Germany as Iran’s 

number one trade partner. 

Sinopec, China’s largest oil refiner, last year finalized a multibillion dollar deal to develop a giant oil field in Iran. And in addition 

to that, they made the deal of the century, a contract for natural 

gas from Iran’s immense North Pars field. 

Chinese contractors are also busy constructing oil terminals for 

Iran in the Caspian Sea, and this while China’s arms sales to Iran 

has included such items as ballistic missile technology, air defense 

radars, cruise missiles. I might add, one of those cruise missiles 

took out an Israeli warship a couple of years ago. I would also point 

out that the Jerusalem Post reported that many Chinese Grad 

rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. And one of those 

grad rockets, by the way, is a Katyusha rocket, which was fired 

just yesterday into the sea, in the area of Galilee. 

To conclude that—let me just note this, if we are serious about 

countering the threat that Iran poses to the United States and to 

its neighbors, we will do everything we can to stop the Chinese 

communist party from playing the spoiler role, not only with regard 

to oil and gas but also to military equipment with it provides Iran, 

which then ships it off to terrorist organizations. 

We have to do this, even if it means upsetting the communist 

party leadership in Beijing. And whether it also, perhaps, upsets 

the American corporate elite lapdogs that send off to China all of 

our jobs and technology. 

So while I support this legislation, let’s hope that we don’t lose 

focus on the role that China is playing and hold them accountable 

as pardon part of this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

you and——

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman moves to strike the last 

word? 

56

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 

last and the penultimate word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is not the penultimate speaker, though. 

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, I want to thank you and the ranking member for 

moving forward with this legislation. 

The United States and its allies have made several diplomatic 

overtures to Iran with the goal of halting Iran’s nuclear enrichment 

activity. Recent missile tests and the revelation of a secret enrichment facility in Qom add to the urgency of the situation. 

Now a new deal is on the table. Just last week, the White House 

announced its official support for an IAEA proposed arrangement 

that would send most of Iran’s uranium outside of the country for 

enrichment. Time will tell whether Iran supports the proposal. The 

clock is ticking. 

While Iran may stall in accepting the deal, a common measure 

it has employed in the past, it is time to consider measures that 

will strengthen the United States and its allies’ negotiating position or up the ante, so to speak. 

The real threat of additional sanctions can do just that. The Iranian Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, H.R. 2194, will strengthen 

the President’s authority to impose economic sanctions on Iran and 

give the President additional tools to use when considering the 

Iran situation. 

The message to Iran must be clear: Stop stalling and negotiate 

a deal, or there will be severe economic consequences. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman, Mr. 

Royce, seek recognition? 

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you noted that this issue has long been 

under consideration. And I think for those of us who have wrestled 

with this issue, as you have, one of the reasons it has been in abeyance for a while is because of that 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that in the fall, and to use the words of the 

estimate, in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons 

program. 

Now several of us at the time saw this as a poorly produced document, a poorly presented document, and we were rather vocal in 

trying to point out the likelihood that that assessment was dead 

wrong. It surely damaged our international efforts to pressure Iran. 

And since that estimate, we have learned a lot about a North Korean built nuclear facility in Syria which we apparently were blind 

to at the time. I believe that that was likely linked to Iran. And 

one thing we do know is the Qom enrichment facility on an Iranian 

military bare, which has now come to our attention. 

Now the Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Qom 

site undermined one of the U.S. intelligence communities’ key assessments of the Iranian’s nuclear program. And that assessment 

was that Iran had abandoned its plans to enrich uranium in secret. 

57

We now know it is exactly the opposite of what be were told by the 

intelligence community. And there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that 

we have lost valuable time in responding to this very serious 

threat. And one of the reasons is because of that report, and I hope 

we learn something from it. 

I am also concerned by this administration’s apparent walking 

away from the democratic movement in Iran. Other members have 

commented on this, but I wonder if members realize that the administration has now cut out grants to respected groups supporting 

democracy in Iran. We have had a bipartisan agreement for many 

years in this committee. And this is under our purview, our jurisdiction, for support for those doing work for human rights in Iran. 

And the idea that part of our outreach to the Iran regime should 

be undermining that support gives me concern. 

I would make the observation that Andre Sakharov many years 

ago told us something that we probably should have sensed, and 

that is how a regime treats its own people tells you a great deal 

about how it is likely to treat its neighbors. And for those of us in 

America who watched the results of the Basiji or the attacks by 

those armed militia for the regime on those who were protesting, 

trying to get an honest and fair outcome of an election that had 

been stolen; for those of us who learned about the bodies that disappeared and later turned up dead, the current protesters who 

have been given sentences of death for participating in protesting 

a stolen election; for those of us who know how Iranian families 

grieve for family members that are yet to be accounted for, they 

have no idea what is currently happening to those individuals; I 

think for us, there is a great deal of concern for the cuts to these 

efforts to support human rights. 

Now there is no guarantee that a democratic Iran would be nuclear weapons free, but they would be far more likely than in Iran 

in the grip of the Supreme Council, it be far more likely that we 

would have a regime that we could work with or at least we didn’t 

have to fear; at least a regime that didn’t tell us what the Soviets 

once told us. You know, the Soviet threat was that they were going 

to bury us. Well, we took action to contain that threat, and we listened to those dissidents in the Soviet Union who said, you know, 

supporting human rights over here is going to help change the system. And it is equally important here because smart diplomacy 

doesn’t mean dropping any criticism of a regime’s human rights 

abuse, and this it is a critical issue I hope this committee will look 

at, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon, is recognized 

on a motion to strike for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 

last word. 

And I commend you for your leadership on advancing the Iran 

Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, a historic bipartisan 

piece of legislation which limits investment in Iran’s hydrocarbon 

sector. H.R. 2194 would sanction companies that help Iran import 

or produce refined petroleum, companies that ultimately endanger 

the security of the United States, Israel, and the world as a whole. 

58

Already due to the United States pressure, at least 40 banks, including Deutsche Bank and UBS, Credit Suisse, and Commerce 

Bank have all reduced business with Iran. 

Yet despite increased pressure, Iran refuses to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. In fact, as we have heard this morning, 

the revelation this past September that Iran failed to disclose yet 

another enrichment facility in Qom points to the reason why we 

are all here today. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and is not 

consistent with a secure and safe United States and Israel. 

Since Iran imports 40 percent of its refined petroleum this legislation will have a significant impact on Iran’s economy and will 

send a clear message that Iran must stop its nuclear enrichment 

program. I am confident that this long-sought measure will undoubtedly give the administration the leverage that it needs to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime, but the United States will 

also need the full support of the international community to use 

limits on trade and the energy to help end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to vote for H.R. 2194, but I 

also urge all my colleagues to support the manager’s amendment. 

Among many other positive changes, the manager’s amendment includes a provision that will require the President to report to Congress on the dollar value amount of trade, including the energy sector, between Iran and each country maintaining membership in the 

Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. 

I thank you, Chairman Berman, for working with me on this important provision, this amendment. I have devoted much of my efforts on the committee to promoting trans-Atlantic relations and 

nonproliferation efforts, and there is no better way to engage with 

allies and foes alike than to promote a nuclear nonproliferation regime. 

Major European allies, including the United Kingdom, France, 

and Germany, have advocated that sanctions be significantly 

toughened. This reporting requirement will allow the United States 

to compare the efforts taken by the G–20 members in the fight 

against nuclear proliferation and will ultimately further secure the 

United States, Israel, and the global community. Through my provision, the manager’s amendment will enhance an already comprehensive piece of legislation that I have proudly cosponsored. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I yield the remainder of 

my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, for what purpose do you 

seek recognition? 

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to address the committee for 

5 minutes——

Chairman BERMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. PAUL [continuing]. And move to strike the last word. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I oppose this legislation. I do not 

challenge the motivation of those who support this legislation, but 

I think it is deeply flawed, and I think it is going to do a lot more 

harm than good. It reminds me of all the talk that preceded us 

59

going into Iraq, all the wonderful things that could come by putting 

more pressure on a particular country starting first with sanctions. 

Sanctions are an act of war. It was suggested that Venezuela 

may be going to send oil over there. That means maybe intercepts 

on the high sea. But the best way for others to look at this to see 

my point is how would we react if somebody closed down our oil 

imports? I mean, we would be pretty unhappy about that. To think 

that this is not a serious matter I think is being rather naive. 

First off, the Iranians have a right to enrich for peaceful purposes. They have never been found in violation of the NPT treaty, 

not once. Our NIE report says they haven’t been working on a 

weapon since 2003, and just because you disagree with it you can’t 

just dismiss that report out of hand. So there is a lot of distortion 

on this information that we get. 

When we went into Iraq, there were unintended consequences. 

There is still no stability there, but one thing for certain is Iraq is 

a much closer ally of Iran right now. We drove the Iraqis into the 

hands of the Iranians. 

And there has been an expression here that this is a good bill, 

but we still should be concerned about China. Well, if you are concerned about China, this is the best thing in the world for China. 

They are motivated. They have already invested in Iran. The production of petroleum products has gone up significantly in Iran. So 

this is a big motivation for the Iranians to do exactly what you 

don’t want them to do. 

Now the theory is that if we really punish the people, take their 

gasoline from them, and they are going to get angry. And they will. 

They are going to get angry at us. They are not going to get angry 

at the Ayatollah. 

What you are doing is you are deliberately undermining the dissidents there. They will lose all credibility. People, when attacked 

on the outside, as we were on 9/11, we come together. So all we 

do is keep pounding on people like this and we ruin the dissenting 

views that are operating in that country. So I just think this is all 

going to backfire. 

And we need to think in terms of the principle of free trade. You 

know, the more you put on sanctions, the more likely you will be 

to fight with them. 

We put on sanctions, and we knew we were destined—at least 

a lot of us thought we were destined to go to war in Iraq. And this 

means that we are willing to take on armed conflict. But do you 

know what? What I don’t understand is your willingness to sort of 

disrupt what the President is trying to do. The President is trying 

to negotiate and talk. He said he wanted to do it. He should be allowed to do this. This just I think disrupts what the President is 

trying to do. 

Recently, the President spoke at the United Nations; and under 

his pressure and leadership, he had U.N. Resolution 1887 pass. He 

has been working multilaterally to try to bring peace to that area 

by having a non-nuclear Middle East. So if that is the administration’s position, to have a non-nuclear Middle East, then why do we 

do this to disrupt some of the things that he is trying to do? 

I just am disturbed by us not looking through and looking at the 

ramifications, looking at the unintended consequences, and this 

60

pretense that we can just do this and everything is going to come 

out all right. Because I really believe in the long run we will suffer, 

the people will suffer, and there will not be more stability. 

How can we get terrified of a threat from the Iranians? They are 

a Third World nation. Up until recently, they couldn’t even make 

their own gasoline. But because of our pressure so far they are getting quite capable of doing it. We are driving them into the hands 

of the Chinese. They have our money. They can control us through 

the dollar. And yet we are driving the Chinese into taking over, 

just as we drove the Iraqis to become close allies of the Iranians. 

I think our policies are deeply flawed. I say your motivations are 

fine and dandy, but motivations aren’t the answer. We have to 

think of the consequences. 

Chairman BERMAN. Time of the gentleman is expired. 

I didn’t want to interrupt the gentleman, but, at the end, I will 

make my own motion to strike, and I do want to speak to one issue 

the gentleman raised regarding Iran’s right to enrich and the absence of my violations of the nonproliferation treaty. But I will do 

that at the end of the debate. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for what purpose do you 

seek recognition? 

Mr. GREEN. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 

today on a markup of H.R. 2194, which would strengthen the Iran 

Sanctions Act of 1996 by placing further and stricter penalties on 

Iran’s energy sector. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. 

Since the United States first took action on this issue in 1996, 

Iran has continued to defy the international community by overtly 

developing a nuclear program. By doing this, Iran poses serious 

problems to the stability of its region as well as the international 

community. 

While I support the President’s effort to reach a diplomatic 

agreement with Iran, it is also important we send a clear signal 

that there will be negative consequences for refusing to cooperate. 

H.R. 2194 accomplishes this goal by targeting one of the largest 

sectors of the Iranian economy. The oil industry comprises 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product, and the Iranian Government 

receives about 80 percent of its revenues from oil. 

I strongly support H.R. 2194 and urge my colleagues to vote in 

favor of this legislation. Stability in the Middle East is of the utmost importance, not only to the Middle Eastern countries but to 

the international community; and I also hope that negotiations 

with Iran will move forward and we will continue to do what we 

can to reinforce the President’s effort. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up the bill; and I 

yield back my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for what purpose do you 

seek recognition? 

Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. 

61

Like Dr. Paul, I don’t question at all the motivation behind this 

measure. I know that I think all of us want the same in Iran. We 

don’t want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. We would like to 

see them join the community of nations in a responsible manner 

and form. 

But I do question the efficacy of moving forward in this way, in 

this unilateral way. I have long questioned the purpose—not so 

much the purpose but the efficacy, as I say, of these unilateral 

sanctions. We say that we are not going to tie the hands of the administration, and perhaps we aren’t today with this, but we will 

later. That will be the next step. That tends to be the way we go 

with unilateral sanctions like this. 

Let me just raise the issue of Cuba. That is what we have done 

there. And I would argue that years later, years and years and a 

couple of decades after the main threat was gone there, Cuba’s 

ability to export revolution around the world when the Soviets 

pulled out, we have tied the administration’s hands in a way that 

they can’t effectively move, our own administration, to deal more 

effectively with the problems still there. And there are problems. 

And I hoped that we could move Cuba closer toward democracy. 

But I would argue that the unilateral sanctions that we have there 

have diminished the prospects of an effective end to that problem, 

and I fear that we will go down that road here. 

As I mentioned, I know that this package today does not tie the 

hands of the administration. But my guess is that is the next step 

that we will do, the next step that we will take. 

I hope that the administration is successful in their negotiations 

and in their talks, and I think that we should wish them well 

there. I do believe there is a case for multilateral sanctions. I simply want that to happen, and I question whether or not sometimes 

when we move too far ahead of our allies it makes it more difficult 

to pull them in. So I hope we have a large multilateral front that 

is more effective than these unilateral sanctions tends to be. 

John Bolton, who we recognize here certainly as Republicans is 

no shrinking violet, says this. He is advocating for this legislation, 

I should say, but he said this, that no one should believe that tighter sanctions will in the foreseeable future have any impact on 

Iran’s nuclear weapons program. 

Secretary Clinton said—she described these sanctions on Iran as 

‘‘leaky.’’

The New York Times reported earlier this month black market 

networks have sprouted up all over the globe to circumvent U.S. 

sanctions on Iran. 

If we concede, and I think all of us have to, that these unilateral 

sanctions aren’t going to be an effective means to deal with Iran’s 

emerging nuclear problem, then why would we take this measure? 

Why would we do this and start to tie the administration’s hands 

on this? 

Now some will say we are just giving them another arrow in 

their quiver. I understand that. But that quickly moves, as we have 

seen in the past, toward tying their hands; and I don’t think that 

that is what we ought to do at this point. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired. 

62

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, for what purpose do 

you seek recognition? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

I will vote ‘‘yes’’ with the understanding that this legislation provides space for the President and for all of us and for the President’s representatives to further a policy of smart security, security 

that comes based on diplomacy and international cooperation. 

Like all of my colleagues, I oppose a nuclear-armed Iran, nuclear 

proliferation making the Middle East and the world as a whole 

much less secure. It is my hope, however, that today’s action will 

bring all of the international partners to the negotiating table so 

that America will not go it alone. 

Let me be clear. Our resources and our energy must be focused 

on a peaceful resolution based on ‘‘smart’’ security. And I say that 

word over and over. Smart security does not start with a gun pointed at you or a bomber flying over your city. 

I see this as one more tool for the President. And I hope we 

never have to use it. I stand strongly behind President Obama and 

Secretary Clinton in their pursuit of a peaceful and safe Middle 

East. And, Mr. Chairman, I am counting on you to make sure that 

we go through all of the necessary steps and hopefully are safe and 

secure using diplomacy. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for what purpose do you seek recognition? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, Chairman Berman. I went to thank Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for offering H.R. 2194. I never cease to be amazed at the capabilities of 

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. On my last visit to the Middle East, she introduced me to a hero of mine, Natan Sharansky, 

who to me, as a Soviet dissident, helped bring about the collapse 

of the Soviet Empire. And I didn’t know she had so many friends 

all over the world, but I am not surprised. 

The bill is needed because a great civilization, Persia, has been 

hijacked by extremists who I think mean what they say and that 

is ‘‘death to America, death to Israel.’’ When the elections were stolen this year in Iran, the administration failed to encourage the 

youth of Iran who were demonstrating for human rights and democracy. We need to act now. 

I am very grateful to be on the Armed Services Committee; and, 

of course, this month we saw that Iran has been testing their new 

missile capability. And the range of their capability now clearly includes long-time allies of the United States and new allies, Greece, 

Bulgaria, Rumania, Ukraine, and then to the east they can threaten India. 

We also know that Iran has been proceeding with nuclear weapons development. There is absolutely no need to build nuclear 

63

power capability underground, but we have seen the pictures of the 

underground capabilities being developed. 

I know that with the maddened autocrats who are running 

Tehran that they cannot be trusted. We need to act. We need to 

follow the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, peace through strength. 

And I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired, and 

the gentlelady from Texas seeks recognition. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. I would like to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the dilemma that we are in. It is a dilemma that we 

face not made by ourselves but by leadership of Iran that simply 

does not want to be part of the world family. However, I also support and recognize the importance of the efforts made by the State 

Department and our President, and I support these efforts. I believe engagement has validity to it, but I thank you very much for 

recognizing that it is the people of Iran that we must be concerned 

with. 

It is the human rights. It is important that we acknowledge that, 

throughout 2009, the Government of Iran has persistently violated 

the rights of its citizens. The Government of Iran’s most overt display of disregard for human rights happened in the Presidential 

elections on June 12, 2009. At that time, I said we must condemn 

Iran for the absence of fair and free Presidential elections and urge 

Iran to provide its people with the opportunity to engage in a 

democratic election process. The repression and murder and arbitrary arrests, show trials of peaceful dissidents in the wake of the 

elections were a sad commentary on the desire of the Iranian people to have democracy. 

I am delighted that language that speaks to the need for improved human rights that I submitted has now been included into 

this legislation. 

It is important that we are clear that our concerns are with the 

Government of Iran and not its people. The State Department’s 

human rights report on Iran provides a bleak picture of life in Iran. 

The Government of Iran, through its denial of the democratic process and repression of dissent, has prevented the people from determining their own future. Moreover, it is the Government of Iran 

that persecutes its ethnic minorities and denies the free expression 

of religion. 

Members of the committee should remember that the target is 

the government as we proceed in consideration of this legislation. 

The Government of Iran has repeatedly showed its disdain for the 

international community in repeatedly refusing cooperation on nonproliferation. 

However, we have noted over the last couple of weeks their doors 

have been open to those who are now assessing the status of their 

nuclear weapons or potential for such. Some of those who were 

there giving oversight happened to be Americans. 

So my view is this: I want the President and the administration 

and the Secretary of State and other supporting agencies to have 

the full opportunity to engage. I want this resolved. I want the people of Iran to have a democratic government. I want them to be 

64

able to choose their democratic government. If this legislation will 

provide an additional tool to move us along, to give the Iranian 

people what they have begged for, for years and decades, to free 

them, to allow women, young women, young men, families, to live 

in a democratic society, to give the Iranian people what they would 

like to do, which is to be part of the world family, then I believe 

this is one tool. 

I would not like this to jump ahead of the engagement process; 

and I would hope that we will be able, Mr. Chairman, in weeks to 

come to be provided with a report from the administration on what 

progress has been made. Otherwise, however, the idea of eliminating the refined petroleum products is one that creates at least 

the sense of both strength of the world community and the recognition that the American people are serious about supporting their 

brothers and sisters in Iran. 

Religious freedom, human rights, democracy, equality, the right 

to excel should be, in essence, the right of the Iranian people. For 

that reason, I will be supporting this legislation. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired; and 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LEE. I wanted to thank you for your leadership and also for 

your previous comments and your position with regard to this 

markup, which has stressed the variety of diplomatic and multilateral tools that we should use in pursuing our work to prevent Iran 

from pursuing a destabilized and nuclear weapons capability. 

As one who believes in and has worked for nonproliferation efforts throughout my life everywhere in the world, I am equally concerned about the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. And 

though I believe we should do everything, everything we can do to 

support the Obama administration during this very critical juncture, this includes providing the tools that the administration 

deems necessary to prevent Iran from backsliding in the very important negotiation processes that are taking place at this point. 

At this time, however, we cannot restrict the administration’s 

flexibility by mandating unilateral sanctions. The strong bipartisan 

support on this committee and in Congress for holding Iran accountable for its actions is, in itself, a signal to Iran that if they 

do not live up to their end of the bargain, Congress will act swiftly. 

The prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is unacceptable 

and so is the status quo. However, I am extremely concerned, extremely concerned that moving this bill out of committee would undermine President Obama’s diplomatic efforts; and, for those reasons, I cannot support the bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, is recognized for—

moves to strike the last word? The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. 

65

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use all 5 minutes. But let 

me thank you and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for this markup. 

I strongly support this legislation. This move gives the President 

the room he needs to negotiate while also offering tools if these negotiations fail. Most importantly, this bill makes it clear that there 

will be a price to pay for the development of nuclear weapons in 

Iran. 

I hope that the Iranian regime, which to date has been government of the mullahs, by the mullahs, and for the mullahs, will 

change course by ending its nuclear ambitions and respecting its 

people. 

While the regime is marching toward isolation, the Iranian people have marched for change; and we stand strongly on the side of 

the Iranian people in their quest for a future of Iran which respects 

human rights and ends all threats to countries throughout the Middle East. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for what purpose do 

you seek recognition? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to——

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman moves to strike the last 

word? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. Recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I would just like to thank you and the ranking 

member for offering this piece of legislation which I strongly support and have cosponsored, and I want to submit my full statement 

for the record. I appreciate it very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, for what purpose do 

you seek recognition? 

You don’t. Without purpose. 

The gentleman from North Carolina? 

Passes. 

The gentleman from Georgia? 

Passes. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, for what purpose do you seek 

recognition? 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the 

record the following letters to the committee expressing concern 

about the timing of this markup and asking for delay in consideration of this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I share the same goals of a non-nucleararmed Iran——

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman—without objection, those letters will be included in the record; and make sure that we get copies of them. 

[The information referred to follows:]

66


53137c.eps
67

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ELLISON. You and I share the same goals of a non-nucleararmed Iran. I do not agree, however, that increased sanctions at 

this time are the right course of action. 

Ten months of diplomacy by the Obama administration has 

achieved more than 8 years of bellicose posturing and 15 years of 

sanctions and 30 years without dialogue. I may be open to a sanctions bill in the future, but, at this moment, we need to give diplomacy a chance. And so far President Obama’s efforts have been 

working. There is finally some progression in dealing with Iran. 

President Obama’s diplomacy has yielded an agreement that increases inspections and verification and reduces Iran’s stockpiles of 

enriched uranium. 

When Iran met with the members of the U.N. Security Council 

on November 1, few were optimistic. But, right now, the United 

Nations inspectors are visiting a uranium enriched site near Qom, 

Iran. Previously, the Iranian Government would not disclose its location. Right now, the Iranian Government is weighing a proposal 

by the International Atomic Energy Agency to send enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into fuel. 

Diplomacy is an effective means of addressing our issues with 

Iran. We must not rush this process. This is why the Obama administration has not asked for additional sanctions at this time. 

In fact, sanctions in Iran have not proven to be effective. 

First, Iran has bypassed sanctions. Iran has been able to ward 

off some consequences of sanctions by boosting trade with Russia, 

China, India, and others. The more we take trade opportunities 

away from American businesses, the more other nations step into 

the vacuum. 

Two, Iranian democracy leaders do not support increased sanctions. Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi and dissident Akbar Ganji 

tell us that sanctions will only hurt the people, especially the working classes in Iran. Even opposition candidate MirHousein Mousavi 

has denounced sanctions, saying that anyone who supports his 

‘‘green’’ revolution movement—green movement should also oppose 

additional sanctions. 

According to Mousavi, ‘‘Sanctions would not actively act against 

the government. Rather, they would only hurt the people. We are 

opposed to any types of sanctions against our nation. This is what 

living the green path means.’’

Increased sanctions may strengthen Iran’s revolutionary guard. 

A recent report by the Rand Corporation documented a growing 

corollary between the power of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, a 

branch of the military associated with much of Iran’s corruption, 

with sanctions. With inflation in Iran over 20 percent and with 

manufacturing in serious decline, sanctions will only lead to higher 

prices and greater black market trade, which is already controlled 

by the Revolutionary Guard. 

Increased sanctions, in sum, are likely to result in Iran going 

around sanctions, are not supported by democracy leaders, and 

may strengthen the Revolutionary Guard. 

Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, I am appalled by Iran’s dismal 

human rights record. Since the election of President Mahmoud 

Ahmadinejad in 2005, the number of executions has increased fourVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:36 Feb 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\102809M\53137 HFA PsN: SHIRL
68

fold, many of those executed because they spoke out against 

Ahmadinejad’s government. Gays and lesbians have been rounded 

up, in some cases executed. Women’s rights advocates have been 

arrested, reportedly raped, beaten, and killed. Religious minorities 

like the Baha’i live in fear and intimidation. 

I am also shocked and appalled that President Ahmadinejad 

would deny the profound suffering of the Holocaust. All of this is 

unacceptable. 

But, right now, Congress needs to give President Barack 

Obama’s diplomatic efforts a chance before increasing sanctions. 

That is why I am opposed to marking up this bill right now. 

Diplomacy and efforts toward peace are not naive. In fact, after 

30 years of no dialogue, 15 years of economic sanctions, we cannot 

expect that doing more of the same will yield a more democratic, 

civil Iranian Government. President Barack Obama’s efforts are 

working, and that is why we need to give sanctions a chance. 

I would like to thank the chairman for his openness in all of his 

work and the opportunity to speak here today, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the ranking member—I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I want to thank you and the ranking member for 

this legislation. 

The year 1979 certainly transformed the Middle East for decades 

to come when the Ayatollah Khamenei took over. We are still dealing with that issue today, which is why I think this legislation is 

necessary. A nuclear Iran, I think everybody in this committee 

agrees, is not acceptable. 

We are providing a lot of carrots, I think, the administration, 

through diplomacy, but this will provide the necessary sticks, I 

think, toward moving forward with a nuclear-free Iran. 

My concern, as we demonstrated in the hearing yesterday on 

Venezuela, is that the day that this bill passes, countries like Venezuela and China will be immediately in violation of this act. And 

the question before the Congress and the President of the United 

States is going to be, what are we prepared to do about that and 

are we going to enforce this act? Are the enforcement provisions in 

this act strong enough or is this just going to be a statement that 

we make in the Congress, like we do so many times, without any 

teeth? 

So I think that is something, Mr. Chairman, we need to think 

long and hard about. Because we know when this passes the Congress that Venezuela is going to continue to supply its shipments 

of refined petroleum products, and we know that China is going to 

continue to do that as well. And we know many other countries will 

as well. 

So I think that is, again, a question we need to ask ourselves as 

we deliberate this legislation; and I think the administration and 

the President need to be prepared for that. Because we know the 

outcome is certain. And if we pass this and do nothing, in my judgment, we are nothing but a paper tiger. 

69

And with that I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you for taking this time to mark up this 

important piece of legislation in committee today. 

I am a very proud sponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act and have been working with you and other members of 

our leadership to move this bill as swiftly as possible in the Congress. 

I think the people of America firmly understand and certainly 

are allies that for years the Government of Iran has repeatedly dismissed international attempts to negotiate the country’s nuclear 

program. Preventing the country of Iran from developing nuclear 

weapons is one of the most pressing challenges for this Congress 

and for our allies. 

President Obama has rightly pursued diplomacy; and my colleague, Mr. Ellison, spoke recently very eloquently on that. However, this legislation also provides the administration with a full 

range of tools needed to address the nuclear threat from Iran, and 

this comprehensive method includes sanctions. 

Furthermore, we cannot allow companies to profit from investments made in a country that sponsors terrorism, promotes religious intolerance, has an abysmal human rights record, and threatens the stability of the Middle East. By targeting these firms heavily invested in Iran’s energy sector, we will send a clear message 

to the people of Iran and to their leadership: A nuclear Iran is simply unacceptable. Iran’s petroleum sector alone generates 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Limiting the significant source of funding is essential to deterring Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. 

This Congress must continue to work to address this threat in 

a comprehensive way, and I commend this committee for working 

swiftly to achieve this goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen 

for all of your work on this. I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, for what purpose do you 

seek recognition? 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking 

member for bringing this very important piece of legislation to the 

Foreign Affairs Committee today; and I am proud to be a cosponsor 

of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. 

As the administration pursues a diplomatic strategy, I firmly believe that Congress must act simultaneously so that new and crippling sanctions are ready if negotiations fail. At the same time, we 

must persuade our allies to join us in these efforts. We are at our 

most effective when we work multilaterally, and I was encouraged 

70

by reports that the administration is seeking the support of the 

Gulf States in supplying China with oil. 

China is a large consumer of energy, getting larger by the day; 

and if China ends its reliance on Iranian oil, they may be more 

likely to support a new and tougher round of sanctions in the 

United Nations. 

In my meetings with Arab ambassadors and representatives to 

the United States, their sense of urgency is palpable as they consider the future of the Middle East if Iran were to get a nuclear 

weapon. This is a scary prospect, unacceptable, and the Arab states 

have everything to lose. Their oil is an important resource that 

they can use to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program and 

an arms race in the region. 

This legislation seeks to sanction companies that provide refined 

petroleum to Iran. As other members have already mentioned, Iran 

imports 40 percent of its oil because they do not have enough refining capacity. This bill could bring Iran’s economy to a standstill. 

The business class in Iran, which is rather sophisticated, wants to 

be part of the global economy; and they should take this opportunity to say to their leadership and their government, enough is 

enough. 

Now is the time to move this legislation and send a strong message to Iran and our allies around the world that there are serious 

and isolating consequences for Iran’s actions. 

I would also like to thank the chairman for working with me to 

include language in the bill under consideration today based on a 

bill that I have filed, the resolution H.R. 3922, the Accountability 

for Business Choices in Iran Act. This legislation, which is supported in a bipartisan way in this Congress, requires companies, 

including foreign companies that have U.S. Government contracts, 

including grants earmarks, stimulus funds, or bank bailouts, to certify that they do not conduct business in Iran. This is, again, a way 

of engaging multinational businesses outside the United States as 

well in making choices. 

The Accountability for Business Choice in Iran Act has achieved 

broad support, and I believe its inclusion in today’s resolution 

strengthens our efforts. 

Today, we are requiring companies to certify that they are not 

providing the last crutch of support to the Iranian economy by 

boosting their refined petroleum. It is time for companies to make 

a choice: Either do business with the United States Government or 

do business with Iran. Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, not on 

our watch and certainly not on our dime. 

I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership, along with 

the ranking member; and I urge my colleagues to support the Iran 

Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The chair is unaware of any other—the chair is wrong—again. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, for what purpose do 

you seek recognition? 

Mr. MEEKS. Strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

71

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the 

ranking member for your hard work and for your dedication to this 

committee. 

Mr. Chairman, both carrots and sticks are important when you 

sit at the negotiating table. And I am supporting the Iran Refined 

Petroleum Sanctions Act not because I believe it is ideal but rather 

because I want to send the message that all options remain on the 

table if diplomatic negotiations do not produce results. 

As a general rule, I am not a enthusiastic supporter of unilateral 

sanctions; and I want to be clear that I fully support the administration’s diplomatic efforts so far as we try to change the dynamics 

with regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions. For a nuclear Iran 

is not something that we can tolerate or have at all. 

But we have seen some encouraging signs from recent engagements by the administration, and I hope that the progress continues. However, seeing the clearest indication yet of the administration’s thinking on the Iran issue, sanctions issue, I am extremely convinced that the combination of a more effective sanctions regime which targets the actual leaders of Iran, alongside 

measures that empower the people to build up their civil society 

and strive for political representation, seems to me exactly the type 

of approach that we should be taking in the long run. It is smart 

sanctions, as opposed to some general sanctions that affect the people, the entire population of Iran. 

I have heard many individuals talk about how we don’t want to 

hurt the people of Iran. Because someone used the word that Iran 

had been ‘‘hijacked’’ by a few. We need to find the sanctions that 

are going to affect those few who, in effect, have hijacked the entire 

country. 

I want to call your attention to a hearing on October 6, 2009, before the Senate Banking Committee regarding Iran’s sanctions. 

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Under Secretary of 

the Treasury Stuart Levey discussed at length the Obama administration’s official Iran policy with a special focus on what types of 

sanctions the administration believed would be most effective. 

From this hearing, it became clear that the administration is not 

entirely sold on a comprehensive petroleum sanctions as the best 

course of action on Iran. 

Mr. Levey was asked if the administration supports a petroleum 

embargo; and he said, I think in the long run we have to. But in 

terms of which the potential measures of sanctions, whether they 

are more targeted on individual entities in Iran as opposed to a 

broad-based thing that would affect the Iranian economic like that, 

and I think we have not reached a judgment as to which of those 

might be the most effective, in part because not only do we want 

to have the impact on the economy, but we want to make sure that 

it is going to affect the decision making in Iran and not target the 

wrong people in Iran and, similarly, to make sure that we maximize the chance of getting international support for these things. 

Because there is obviously a risk in these things; and if we do not 

have international support, then there will be diversions. There 

will be workarounds, and the affect of the sanctions will not nearly 

be as effective. 

72

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which imposes a gasoline embargo on Iran and which has the support of three-quarters 

of both Chambers, is apparently not the ideal legislation in the 

eyes of the administration. The administration does not support or 

oppose this administration. Rather, the Obama administration is 

pursuing its own strategy, taking into account a number of factors 

that must be considered. Among these are human rights concerns 

as well as the current political dynamic in Iran with the people rising up against the government. 

I close with Mr. Steinberg’s statement when he said, ‘‘I do think 

we always have to worry about the humanitarian impact and the 

political impact of proposed sanctions. Because we want to take advantage of the dynamic they have and not to undercut the opposition, not to hurt those who are being courageous in Iran.’’

And, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the chairman for your time and for your 

skillful, thoughtful and resolute leadership on this issue. 

The chairman knows how important I think this bill is to the 

peace and security of the entire world. Therefore, I am a proud cosponsor of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, because I believe we must do everything in our power to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. 

A nuclear Iran is a danger not only to Israel but a danger to the 

entire Middle East, to our European allies and friends and, ultimately, to the United States. Iran has repeatedly shown its willingness to destabilize and threaten other countries. One need only 

look to its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas 

and yesterday’s joint hearing in our committee to see Iran’s evolving and very dangerous influence in South America. 

A nuclear Iran would spark an arms race in the Middle East. 

The Saudis and the Egyptians would never stand for a nuclear 

Iran. They would likely build up their own defenses, including nuclear weapons, to counter the Iranian threat and usher in a new 

era of a new nuclear arms race the likes of which this world has 

never seen before. 

And, as we know all too well, Iran has threatened to wipe Israel 

off the map. The Iranian President has denied the Holocaust, while 

planning one of his own. 

Why does he attack Israel? Because it is our ally, and we are the 

Iranian regime’s ultimate target. So if we are serious when we say 

‘‘never again’’ and if we are serious about protecting ourselves from 

Iran, then we must stop this threat now. 

As the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told a group 

of Congress people during his last visit to the United States, Iran 

is as much a threat to the United States and to Europe and to the 

Middle East as it is to Israel; and the world should not leave it to 

Israel to do its dirty work. 

We must use every tool available to us, including this important 

legislation. I am a cosponsor of this bill because it sends a clear 

message to those who do business with Iran’s petroleum sector: 

73

You can trade with Iran and its less than $300 billion economy or 

you can trade with the United States with an economy of more 

than $13 trillion. I believe the choice should be clear. 

This bill is just a part of a broader picture. We must also enforce 

our own previously passed sanctions and sanctions that have already been approved by the United Nations. It is time to put our 

words into action, which, unfortunately, has not been the case so 

far. We and our partners on the United Nations Security Council 

must enforce laws already passed and stop our companies from 

skirting the sanctions we, ourselves, agreed to. If sanctions are to 

work, they must be enforced by all parties before we all face this 

common threat. 

I also want to applaud and thank Stuart Levey, Under Secretary 

of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who has done 

a masterful job of targeting Iran’s financial sector. Using a creative 

mix of diplomacy, economics, and sanctions, Mr. Levey has made 

it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to get loans and to conduct the simple financial transactions our Government considers 

routine. 

The assets of countless Iranian officials have been frozen, and 

banks the world over are now unwilling to do business with the 

Iranian Government officials because they know the United States, 

a far more important and lucrative trading partner, won’t do business with them at the same time. This bill also strengthens those 

foreign exchange and financial sanctions. 

Frankly, I am deeply skeptical Iran will ever agree to negotiate 

away their nuclear weapons program, but I do believe it strengthens our position when we mix negotiations with sanctions. We do 

not seek war and do not wish to harm the Iranian people, and we 

are not working for regime change in Iran. We are focused on one 

goal and one goal only: The end of Iran’s nuclear threat. With this 

bill today, we send a message to Iran that we are determined to 

end their nuclear threat. We should not take any option off the 

table. 

I urge support for this bill. I urge all nations to join us in this 

effort. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman from the American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and our ranking 

member for your leadership and initiative by introducing this important legislation. 

I note with interest that this legislation is aimed at the Iranian 

regime and not at the good people of Iran. The recent Presidential 

elections in Iran have proven that there is still a problem in having 

democratic elections in that country. 

I support this legislation, Mr. Chairman. The only concern I raise 

is, Mr. Chairman, where does the administration stand on this proposed bill? Will it help or hinder the administration’s efforts to find 

a resolution to this difficult issue, now seriously raised, the security 

issues in this region of the world? 

74

It is my understanding that for years the vast majority of foreign 

companies doing business in Iran were from countries that are our 

own allies. It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the issue is not 

about petroleum, but about nuclear proliferation. There is no question that much has been said about the potential of Iran possessing 

nuclear weapons, raising the question of where Israel stands on 

this. And then the next question is whether or not the Arab countries would also like to have in their possession nuclear weapons 

for their own security and protection. 

I do commend President Obama’s recent initiative to lessen the 

number of nuclear weapons we now have in the world and the initiative in doing this with the former Soviet Union. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we now have, worldwide, well over 

20,000 nuclear weapons capable of blowing this planet 10 times 

over, if we look at it in those terms. 

But these are the concerns that we can fully understand and appreciate: If Iran chooses to go the way of producing nuclear weapons, not only does it undermine but it does question the seriousness and the implications of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It 

is not about petroleum; it is about the serious problem of nuclear 

capabilities in these countries in this very volatile region, the Middle East. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

No other members seeking recognition, the chair, notwithstanding his comments--Mr. Paul--has concluded that he will only 

hurt his cause if he moves to strike and takes 5 minutes to deal 

with all of Mr. Paul’s comments and instead would hand Mr. Paul 

and put into the record a 4-page sheet called ‘‘Evidence of Iran’s 

Military Nuclear Intentions and Iran’s Safeguard Violations.’’ I will 

make sure you get a copy on that one issue. 

[The information referred to follows:]

75


53137d-1.eps
76


53137d-2.eps
77


53137d-3.eps
78

Chairman BERMAN. And the question occurs on the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute without amendment. 

All in favor will vote aye. 

All opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The chair is prepared to receive a motion. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move the favorable recommendation of H.R. 2194, as amended, to the House. 

Chairman BERMAN. The question occurs on the motion by the 

gentleman from American Samoa to report H.R. 2194, as amended, 

favorably to the House. 

All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments 

adopted by the committee; and the staff is directed to make any 

technical, conforming changes. 

I would like to say one last thing. The staff on both sides, in 

terms of putting this together until very late last night, have done 

tremendous work. I am not going to mention all the names, but I 

do want to point—single out one person in particular, and that is 

our legislative counsel, who personally, even with the discretion to 

ask someone else to do this work, made a very complicated bill, 

complicated for a number of reasons, in some kind of coherent legal 

sense; and, Sandy Strokoff, we are very grateful for your help in 

this case. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, if I can have 1 minute to 

say——

Chairman BERMAN. Of course. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Thank you so much again for 

negotiating in good faith with all of us during this whole ordeal. 

It really has been a wonderful experience, and I hope that we can 


53137d-4.eps
79

protect this fine legislation that we reported out of committee while 

it is being considered in other committees and as it moves to the 

House and then in conference with the Senate. And we hope that 

we can have it at the President’s desk sooner rather than later and 

appreciate again your work on this bill. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BERMAN. For me, the transcendent purpose here is to 

maximize our chances in Congress of playing a useful role in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. So everything—I can only speak for 

myself but, number one, I commit to be transparent with you in 

terms of our goals and the timing and the problems that are coming up and changes that are being sought and, secondly, to do everything based on that and not on either undue deference to an executive branch or to political pressures from around here but to 

focus on the goal here, which is to play as useful a role as we can 

play in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you also for the bipartisanship. This is also probably the last 

meeting we will have prior to November 9; and, of course, this coming Tuesday in a bipartisan effort we will be welcoming the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. An extraordinary achievement, 

a unified Germany. It was 20 years ago virtually today that very 

few people understood that the Berlin Wall would come down beginning on November 9, 1989; and so we need to recognize the heroism. 

And as I am sitting here I am thinking of our former chairman, 

Tom Lantos, and his leadership during the Cold War and his opposition to totalitarian Communism. We can be successful. We can 

have victory. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. All right, unanimous consent that all statements that people want to submit for the record will be included, 

including mine. 

And, with that, the committee is adjourned. Thank you all very 

much for your cooperation. 

[Whereupon, at 12 o’clock p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(81)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

82


53137n.eps
83


53137m-1.eps
84


53137m-2.eps
85


53137e-1.eps
86


53137e-2.eps
87


53137f-1.eps
88


53137f-2.eps
89


53137f-3.eps
90


53137g-1.eps
91

Æ


53137g-2.eps