[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 54 (Monday, May 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E751-E752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      H.R. 282 IRAN SANCTIONS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 8, 2006

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, recently I made a difficult decision in 
voting against H.R.

[[Page E752]]

282, the Iran Sanctions Act, a bill that I co-sponsored. I based my 
vote on the significant changes the International Relations Committee 
made to the underlying bill, many of which I believe are counter-
productive to the U.S. efforts to deter Iran from its nuclear 
ambitions. It is also a reflection of my strong concerns, based on 
numerous recent and credible reports, that the Administration is 
actively exploring and studying a number of military options against 
Iran. The significant alterations made to H.R. 282 in Committee and the 
changing political circumstances informed my decision to vote against 
this legislation.
  I want to outline several changes made to H.R. 282 that I oppose. 
Specifically, H.R. 282 was amended to include a brand new section 
requiring the president to impose sanctions under the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 against any ``agency or instrumentality'' of a 
foreign government investing $20 million or more in the development of 
Iran's oil or gas industry. The president is also required to publish 
in the Federal Register a list of all U.S. and foreign entities that 
have invested more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector retroactive 
to August 5, 1996. I believe such a heavy-handed approach targeting 
foreign investment in the oil or gas industry is misguided. The 
Department of State, in a letter to the House International Relations 
Committee, has stated that H.R. 282 impairs our government's ability to 
work with our allies in pursuit of a diplomatic solution in dealing 
with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rather than encouraging a collaborative 
process with our colleagues at the U.N. Security Council, this bill 
penalizes them. I believe this new prohibition, which was not part of 
H.R. 282 at the time I co-sponsored it, hinders our ability to 
proactively work with our partners in responding to the challenges 
imposed by Iran.
  In addition, I am very troubled by a new provision of the bill, 
incorporated by the International Relations Committee, which purports 
to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It contains the 
following ``finding'' of Congress: ``Iran has manipulated Article IV of 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to acquire technologies needed to 
manufacture nuclear weapons under the guise of developing peaceful 
nuclear technology.'' [Emphasis added.] I find this language troubling. 
The finding states a conclusion that Iran is seeking to manufacture 
nuclear weapons as it pursues the development of nuclear power 
generation. I fear that this or a subsequent Administration could use 
such finding to justify an invasion or other military action against 
Iran, under its doctrine of preemption. Prior to its 2003 invasion of 
Iraq, the Administration cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as one 
of its bases for taking this country into war. A Congressional finding 
that Iran is seeking to manufacture nuclear weapons could provide a 
basis for the Administration to conduct preemptive strikes or declare 
war against Iran. I believe Congress should not, once again, provide 
cover to this Administration, which has shown ample evidence of 
incompetence in the collection of intelligence on the development of 
weapons of mass destruction by foreign nations. A Congressional 
``finding'' is no substitute for reliable intelligence on the status of 
Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Speaker, much has changed in the months 
between the introduction of H.R. 282 and our floor debate last week. 
Iran abandoned its voluntary suspension of enrichment-related 
activities at the beginning of this year. Subsequently the U.N. 
Security Council called for Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported 
just last week that Tehran's work on enriching uranium was accelerating 
even as it continued to block inspectors' attempts to learn more about 
the troubling parts of the program. The United States is now engaged in 
the difficult task of persuading the U.N. Security Council to order an 
end to Iran's nuclear program. Aggressive diplomatic efforts with our 
allies are now more critical than ever. Yet, recent reports, including 
a detailed article by Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker, 
suggest that the Administration is planning to pursue military options, 
including the use of nuclear weapons, against Iran to prevent its 
acquisition and development of atomic warheads. News articles have also 
disclosed that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike 
Iran's nuclear sites. The Administration's apparent pursuit of a 
nuclear option before diplomatic efforts have run their course is not 
only irresponsible, it is simply wrong. Passing H.R. 282, as amended in 
Committee, at this critical juncture not only appears to represent 
Congress' acquiescence in this Administration's foolhardy tendency to 
plan for war without diplomacy, it risks validating the 
Administration's go-it-alone approach in chasing a military solution to 
Iran's nuclear ambition.

  Make no mistake; I believe the threat imposed by Iran must be 
addressed swiftly and skillfully, but through diplomatic means. I 
supported the underlying goals of the Iran-Libya sanctions Act enacted 
in 1996 that sought to deter private foreign investment in Iran's 
energy sector. But much has changed between the time when I signed on 
as a cosponsor of H.R. 282 and the time I was asked to vote on it, both 
with regard to the substance of the bill and the political climate 
surrounding the issue. At a time when the House of Representatives 
should be putting our full support behind multilateral diplomacy and 
efforts to persuade the U.N. Security Council to act decisively, we 
passed a bill that would further alienate our allies and give cover for 
a military attack by this Administration. For these reasons, I could 
not, in good conscience, vote for this bill that I once supported. It 
is my sincere hope that the Senate will take a much more balanced 
approach that would truly strengthen, not hinder, the interests of our 
diplomatic efforts in addressing Iran's nuclear threat.

                          ____________________