[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1989]]
                 IRAN COUNTER-PROLIFERATION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 25, 2007

  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in 
expressing grave concerns about Iran's irresponsible violations both of 
its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, and its 
agreements which it signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
IAEA.
  In the last year, I have joined my colleagues on a number of 
occasions to express the concerns of this body about these activities. 
Last February, I supported passage of a resolution that would condemn 
Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation 
obligations while commending diplomatic efforts being taken by France, 
Germany, and the U.K. (EU-3) to suspend Iran's activities.
  I have also voted to condemn Iranian President Ahmadinejad's 
persistent denials of the Holocaust and his assertions that Israel 
should be ``wiped off the map.'' I have also supported legislation just 
this year authorizing State and local government pension plans to 
divest themselves of all non-U.S. companies investing more than $20 
million in Iran's energy sector.
  It is clear that the threat posed by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons 
is real. Therefore, it is all the more important that this Congress 
support efforts that will help provide, and not restrict, the 
diplomatic, economic, and political tools available to address it. Just 
10 months ago, Congress recognized that when it reauthorized the Iran 
Freedom Support Act to enhance U.S. tools for using financial means to 
address Iran's activities.
  As the House considers H.R. 1400, there are provisions of this bill 
that are commendable and which are worthwhile and which I support. In 
fact, in July, I voted for some of these provisions such as those 
expanding the law's scope to add financial institutions, insurers, 
underwriters, guarantors, and any other business organizations, 
including foreign subsidiaries, to the list of entities already barred 
from investing in Iran which were included in H.R. 957 which passed the 
House by a vote of 415-11.
  However, I could not support H.R. 1400 as currently written because I 
am concerned that its provision striking the ability of the President--
this President or any future one--to waive sanctions in situations 
where it serves the U.S. national interest. I am concerned that 
removing this ability will hinder, not help, our diplomatic or national 
security interests.
  Some have warned that the approach taken by this legislation would 
not only limit diplomatic options with Iran, but also create a rift 
with our allies in Europe and possibly strengthen support for President 
Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran. I think we ought to take those concerns 
seriously. At a time when the U.S. and the world should be in lock step 
in trying to deal with the Iranian threat, Congress should not put one 
more obstacle in the way.
  The reason Congress has been careful to add waiver authority to a 
number of sanctions provisions over the years--and I must confess to my 
own frustration with the use of the waiver authority at times--is that 
there are situations when it is in the United States' best national 
security interest to do so. If there are concerns about the President's 
use of the waiver, there are other options that Congress can pursue. In 
fact, on some sanctions that are currently on the books, Congress has 
given itself the power to negate a presidential waiver by enacting a 
joint resolution stating its disapproval.
  If this legislation were enacted, companies headquartered in a nation 
that have committed to work with us at the U.N. or within the E.U. to 
pressure Iran would be treated no differently from one headquartered in 
a nation that was actively supporting investment in Iran's energy 
sector. It makes no sense to argue that we are ``enhancing diplomacy'' 
by taking away the ability, on a case-by-case basis, to waive sanctions 
as an incentive for those countries taking responsible actions to 
address U.S. concerns and Iran's activities.
  Everyone agrees that working cooperatively and diplomatically with 
the U.N., E.U., and others to curb Iran's nuclear program and limit its 
nuclear activities is the best way to proceed. It is clear that a 
coherent strategy that has the support of our allies and the 
international community stands a far better chance of ending Iran's 
nuclear activities.
  However, if this diplomacy is to succeed, those who we charge with 
carrying out those efforts should be able to go to the bargaining table 
without one hand being tied behind their backs. While H.R. 1400 
declares that the U.S. should use diplomatic and economic means to 
resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, I am concerned that the bill 
itself would undermine the very thing it is trying to promote at a time 
when that unity of effort is the most crucial.
  Just 10 months ago, Congress rejected the waiver provision contained 
in this bill when it last considered how to best enhance the tools 
available to the administration to deal with Iran's activities. I hope 
that as this legislation moves forward in the legislative process, 
further changes will be made to strengthen this bill in a way that will 
truly enhance, and not hobble, strong diplomatic efforts.

                          ____________________