[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 193 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IRAN THREAT REDUCTION ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 13, 2011

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Iran activities are troubling 
and our Nation must continue to work to build an international 
coalition to pressure and isolate Iran until it verifiably ends such 
activities. The policies we use to effect our goals are as important as 
the rhetoric about being tough on Iran.
  I vote for this legislation while noting it has flaws that must be 
addressed in the other body, in cooperation with the Administration. I 
will speak to some of those needed changes in a minute. However, I 
think other provisions such as language targeting government officials 
who commit human rights abuses and the provisions aimed at stopping 
Iran's Revolutionary Guard from trying to evade current U.S. and 
multilateral sanctions make sense. When the U.S. and our international 
allies work together, our efforts on Iran, including sanctions and 
diplomacy, are more effective and stronger. The same can be said when 
the Congress and the Administration are working together.
  We should not confuse support for this bill with the fact that there 
exists a vast divergence of views in this Congress on the best policy 
to deal with the threat posed by Iran. However, the Republican majority 
determines the schedule and has made a choice to bring this bill up 
under a procedure that prevents any Member with other ideas (either to 
make the bill stronger or weaker depending on your view) from making 
further changes to it.
  Even with my yes vote, I believe this legislation is in need of 
improvement. Sending a strong message is one thing but enacting an 
effective policy that supports that message is another. And this bill 
must be improved so our policy can match the strong message.
  Where can this bill be improved? I have long been concerned and I 
have expressed those concerns on this floor before about unilateral 
sanctions. Treasury Secretary Geithner said last year, ``to be truly 
effective in ending Iran's proliferation activities and Iran's support 
for terrorism, we need to have in place a concerted, international 
approach. This is not something the United States can do alone. We need 
other countries to move with us.'' I concur wholeheartedly.
  Yet, I know that the Administration has warned some provisions, like 
mandatory Iranian Central Bank Sanctions, may end up splintering the 
international coalition that it worked relentlessly to build as 
exemplified by passage of last year's UN Security Council Sanction 
Resolution. In a recent letter, Secretary Geithner made clear his 
concerns that sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran could negatively 
affect ``many of our closest allies and largest trading partners.'' 
Again, the most likely to be adversely affected by this bill are our 
closest allies, the ones we depend on to pressure Iran.
  Why would this be so? According to Secretary Geithner, ``rather than 
motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure on Iran, 
they are more likely to resent our actions and resist following our 
lead--a consequence that would serve the Iranians more than it harms 
them.'' The Administration has suggested ways to achieve the goals of 
this bill while ensuring we don't cripple the international coalition 
and consensus that it has worked so hard to build against Iran. 
Congress should listen. A piece of legislation that results in fewer 
countries working with us to isolate Iran and bring a verifiable end to 
its troubling nuclear activities is not a victory in my book.
  Another provision in the bill--added in Committee--would prohibit 
U.S. diplomatic or other contact, whether intentionally or 
incidentally, with certain Iranian government officials. Whether 
intended by its authors or not, concerns have been raised about 
negative impact on our diplomatic efforts. I urge the Senate to remove 
this provision. It adds nothing to the bill's effectiveness but brings 
unnecessary confusion and controversy.
  H.R. 1905 would also require the President to report, after its 
enactment, on negative impacts the bill would cause on our relations 
with friendly nations and on the U.S. economy. I think this gets it 
backwards. We need to get a better bill that addresses those concerns 
up front, rather than wait until after we have shattered the 
international coalition.
  Again, I support a strong and unified international effort against 
Iran with U.S. leadership but my continued support for this legislation 
requires those in Senate (who will have the opportunity to amend it 
unlike the House did) to work with the Administration to address 
possible negative impacts on our diplomatic efforts, economy, and the 
Iranian people. This occured last year to get CISADA passed and I hope 
we repeat it again this time.
  Lastly, no one should take passage of this legislation as a sign that 
diplomacy is off the table and that the only option going forward is a 
military strike. We need to invest in diplomacy--maybe now more than 
ever--and to continue to work with our international allies and others 
interested in peace and stability in the region.

                          ____________________