[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 194 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IRAN THREAT REDUCTION ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 13, 2011

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, while I am deeply concerned about 
Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons and I support targeted 
sanctions against Iran, I voted no on H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat 
Reduction Act of 2011 because I do not believe it would accomplish its 
stated goal of reducing the threat from Iran.
  I am concerned that at a time when more nuanced diplomatic tools are 
needed to successfully address this important and multifaceted effort 
to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, this legislation would 
dangerously limit the flexibility of the U.S. Government to engage 
directly with Iran to turn back these efforts. The Administration has 
made it clear that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and 
Divestment Act (CISADA), enacted just last year after careful 
deliberation by both the House and Senate, is an adequate and effective 
tool for addressing the threat potentially posed through multilateral 
negotiations with Iran. I have spoken directly with officials at the 
State Department and they tell me they are very concerned that piling 
on additional sanctions could have the counterproductive result of 
sending the already destabilized economies of our European allies into 
a tailspin and threaten the stability of the global economic recovery.
  I am also troubled by the 601(c) provision inserted during mark-up of 
the bill, which takes the unprecedented step of restricting dialogue 
between U.S. and Iranian officials. The controversial provision would 
prohibit contact between U.S. diplomats and any Iranian official who 
``would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national 
security interests of the United States.'' This is dangerous and would 
have prohibited the efforts that secured the release of two of my 
constituents, Sarah Shourd and Shane Bauer, along with their friend and 
fellow U.C. Berkeley alumnus Josh Fattal, who were detained for years 
in Iran after being arrested while hiking near Iran's border with 
Northern Iraq. Furthermore, not only is it unclear how restricting 
negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program would advance our 
security interests, it should be clear that taking this option off the 
table is counterproductive in addressing the very real threats that 
Iran presents.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will address these issues in 
conference and return a bill for final passage that considers what it 
takes to effectively undertake national security strategy execution. It 
is time for us to stop posturing and to understand that far from a 
reward to withhold, diplomacy is a critical tool for protecting United 
States national security interests.

                          ____________________