[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NUCLEAR IRAN PREVENTION ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 31, 2013

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise to express my opposition 
to H.R. 850, the most recent legislative effort by this body to further 
increase sanctions on Iran. Although I believe the intentions of the 
authors of this legislation are good, I believe our shared goal of 
preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon will actually be harmed 
by bringing this legislation forward at this critical moment.
  In three days, Iran will inaugurate a new president--Hasan Rowhani--
who was elected after he ran on a platform of engaging with the United 
States and rejecting the extremist policies of his predecessor. Despite 
the fact that Mr. Rowhani was not the preferred candidate of Supreme 
Leader Khamenei, he was elected by an overwhelming majority of the 
Iranian people this past June. In short, the Iranian people rejected an 
extremist government and voted for the candidate who represented the 
best opportunity to break with the human rights violations and 
belligerent policies of the past.
  Yet, instead of taking this moment to re-engage with Iran and pursue 
diplomacy--which is the only way to ultimately prevent Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon--we are instead moving forward with new, 
crippling sanctions before we have the opportunity to see whether 
President-elect Rowhani's campaign promises will lead to new, positive 
action. Even worse, this legislation sends a message to the Iranian 
people that their bravery and massive turnout this past June in the 
face of violent repression and intimidation from the government, was a 
futile and irrelevant action in the eyes of the United States.
  In addition to this legislation's unfortunate timing, this bill also 
contains several troubling provisions which diverge significantly from 
previous Iran sanctions legislation. The bill contains policy language 
that changes the red line for war with Iran from the clear position 
laid out by the Obama Administration to a nebulous position that Iran 
should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons ``capability.'' The 
term ``capability'' is not defined in the bill. When dealing with 
questions of war and peace, it is incumbent that Congress and the 
Administration speak with one voice and avoid putting forward policy 
positions are open to interpretation and could pave the way for war.
  Additionally, the bill places significant restrictions on the 
President's ability to waive sanctions in exchange for positive action 
by Iran on the nuclear issue. In doing so, the bill threatens to 
fracture the unprecedented international coalition working to prevent 
Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon.
  For all of these reasons, both procedural and substantive, I oppose 
the bill.

                          ____________________