[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 7883]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 25, 2012

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I recently voted ``no'' on House 
Resolution 568. I have made it clear that an Iran armed with nuclear 
weapons is unacceptable.
  My legislation, H.R. 4173, presents a viable approach to achieving a 
nuclear-arms free Iran by pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the 
conflict. I am deeply concerned about Iran threatening its neighbors, 
Israel in particular. I have always strongly supported Israel's 
security and rights as a nation, and will continue to vote in favor of 
measures which will enhance the prospects for a peaceful Middle East. 
This resolution, however, does not advance that goal.
  First, the focus on nuclear weapons ``capability'' suggests a lowered 
red-line threshold, which could make a U.S. strike much more likely. 
While this term has been used in varying contexts in recent years, it 
is a vague term that can potentially create openings for those seeking 
military conflict with Iran.
  Further, Clause 2(A) would put Congress on record opposing any 
diplomatic agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program that allows Iran 
to enrich any uranium whatsoever, even for peaceful, civilian energy 
purposes subject to intense international monitoring and safeguards. 
This provision constitutes a poison pill that would pre-emptively kill 
any diplomatic solution to the crisis, because there is no feasible 
agreement that can be achieved with Iran in which it would give up its 
right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for civilian 
purposes.
  Finally, Clause 6 would ``reject any U.S. policy that would rely on 
efforts to contain a nuclear weapons capable Iran'' and ``oppose any 
policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the 
Iranian nuclear threat.'' This clause is unhelpful and unnecessary as 
no policymaker is suggesting a containment strategy.
  As the sole Member of Congress to vote against the 2001 Authorization 
for Use of Military Force, I am wary of legislation that could put our 
men and women in uniform in harm's way due to a lack of deliberation 
before entering a war.
  This legislation did not reduce the prospects for war with Iran, nor 
did it advance it's stated purpose of preventing Iran from acquiring 
nuclear weapons. The above mentioned clauses therefore ignore and 
undermine the prospects for a diplomatic solution. Because of these 
flawed provisions, I voted against H. Res. 568.