Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

Floor Speech

IRAN COUNTER-PROLIFERATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September 26, 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.

Source