Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011

Floor Speech

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.

Source