Gwen Moore

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 62 anniversary the State of Israel. At the same time we celebrate this occasion, we also are recollecting the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and celebrating the annual Days of Remembrance commemorating the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust as well as the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution. It was out of this torturous past that this new nation was formed. On May 14, 1948, the people of Israel proclaimed the establishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel. Literally, within minutes, the United States recognized the modern nation of Israel and welcomed it into the international community. That was the beginning of a longstanding and cherished friendship between the two nations that endures to this day. The State of Israel remains one of the United States' strongest allies and its endurance is a testament to the ideals of freedom and democracy. Our nations share the common goals of peace, freedom, security, and prosperity for their citizens and for the region. It is this commonality that allows this relationship to endure despite changes in Administrations, of Congresses, and even disagreements that emerge from time to time. Despite many difficulties and challenges, thanks to its greatest resource--its people--and the help of supporters throughout the world-- Israel has built a vibrant democracy and a thriving economy and society. We must continue to strongly support Israel's right to exist, its prosperity, and security. One of the best ways to ensure this is for the United States to continue to work to bring life to the peace process between Israel and its neighbors. While recognizing that success ultimately depends on the parties themselves finding compromises and agreements, active U.S. engagement as an honest broker and mediator remains critical. This will not be easy. Neither was establishing the State of Israel. Nor has it been easy to create a democratic state in a region where many of these tenets remain largely unknown and if known, unpracticed. Yet, 62 years later, Israel stands firm. Again, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate the 62nd anniversary of its independence.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much. Madam Speaker, Dr. Dorothy Height gave not only her height but loaned her depth and breadth and width and weight and length of service to the civil rights movement and to gender equality. Mother to no children, wife to no one, she was queen mother, nurturer, and lover of the civil rights movement through seven decades of advocacy. Although she was the queen, she treated each one she encountered with equity, and it was my privilege to bow down to her each time I encountered her. Thank God for the life of Dr. Dorothy Height, and thank God for her legacy. May her life be more than a memory. May it be a compelling force to press on in the unfinished work of the civil rights and gender equality movement.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for his support of this amendment as well. I know he shares my concerns about the problem of invasive species in ballast water, and I sure look forward to working with him on another bill to address those concerns more specifically.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the most destructive threats to the ecological integrity and health of estuaries across our Nation, as well as other water bodies such as rivers and lakes, are invasive species. Invasive species destroy ecosystems and have a devastating effect on the health and balance of these systems, including the estuaries that we are trying so hard to protect through the National Estuary Program. For example, the San Francisco Estuary has been called one of the most invaded estuaries in the world. Once these species are established, Federal and State authorities spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eliminate them, and failing that, to manage them and repair the enormous ecological and economic damage they have done and are doing to these important ecosystems. As I speak, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking efforts to prevent the latest of these threats to Lake Michigan in my district, the Asian carp, from overrunning this ecological and national treasure. This amendment would include assessments of the pathways by which these unwelcome guests are getting into estuaries in the long term monitoring and assessment efforts authorized through the National Estuary Program. For example, one pathway of introduction for nonnative species in an estuary is the ballast water in ships that they may discharge as they move through these bodies of water. By strengthening monitoring of this threat in the estuaries, it is my hope that it will help improve data available to the various stakeholders, to EPA's national program office and Congress on how nonnative species are affecting our estuaries, track whether this problem is getting better or worse, and guide the development of targeted and effective solutions to help address and defeat these invaders.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, with a large number of concentrated health insurance markets across the country, it is imperative that health care reform initiatives focus on enhancing competition among insurers and providing American consumers with affordable health care coverage. Many health insurance markets in the United States appear to have one dominant insurer, and in many other markets, the top two insurers serve most enrollees. According to the American Medical Association, in 2007, at least one insurer had a combined HMO/PPO market share of 50 percent or greater in 64 percent (200) of the local markets (or Metropolitan Statistical Areas) of the United States. And the two top insurers accounted for at least 60 percent of enrollment in almost 75 percent of these markets. Moreover, it can be extremely difficult for new firms, even large national health insurance firms, to enter these markets. A new health insurer in an area will have difficulty attracting customers until a large number of health care providers have signed up. But providers may be reluctant to sign up at competitive rates without assurance that the plan can offer a volume of patients. And both consumers and providers may be skeptical of a new health plan with which they have little experience. As a recent Congressional Research Service report states: ``The health insurance market has many features that can hinder markets, lead to concentrated markets, and produce inefficient outcomes.'' Dominant insurers may raise premiums or reduce quality of service. They may also reduce or prevent innovations that could benefit consumers or engage in exclusionary practices to make entry more difficult. HHS or the Exchange Controller, therefore, must take steps to encourage the entry of new, credible insurance companies and prevent dominant insurers from hampering competition. This includes seeking the advice and counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, regarding practices that may cause or continue undue market concentration. This will be achieved in part by ensuring that the antitrust laws remain intact through a savings clause, which was included in both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. However, improving competition in health insurance markets requires a one-two punch. It also must include seeking the advice and counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, regarding practices that may cause or continue undue market concentration. More competitive health insurance markets will generate significant benefits for American consumers. It is the best way to ensure that all consumers, including individuals who will now be required to purchase health insurance, will be able to obtain quality care at affordable prices.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear the most specious, inaccurate, contradictory, and downright laughable arguments against health insurance reform. Take, for example, the argument that we need to start over because the Congressional Budget Office score had been done 17 months earlier and now was old and stale. And, oh, by the way, the debate has dragged on for 17 months. Yet, the minority simultaneously complains that somehow we are hurrying and ramming the bill through. Once the CBO score was recalculated demonstrating phenomenal deficit reduction, the complaint became that the CBO is playing number tricks. Of course, the minority trusts CBO when the scores work for them. The minority's plan is to allow insurance premiums to rise unregulated by government intervention, let a family of four's premiums double every decade, and end Medicare as we know it. If the health insurance reform debate wasn't so serious, these arguments would be laughable.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. It's Women's History Month, and it's a great month for us to pass comprehensive health care reform. Here we are, again, women, in another epic battle for equality between men and women. As Alice Paul once said, When you put your hand to plow, you can't put it down until you get to the end of the road. And here we are now. Staggering statistics on women and health care: 18 percent of women are uninsured; 26 percent of single mothers and 41 percent of low- income women are uninsured; 52 percent of women have foregone getting the care that they needed because of the cost, including not filling prescriptions, skipping a medical test, or not going to the doctor. For decades, the health insurance industry has used every trick in the book, Mr. Speaker, to deny women the care that they need, to charge women more for the same services as men, and even to drop their coverage when they might need it most. Women face so many barriers in getting affordable health care, and our rights have been trampled on for too long. This Women's History Month reminds me of the most famous speech that Sojourner Truth ever gave when she asked again and again, ``Ain't I a woman?''--asking when would it be her turn to have equal rights. With regard to health care, I would paraphrase Sojourner Truth and say, Ain't I a human being? It's not an understatement to say that the lack of affordable health coverage has contributed to keeping women in poverty, not to mention keeping too many women in poor health. Women are more likely to be in low-wage jobs or to have to work several part-time jobs to make ends meet, which means they're less likely to have health coverage offered by their employer. Less than one-half of women have health insurance through their jobs. And because women are more likely to be below the poverty level in the first place and only earn 78 cents for every dollar that a man earns, they're more likely to be completely unable to afford health care in the first place. Isn't it about time we stood up and said, Ain't I a woman? Or, even: Ain't I a human being? Women are routinely denied care for having a preexisting condition, which could include being a potential, former, or actual mother; which could include being a victim of domestic violence; which could include having a serious illness or an operation, like a Cesarian section. Health care reform here will provide women the care that they need; the economic security they need; prohibit plans from charging women more than men; ban the insurance practice of rejecting women with a preexisting condition; and include maternity services. Yes, we are women; and, yes, we are human beings.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to a fine American, William ``Bill'' Reilley, Sr., on an occasion when he and his business have received a prestigious honor: the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. His success has been recognized by the industry. In 2001, Bill was named the International Dealer of the Year, an honor awarded to one International dealer who exhibits the highest commitment to best-in- class customer service. He was a multi-finalist for the American Truck Dealers' Dealer of the Year and the Wisconsin Truck Dealer of the Year awards. With this most recent award, Bill has received the Circle of Excellence Award a total of 15 times. The Circle of Excellence awarded by the International dealer organization of Navistar, Inc., honors International truck dealerships that achieve the highest level of dealer performance with respect to operating and financial standards and most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor a dealer principal can receive from the company. He started his career with International Harvester in 1963 and eventually left to become the International dealer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Bill's business acumen has successfully positioned the company for continued success, growing Lakeside International, LLC, from one location to six while concurrently increasing revenues from $14 million to more than $100 million annually. Lakeside International employs 200 people in all. The company remains a family venture with Bill's son, Bill Reilley, Jr., being named successor, assuring consistent leadership and growth for years to come. Bill has achieved this level of accomplishment and recognition through many years of hard work and service to his industry and community. He recently transitioned from his leadership role as board chairman of St. Anne's Center for Intergenerational Care in Milwaukee, a nationally recognized facility. He continues to dedicate his time and talents to St. Anne's as an Honorary Board Member, so that the center can continue to benefit from his leadership and commitment. Above all, he is committed to his family that includes Patricia, his wife of 43 years, his son Bill, Jr., his daughter Amy, his son-and-daughter-in-law and nine grandchildren. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Bill Reilley for his contributions to the Fourth Congressional District. Mr. Bill Reilley has acquired a lifetime record of accomplishment and contributed much to his community, State and Nation.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an artistic leader, theater director, producer, actor, and consummate professional from the Fourth Congressional District. Mr. Joseph Hanreddy is recognized at the international, national, regional and local level for his work and achievements during his seventeen seasons as the Artistic Director for the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The influence of the Repertory Artistic Director goes beyond the company; the person in the job affects the tone and style of the entire theater community. Because of his commitment to the theater, Mr. Hanreddy gave nearly two years advance notice of his retirement so his successor could choose his or her inaugural season. During his tenure, the theater has presented 252 productions, 55 world premieres, as well as having established one of the country's finest resident acting ensembles. The total attendance while Mr. Hanreddy has been in residence is 3,247,045. International connections continued under Mr. Hanreddy's leadership with the recruitment of acclaimed directors Ben Barnes, former Artistic Director of Ireland's Abeey Theater, and Paolo Landi, Ganshi Mureta, Lev Stukalov and Mark- Wing Davey from Italy, Japan, Russia and Great Britain respectively, to create productions for the theater. The Milwaukee Repertory Theater, affectionately known as The Rep, presents critically-acclaimed dramas, contemporary plays, and cabaret shows. The Company continues its strong history of premiering new American plays. Mr. Hanreddy commissioned and directed the premieres of several original plays by Steven Dietz, directed 40 productions at The Rep, with recent premieres going on to be produced in Los Angeles and Chicago, and a successful Off-Broadway run. The Rep has one of the oldest artistic internship programs in regional theater to foster valuable experience in professional theater. Each season welcomes acting and directing fulltime internships, as well as, internships throughout the production, marketing and development departments. The Rep maintains community service programs including education programs serving over 20,000 students annually, student matinees, facility tours and in-school workshops. The Rep contributes hundreds of complimentary tickets to Milwaukee area non-profit fundraisers, conducts adult acting classes, and access services including audio-described performances, American Sign Language- interpreted performances and Captioned Theater performances. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Joseph Hanreddy. Mr. Hanreddy's dedication to the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre has brought the arts and enriched the lives of all of us in the Greater Milwaukee area and beyond.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 48, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for supporting House Resolution 901. I can tell you that you have heard the history of Ruby Bridges, but in my own Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin, last spring another teacher, a first-grade teacher, started a class project to teach her 6-year-old students the historic impact of Ruby Bridges during last February's Black History Month. The students, recognizing the bravery of another child their age, thought Ruby Bridges should have her own special day of recognition. So what started as a very modest class project sort of built this groundswell where 2,200 signatures were collected throughout the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin, and indeed throughout the State. The project gained letters of commendation from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and from then-State Superintendent of Education Elizabeth Burmaster. They sent the full list to President Barack Obama and other elected officials in support of a Ruby Bridges Day. It is so truly remarkable that a first-grade class in my district not only learned the historic lessons of 6-year-old Ruby Bridges, but also learned how extraordinary it is to have a voice in this great country of ours through the power of the pen. In fact, the initiative of these small children brings me to the floor of the House of Representatives today seeking support for H. Res. 901. Ruby Bridges is the young black girl in the classic Norman Rockwell painting wearing a white dress, escorted, for her safety, by Federal marshals to school. And years after the Supreme Court had ruled the segregated schools were unconstitutional, Louisiana was finally forced, under a Federal court order, to implement a desegregation plan for the New Orleans public schools. How frightened but how brave was a 6-year-old girl who took that test and qualified to become one of the first official African American students to attend this all-white school. And although she was only 6 years old, Mr. Speaker, and the lone black student at the school, she never missed a day, attended each and every day. Ruby, a jewel, Bridges, bridging a cultural gap. I am so proud to support this resolution honoring Ruby Bridges.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it's such a privilege to stand in the well of the House of Representatives. Each time I stand here, I just shiver and shake and think about just how I got here and the unusual circumstances that have allowed me to be here. Really coming from a very poor background, parents who had very, very meager means. But it was because of an educational opportunity that I'm able to be here with you and to speak with you here this evening. You've heard it all from the well of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. You've heard about all of the problems that we have in our economy. And this evening I want to talk to you about the importance of reestablishing ourselves in the world as a nation that is graduating students from college and producing the next generation of innovators and engineers and doctors and scientists and teachers so that we can reestablish ourselves in the world and continue to enable our economy to grow. But, of course, you've heard about all of the problems that sort of crowd out a really important discussion about the importance of funding educational opportunity. You've heard about the two wars and the escalation, which is going to cost us $30 billion. You've heard about the war spending. Between 2001 until 2009, we've spent just under $950 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, and we've just included another $139 billion for both wars. In July, the DOD was spending $11 billion a month on both wars. And CRS projects that we're going to be spending another $400 billion to $900 billion in the next 10 years. You've heard about the entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security, and how they're in danger and how we have to fund that. You've heard about the escalating health care costs consuming 20 cents of every consumer dollar in the so-called takeover by the government of health care. You've heard about the great recession where as many as 700,000 jobs were lost in a single month in the last 15 months. You've heard about the financial systemic risk that threatens the economy not only of the United States of America but of the world, requiring countries, including this one, to develop billions of dollars in stimulus funding. You've heard about various proposals to right ourselves and to justify our economy. You've heard proposals to just simply reduce spending. You've heard proposals to give tax breaks to the wealthy and that these tax breaks will somehow trickle down to support those workers and small businesses. And you've even heard whispers of raising taxes. And very few people raise as a solution to this problem at looking hard at what we're doing in terms of advancing post-secondary educational opportunity. That's why this evening, Mr. Speaker, I'm so happy to be joined by my dear friend and colleague from Virginia, Representative Bobby Scott, who serves on the Labor and Education Committee and I'm sure will give us some valuable information about the importance of preparing the next generation of students.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, I guess what I'm recalling is a country where, I mean, we invented the telephone. We invented the automobile, the television, the camera, Google, iPod. We've made major medical breakthroughs. We discovered the cure. We discovered Penicillin and practically eradicated polio by developing the vaccine. And we've done this because we have been number one in the world for developing a brain trust. So I guess I'm sort of curious about the statements that you've just made that we no longer have the smartest students or the best workforce and that we're no longer leading in innovation and technology.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield, please?

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. This administration has been very good on financial aid, and this Congress has been great in providing financial aid. As a matter of fact, between fiscal years 2001 and 2009, the Pell Grant has seen an increase of over $27 billion. Now, these TRIO Programs that you talk about have a funding level of $853 million. That is less than $1 billion to the Pell Grant of $27 billion. While providing financial aid to students is a great strategy, can you tell me why you think it is so important to fund these TRIO Programs in addition to the Pell Grant? Aren't we making a big enough investment in Pell?

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I come from a community where there has been a great deal of discussion about the failures of students on the fourth-grade reading tests and about the failures of students on the eighth-grade math tests, so I am really interested in your description of how the TRIO Programs really provide an intervention, as it were, in, admittedly, a systemically failed process up through middle school. The TRIO Programs, as I have come to understand them, literally intervene in kids' lives in middle schools through the Upper Bound program, for example, and through Talent Search. They really identify that next generation of students who have the capability and the capacity to go to college and to really keep our country on top. Many countries do this. They have done it for generations. They have identified kids in middle schools. Despite the incapacity of the families, based on their incomes, to put their kids in private schools or to give them tutoring, the TRIO Programs intervene in middle school, and put them on a college track. Here are some of the data and statistics that I want you to respond to: First of all, in terms of low-income students--and I'm not talking about any particular race or anything because, as I understand it, 37 percent of those students enrolled in TRIO are white students; 35 percent are African American; 19 percent are Hispanic; 4 percent are Native Americans; 22,000 of these students in TRIO are disabled students; and 25,000 are veterans. So here we have a really diverse group of students who take advantage of these TRIO Programs, but they have one thing in common--they are all low-income students. They are all students who are disadvantaged by not having wealthy parents who can send them to prep schools. These are students we are depending on to become that next generation of engineers, scientists, and biologists. They are the people who are going to correct the conditions of our lakes, of our forests, and who will be these innovators. Yet, of all the low-income students in our country, only 41 percent enroll in college, and after 6 years in these Student Support Services, we find that almost 31 percent of these students actually attain a bachelor's degree, and that only 21 percent, literally 10 percent fewer of them, graduate from college when you have only given them Pell Grants. I guess that is one of the problems that you have tried to share with us today, which is: If you are going to spend $27 billion and are going to make that kind of important investment in financial aid, it sure is important to give these students the wraparound services that they need, perhaps some remediation in math and in reading, so that they can succeed, some support services. If you will indulge me, Mr. Scott, I will tell you a little story. I was pregnant at 18 years old when I graduated from high school, and I was not headed to college. As a matter of fact, I was at the then- Boys' Club--it was not the Boys and Girls Club. I was at the Boys' Club, watching the boys play basketball, when a young man walked up to me and said, The director of the Educational Opportunity Program in Marquette is looking for you, and he said he wants you to come down there right away. That's how I ended up in college--18 years old, pregnant. What these programs do is they actually interrupt the poverty cycle. They actually interrupted the sociological outcome for me to just be a welfare mom, receiving food stamps, with no hope of ever making an important contribution to society. So I think that, if we are looking at a long-term bang for our buck, these TRIO Programs and increasing the funding for these TRIO Programs will certainly do that because we cannot afford the downward slide that you have described. I'm not sure that people have really understood the seriousness of this. You mentioned that we were probably in the middle of the pack. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we are about 15th among 29 industrialized countries in college completion rates. That really has consequences, because when you look at China and at Japan and at South Korea, these are countries that are now the innovators in the world. They are producing the engineers. There used to be a time when you saw Chinese students sitting in American universities. You don't really see that anymore. They are staying at home and are obtaining their baccalaureate degrees. Now, President Obama has indicated that he has a goal of producing the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. To reach that goal, this Pell Grant increase is a part of that program. He also wants to expand the reach of community colleges, wants to invest Federal money in research and data collection and in other reforms to the student loan program, and wants to simplify the student aid process. The gentleman from Virginia, those are very good intentions, and you're experienced on the Education and Labor Committee, but I guess I'd like you to respond to whether or not just simply providing financial aid and collecting data will get us there.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Right.

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am concerned 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. I share my colleague's conviction to stop an Iranian regime headed by Ahmadinejad from getting nuclear weapons. However, I think we should do so without crippling the Iranian people (as is noted in this legislation towards whom the people of the United States have feelings of friendship and hold in the highest esteem) or crippling efforts to raise a unified and international response to Iran's continuing noncompliance. While we all recognize that the intention of this act is not to punish the Iranian people, it does not escape me that the impact of these sanctions will result in more suffering for them nonetheless. Upon introducing this bill in April, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee noted his belief ``that this measure could have a powerfully negative impact on the Iranian economy.'' For sanctions to be truly crippling to Iran, they have to ``cripple'' the people first. At a time when the Iranian people have courageously challenged the mullahs and the rulers in Iran by taking to the streets after the elections and recently again this month, there is concern that this unilateral approach may end up benefitting, not hindering, the regime and sowing the anger of the Iranian people at the U.S., not the Iranian government. Unilateral sanctions can have unintended consequences. In a recent Dear Colleague, it was noted that ``in two recent instances, Microsoft and Google each determined that they must deny instant messaging services to the Iranian people that were previously available, citing their duty to comply with U.S. sanctions.'' Apparently, this medium had become a popular way for protesters to get around increasing efforts by the Iranian government to monitor their communications. As a result, my colleagues warned that ``Congress must act quickly to ensure that we are not unwittingly doing the repressive work of the Iranian government on its behalf.'' The President is currently working with our international partners not only as part of a renewed diplomatic outreach effort but also to fashion a strong multilateral response if Iran continues to refuse to cooperate with the international community. In testimony in October, the State Department told Congress that it believes it has ``the authorities necessary to take strong action alone and together with our international partners, should they prove necessary'' to squeeze off financing of Iran's nuclear weapons efforts. For example, the Treasury Department can continue to use the authority that it has used for over three years now to blacklist Iranian banks and encourage international banks to avoid doing business with Iran. As a result, since 2006, the U.S. has taken action against over 100 banks, government entities, companies, and people involved in Iran's support for terrorism and its proliferation activities including freezing assets and preventing U.S. persons, wherever located, from doing business with them. Recently, the Department wrote to express its concerns about companion Senate legislation to the bill before us today warning that ``during this crucial period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran'' it was concerned that such legislation, ``in its current form, might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for'' these efforts. In this letter, the Administration appealed for a delay of that bill in order not to undermine ``its diplomacy at this critical juncture.'' Israeli officials have also made clear that broad-based international efforts, including for sanctions, are better than the unilateral approach before us today. Very recently, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak noted that ``There is a need for tough sanctions . . . Something that is well and coherently coordinated to include the Americans, the EU, the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians.'' I also share the concerns that some have that the legislation before the House today will ``disempower''--not empower--the President to bring this multination coalition together by taking away or limiting his flexibility to use sanctions as necessary to assist diplomatic efforts. That's a very curious definition of ``empowerment.'' It's as curious as saying that it is in the U.S. national security interest and helps diplomacy to make it harder for the President--any President--to use and waive sanctions when he thinks the timing best serves our efforts to put pressure on Iran. The President's flexibility to conduct foreign relations and diplomatic efforts to achieve a strong international consensus against Iran is not a loophole that needs to be closed but a vital tool that needs to be supported. I am concerned that this bill as written would keep our allies from working with us to address the threat from Iran. Earlier this year, Nicholas Burns, who served under the Administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and as George W. Bush's top State Department negotiator in efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear program, testified in dealing with Iran, ``My main recommendation for this committee and the Congress, however, is to permit the President maximum flexibility and maneuverability as he deals with an extraordinarily difficult and complex situation in Iran and in discussions with the international group of countries considering sanctions. It would be unwise to tie the President's hands in legislation when it is impossible to know how the situation will develop in the coming months.'' An action taken against Iran--including sanctions--should have the broadest possible support in the international community. According to the Administration, ``with wide international support, sanctions regimes can be enforced, pressure can be sustained, and Iran's leaders are less able to shift the blame from themselves to the U.S. for the pains caused by their behavior.'' Even the Senate version of this same legislation recognizes the limits of more U.S. only sanctions. In section 111 of S. 2799, it is noted that ``in general, multilateral sanctions are more effective than unilateral sanctions at achieving desired results from countries such as Iran.'' International pressure for Iran to act or to face more forceful international action is building, as evidenced by the recent IAEA vote condemning Iran for its Qom enrichment facilities. All five veto-wielding members of the Security Council (China and Russia included) voted for that measure, which opens up the potential for another round of Security Council sanctions. The progress in uniting the Security Council is attributable to President Obama's investment in diplomacy. If Congress moves forward with sanctions that target our allies, that unity may very well collapse. Sanctions have a place. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1327, the Iran Enabling Sanctions Act of 2009, which passed the House with my support by a vote of 414-6 on October 29th. There are even provisions of this legislation which are worthwhile and which I have supported in the past as stand-alone legislation (H.R. 957 in the 110th Congress) that make clear that current U.S. sanctions can be used against financial institutions, insurers, underwriters, guarantors, and any other business organizations, including foreign subsidiaries, that aid investment in Iran's energy sector. However, the less united the international community is in applying pressure against Iran, the greater the risk our measures will not have the impact we seek. And given the gravity of the stakes at risk here, that would be truly regrettable. As noted by Secretary of State Clinton just yesterday, ``we have pursued, under President Obama's direction, a dual-track approach to Iran. We have reached out. We have offered the opportunity to engage in meaningful, serious discussions with our Iranian counterparts . . . The second track of our dual-track strategy is to bring the international community together to stand in a united front against the Iranians.'' 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 to diplomatically engage with Iran as well as to enact multilateral sanctions.