[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2055-E2057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       A THOUGHTFUL PROPOSAL ON UNITED STATES RELATIONS WITH IRAN

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 1995

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, relations between the United States and Iran 
are and have remained for the past 15 years at an all-time low. There 
are disturbing signs that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear 
capacity, and clearly Iran has been an unstable influence throughout 
the Middle East and Central Asia. The United States has--wisely in my 
view--pursued a policy of seeking to isolate Iran and to limit 
economic, political, and diplomatic relations with the extremist 
Iranian Government. We have undertaken a major diplomatic effort to 
urge our allies in Western Europe and Japan to join us in economically 
isolating Iran in order to bring about democratic and rational change 
in Teheran.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been among those who have called for strong 
sanctions against Iran. Earlier this year, I proposed, and my 
colleagues on the Committee on International relations accepted, my 
amendment to the American Overseas Interests Act which would impose 
tough sanctions, including reduction of foreign assistance, against 
Russia if that country goes ahead with reported plans to sell advanced 
nuclear technology to Iran. I have also supported legislation to impose 
tougher sanctions against Iran and restrict the ability of 
international oil corporations to deal with the Iranian companies and 
the Government of Iran.
  The position I have taken on these issues involving Iran are taken 
because of my serious concern with the policies pursued by the 
Government of Iran, and not from any sense of irreconcilable problems 
with Iran. There are possibilities for change in Iran--for the 
evolution of government institutions that will allow the people of Iran 
to express their wishes through an open and free and democratic process 
and there are possibilities that will permit the people of Iran to 
enjoy the full spectrum of human and civil rights to which they are 
entitled. I would welcome the end of radical Islamic extremism in Iran 
and rejoice if we could witness the return to serious and responsible 
participation of Iran in the international community. The positions I 
have taken on U.S. policies toward Iran are motivated by that desire.
  Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Washington Post, July 9, 1995, 
published an analysis and a thoughtful, but iconoclastic, proposal 
about the steps that might be taken by the United States in an effort 
to produce the domestic changes in Iran that will make it possible to 
bring an end to U.S.--Iranian hostility. I am not certain that this 
proposal will achieve its objectives, but it has been put forward by a 
gentleman whose experience, insight, and thoughtfulness I admire 
greatly. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this article--
``Beyond the Great Satan How the U.S. and Iran Can Mend Their Rift''--
be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it careful 
and thoughtful consideration.
  This excellent article was written by Mr. Hushang Ansary. Mr. Ansary 
has an extremely distinguished record in business, government 

[[Page E2056]]
service, and diplomacy. He is an international entrepreneur with 
business interests in the United States, Europe, and the Pacific rim. 
He worked his way through high school serving as a correspondent for 
the International News Service and the King Features Syndicate. He 
later earned a Ph.D. in Economics and International Relations from the 
University of Seoul, South Korea. After World War II, Mr. Ansary worked 
in Japan, initially as a business consultant to Mitsubishi, Japan's 
largest trading company. In his native Iran under the previous 
government, Mr. Ansary served as Deputy Minister of Commerce, Minister 
of Information, Minister of Economics and Finance, and chairman and CEO 
of the National Iranian Oil Co., which at the time he served as 
chairman had after-tax earnings of $18.2 billion. In the diplomatic 
realm, he served as Iran's roving Ambassador to Ethiopia, Kenya, 
Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast, and he was also 
Ambassador to the United States, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress, as well as the 
leaders of the administration, to read and thoughtfully consider Mr. 
Ansary's well-reasoned arguments.

                         Beyond the Great Satan

                          (By Hushang Ansary)

       The Clinton administration has taken a series of steps to 
     further isolate Iran and tighten the economic sanctions that 
     could throttle its economy. If successful, these new U.S. 
     initiatives against the Islamic Republic are likely to have a 
     far-reaching impact on the course of events in a region that 
     supplies much of the West's oil needs.
       At the same time, U.S. failure to win strong international 
     backing for its containment policy would allow Iran to 
     continue its, pursuit of a nuclear development program, one 
     that continues to raise questions.
       President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has retorted that 
     the United States will be the ultimate loser. And so far, 
     America's European allies and Japan have not been supportive.
       The latest move to raise the stakes in a decade and a half 
     of hostility between the United States and Iran is no 
     surprise. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has called 
     Iran an outlaw state. President Clinton has used his 
     executive authority to nullify an agreement between Iran and 
     Conoco. A more alarming hint was dropped in February by Gen. 
     Binford Peay, commander of the U.S. Forces in the Middle 
     East, that the two countries might even become involved in 
     military conflict.
       By the time the last of the American hostages returned home 
     from Tehran just over 15 years ago, even the most optimistic 
     knew that the historic friendship between the United States 
     and Iran had suffered a terrible setback. Successive U.S. 
     administrations have pursued policies of accommodation, 
     military pressure and sanctions against Iran. Some of these 
     policies have backfired, as in the case of the Iran-contra 
     affair. Some have inadvertently provided trading 
     opportunities for others. By and large, this potpourri of 
     U.S. measures has not altered the fundamental positions of 
     Iran.
       These measures have, however, helped to push Iran toward 
     international isolation and accelerated the pace of its 
     mostly self-inflicted social and economic ills. Even a policy 
     of critical cooperation, advocated by Germany with French 
     support, has not had the desired effect.
       Now that the Clinton administration and the new Republican 
     majority in Congress appear to agree on placing Iran high on 
     the agenda of U.S. foreign policy, is it not time to address 
     the Iranian dilemma at its roots? The United States may hold 
     to its current course of isolating Iran, but it has to reckon 
     with all the international forces at work on this issue. 
     Russian and Chinese nuclear agreements, and German and 
     Japanese debt refinancing, give evidence of the fragility of 
     the administration's approach.
       This appears to be a propitious time for a different 
     approach and it is, therefore, worth considering how 
     relations between the United States and Iran might be set on 
     a new course.
       Iran is now facing mass unemployment, double-digit 
     inflation, falling productivity and massive foreign debt. The 
     value of the Iranian currency, the rial, dropped from 75 to 
     the dollar in 1977 to 6,000 at one point. Iran's GNP per 
     capita is now less than half its 1977 level.
       Iran is also feeling the weight of diplomatic isolation. 
     Sixteen years after the revolution, the only Western head of 
     state to have paid a visit to Tehran is Kurt Waldheim, the 
     former Austrian-president.
       Economic and governmental disorder have unleashed political 
     forces beyond the control of the radical clergy. In recent 
     months, Iran has faced a number of industrial strikes and 
     anti-government demonstrations. Important social groups, 
     including lawyers, doctors, bazaar merchants, retired 
     military officers, writers and journalists, having publicly 
     challenged the government and its policies.
       Even the Shiite Muslim clergy, initially the backbone of 
     the revolutionary regime, has asserted its independence. Some 
     senior ayatollahs have said publicly that they would support 
     new policy makers and policies capable of turning the economy 
     around and ending the nation's diplomatic isolation.
       The constant theme of these dissenting voices is a call for 
     a new political course, one freely chosen by the Iranian 
     people. As the level of dissent rises, there is reason to 
     believe that even some of the more extreme elements of the 
     regime, their customary rhetoric notwithstanding, may now be 
     inclined to consider a plan that would address the country's 
     economic disorder and diplomatic isolation. General elections 
     are scheduled in 1996 and presidential elections in 1997. A 
     workable plan, properly monitored and performance-related, 
     could have a positive effect on these two crucial events.
       Such a plan should let the people of Iran normalize the 
     state of the nation. At home, it should aim for democracy, 
     respect for human rights and an agreeable quality of life. 
     Abroad, it would need to restore the image of Iran as a 
     responsible member of the United Nations, ready to live in 
     peace with all other nations.
       In the first phase of such a plan, Iran would have to take 
     appropriate steps, in keeping with its constitution, to 
     dismantle the bureaucracy it created to cope with the 
     problems of the early years of the Islamic revolution. These 
     steps should include the rehabilitation of those unjustly 
     deprived of their civil rights on the basis of their 
     political beliefs, the repeal of laws and regulations that 
     discriminate on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity and faith, 
     and the removal of restrictions, often unconstitutional, on 
     freedom of expression, association and election.
       The normalization of political life in Iran would 
     facilitate the no less complex task of bringing the country's 
     foreign policy into line with its international obligations. 
     This would, of necessity, include measures to dispel any 
     notion that Iran supports international terrorism and the 
     assassination of dissidents abroad. Iran would also need to 
     cease its campaign against the Middle East peace process, 
     adhere to the now renewed version of the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty and take steps to make credible its 
     announced decision not to acquire nuclear weapons.
       Iran could also facilitate visits by the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross to prisons where it is alleged 
     that prisoners of conscience and members of religious and 
     ethnic minorities are being held, often without charges being 
     filed. It should allow international human rights 
     organizations access to its officials and open itself to the 
     international media in the normal manner.
       Linking its response to Iranian performance, the United 
     States would need to give evidence of its own willingness to 
     make positive contributions. First steps would include 
     establishing a timetable for the final settlement of all 
     outstanding claims between the two countries and for the 
     release of the remaining Iranian assets, setting up a 
     procedure in which sanctions against Iran would be lifted in 
     stages and normalizing visa requirements for Iranian 
     nationals visiting the United States.
       The United States could encourage the formation of a 
     Council on Trade and Economic Cooperation with Iran with the 
     participation of the leaders of the U.S. business community. 
     The United States might also form an appropriate body to 
     advise on various aspects of U.S. Iranian relations. While 
     policies are obviously formulated by governments, this could 
     help mobilize private resources in the service of the new set 
     of foreign policy objectives as containment gives way to 
     rapprochement.
       In the next phase, Iran would resume its quest for 
     democracy that started almost 100 years ago. The Iranian 
     people would be given the opportunity to return to the 
     electoral process and the organization of presidential and 
     parliamentary elections in line with the provisions of Iran's 
     constitution. These elections should be open to political 
     parties of all denominations and conducted in a verifiably 
     fair fashion.
       The last phase of the plan would thus begin in an 
     atmosphere of stability, without which all attempts at 
     reviving Iran's economy through domestic and international 
     cooperation will remain tentative and fragile. At this point, 
     the Council on Trade and Economic Cooperation with Iran, 
     having completed its initial studies, would be in a position 
     to sponsor a series of conferences designed to help Iran 
     reintegrate into the world-economy and to realize its 
     economic potential, estimated to reach $100 billion in annual 
     trade and economic opportunities.
       The stage could thus be set for the Middle East to open a 
     chapter in regional economic cooperation--possibly including 
     Central Asia, which hungers for peach and development--an 
     enterprise that could foster opportunities not dissimilar to 
     those in the Pacific Rim nations. Moderate Arab nations too 
     would be helped to accelerate the pace of their social and 
     economic transformation, and the way would be paved for a 
     more constructive relationship between the West and the world 
     of Islam as a whole.
       Is this farfetched? It is no more farfetched than the 
     thought of a visit to Jerusalem by President Anwar Sadat of 
     Egypt in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War or the thought 
     in the mid-1980s that the Berlin Wall could be brought down 
     before the end of the decade. The Middle East has always 
     dealt with logjams that block the normal course of its 
     politics through courageous steps that have defied 
     conventional wisdom. History belongs to those who do not 
     merely contemplate the sour aspects of present reality, but 
     labor with persistence to give birth to new possibilities of 
     hope.
     
[[Page E2057]]


            INTRODUCTION OF THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 1995

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now crystal clear: when it comes to 
cutting corporate welfare the Republican majority in charge of the 
104th Congress does not get it. They are determined to balance the 
Federal budget during the next 7 years on the backs of the most 
vulnerable Americans--our Nation's sick, elderly, and children.
  Corporate welfare programs in the Federal budget add as much as $125 
billion to the Federal deficit every year.
  But Speaker Gingrich and the Republican budget that will be probably 
be approved by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate cut 
virtually nothing from corporate welfare over the next 7 years. 
Instead, they prefer to slash Federal funding for programs for millions 
of Americans who are struggling to provide for themselves and their 
families and for some measure of economic security.
  Like many Americans, the members of the Progressive Caucus ask this 
fundamental question: Why won't the Republican majority cut the immense 
corporate welfare benefits provided every year by the Federal 
Government to very profitable corporations and wealthy Americans as an 
essential component of any fair plan to balance the Federal budget 
during the next 7 years?
  This is very unfair. There is a better way. That is why today several 
members of the 49-member Progressive Caucus and myself introduced 
legislation to cut $800 billion in corporate welfare over the next 7 
years. We call our legislation the Corporate Responsibility Act and it 
represents one of the foundations of the 11-part Progressive Caucus 
Alternative to the Contract With America and the rest of the GOP agenda 
in the 104th Congress.
  We have identified dozens of tax breaks, subsidies, and other Federal 
benefits for corporations and upper-income taxpayers which should be 
considered for cutting or elimination. These cuts would save $570.8 
billion over a 5-year period according to estimates by respected 
economists such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax 
Committee of the Congress.
  Some of these programs are outright subsidies, such as for Export-
Import Bank loans. Others are indirect subsidies through charging less 
than market rates or nothing at all for goods and services sold to 
coporations--e.g., uranium enrichment, irrigation water, use of public 
land for grazing. Still others are indirect subsidies through 
government Purchases for unnecessary programs, such as the strategic 
petroleum reserve or the space station.
  Tax expenditures are special provisions of the Tax Code which reduce 
rates, increased deductions, provide advantageous depreciation, or 
otherwise reduce the taxes corporations and wealthy individuals pay.
  A number of reports have been issued on the subject of corporate 
welfare in recent months, and we have used data from all of them. 
However, every selection of programs that can be cut involves choices, 
and the principles that guided our selection should be made clear. In 
general, we have chosen to favor: Family farms over agribusiness; small 
businesses over multinational corporations; domestic investment and job 
creation as opposed to offshore production; consumer health and safety 
over short-term profitability; and sustainable economic development 
over environmental exploitation.
  We have emphasized supporting the needs of the average working people 
of America and cutting programs in which taxpayers' money is used to 
help companies and wealthy individuals who can, and should, be self-
sufficient.
  A summary of this 80-page bill is available through my office. In it, 
the corporate welfare programs re grouped by the industries which 
benefit from them and are listed with estimates of their cost over a 5-
year budget period based on the sources cited at the end of the 
summary. Projections were then estimated for an additional 2-year 
period to have some rough frame of reference for different approaches 
to balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years.

                          ____________________