[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 113 (Thursday, July 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6388-H6389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
                            BLOCKADE OF IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. A couple of weeks ago, there was a resolution introduced in 
the Congress, H. Con. Res. 362, that quickly got 220 cosponsors. I want 
to talk a little bit more about that resolution because there are some 
Members of Congress now having second thoughts about invoking a 
blockade on Iran.
  Take, for instance, here's a quote from Congressman Robert Wexler of 
Florida. He says, ``Given my growing concerns regarding this 
resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American 
engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a U.S. 
blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this 
resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a 
vote.''
  The chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, had 
this to say: ``I am all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the 
blockade part goes too far. I am going to call the sponsors and tell 
them I am changing my vote.''
  I would like all Members of Congress to reconsider, because this I 
consider a very dangerous sense of congress resolution and that it is 
going to lead to trouble.
  There is a new pro-Israeli lobby established called J Street, and 
they had some comments about this legislation as well. Their comments 
are this: ``We as a group oppose preemptive military action by either 
the United States or Israel and we support stronger U.S. diplomacy. To 
us, it is common sense that saber rattling and constant threats are 
counterproductive. What better way to unite Iran behind its most 
hawkish leaders than threatening to attack? What better way to empower 
the Iranian hardliners' case for nuclear weapons development than to 
talk of a military attack?''

[[Page H6389]]

  Today, I had three young Iranians in my office, and they verified 
that next year there will be an election and Ahmadinejad, who is in 
political trouble over there, is being enhanced by our militant 
conversation we have here, threatening of blockades, and with this plan 
or possible plan to actually bomb Iran. But the other side argues, 
well, no it is all the Iranians' fault. They are testing missiles.
  The testing of missiles came after there were war games by Israel 
testing whether or not they had the manpower and the airplanes to 
travel that particular distance. So the saber rattling is not one-
sided, and we cannot say that it is all the Iranians' fault.
  This H. Con. Res. 362, the authors claim it is not a blockade. But 
what it does, it demands inspection of all imports of petroleum 
products, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo. They use word 
``prohibit'' and impose stringent inspection on all of these items.
  Now, the question I would like to pose here for our Members is this: 
How would we as Americans and how would we as a government react if a 
strong government came and did that to us? What if another government 
came and said we are going to restrict the importation of petroleum 
products and we are going to inspect all vehicles, ships, planes, 
trains and cargo? We wouldn't know what that would mean. How could they 
do that without an embargo? This is militant language, it is just 
looking for trouble, and it will not help solve the situation.
  There is nothing wrong with talking to people. We talked to the 
Soviets in the midst of the Cold War. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. 
Now they are talking about, well, maybe the Iranians might get a weapon 
later on.
  Quite frankly, this talk about this violation, the Iranians were 
asked by IAEA not to resume enrichment. They had voluntarily stopped 
enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have every right under the 
Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich for peaceful purposes. In the last 
year, there have been nine unannounced inspections of the Iranian 
nuclear sites. They have never once been found in violation.
  This does not make them angels. This does not make them not want to 
desire to defend their country. But think about it: How many countries 
have nukes around them? Pakistan has nukes, India has them, Israel has 
them, the United States has them, China has them, the Soviets have 
them. And they are being threatened. War games are being practiced, 
with the potentiality of us being a participant in bombing them.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for us to take a deep breath and reassess 
our position.

                          ____________________