[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1936-S1937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRUZ:
  S. 2195. A bill to deny admission to the United States to any 
representative to the United Nations who has engaged in espionage 
activities against the United States, poses a threat to United States 
national security interests, or has engaged in a terrorist activity 
against the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an 
extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under 
current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the 
United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United 
Nations.
  The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has 
recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the 
U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa 
application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in 
all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in 
accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. 
Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim 
Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans 
hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his 
involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was 
sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is 
still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web 
site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of 
America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this 
person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did 
CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a 
better bad idea than this?
  It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic 
protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national 
who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were 
stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.
  In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President 
Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and 
their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe 
that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated 
President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have 
ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter.
  It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives 
the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that 
he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the 
United States and poses a national security threat.
  The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President 
to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the 
applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, 
has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national 
security threat to the United States.
  I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the 
impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from 
South Carolina.
  This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let 
into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had 
sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from 
Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an 
ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 
marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we 
feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit 
in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 
1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples 
would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having 
engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent 
Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of 
espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation 
would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain 
entry into the United States.
  I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent 
to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could 
exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am 
pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of 
bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of 
the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law

[[Page S1937]]

so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am 
encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to 
fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan 
way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known 
terrorist.
  I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, 
deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that 
Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to 
our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up 
call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that 
resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place.
  There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama 
administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani 
that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that 
Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in 
its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should 
dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this 
administration flies in the face of reason.
  On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the 
Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly 
incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan 
Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting 
the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis--
what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran.
  After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which 
one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad 
deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in 
English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had 
surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend.
  Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring 
that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be 
removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner.
  The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations 
once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that 
has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to 
flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as 
the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.''
  It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the 
administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and 
consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran.
  The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by 
establishing that there are no circumstances under which the 
perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts 
of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This 
action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva 
negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but 
also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear 
program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful 
dialogue between our two countries.
  In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they 
were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on 
January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald 
Reagan was inaugurated as President.
  I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we 
can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known 
terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war 
against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages 
even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of 
Iran.
  One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that 
the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and 
he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and 
Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our 
captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.''
  I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that 
whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the 
true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 
35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the 
auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand 
together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of 
war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on 
American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

                          ____________________