[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18543-18544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the President of Iran has just addressed 
the United Nations General Assembly. He well could have declared 
victory. Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, created and funded by Iran, 
attacked Israel. The resulting conflict diverted attention from Iran's 
nuclear program and bolstered Iran's position in the Middle East. Our 
invasion of Iraq has removed from the chess board what was once a 
bloody rival of Iran for power in its own region, and now Iraq saps 
America's strength.
  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to New York with a stamp of approval for his 
country's nuclear program from the 100-plus members of the nonaligned 
movement, where he led a festival of America-bashing.
  Most importantly, Ahmadinejad has brazenly ignored the August 31 
deadline from the United Nations Security Council to cease enrichment 
of nuclear fuel.
  A nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe. That regime has already been 
listed as number one on the list of state sponsors of terrorism year 
after year by our own State Department. With nuclear weapons, Iran 
could blatantly sponsor the most horrific terrorist events, feeling 
itself immune from retaliation.
  The Iranian regime could terrify its Muslim neighbors and interrupt 
their oil exports. Conversely, it could inspire Middle East States to 
develop their own nuclear weapons. If the Tehran regime got just a 
little bit crazier than they are, it could smuggle a weapon into the 
United States and then threaten to explode it if we did not change our 
policies.
  Finally, if that regime were about to be overthrown, and many of us 
look forward to that day, it could use its nuclear weapons against its 
own people, or it could use them against Israel as a final parting act.
  Ahmadinejad declared in one of his recent famous diatribes that the 
United States should bow down and surrender.
  Mr. Ahmadinejad, we already have. Our unilateral concessions began in 
1999 when we opened our markets to Iranian exports, not oil which we 
could use, but only the stuff Iran cannot sell elsewhere like caviar.
  Since then we have acquiesced in World Bank loans to the Iranian 
Government. We allow corporations to do business in Iran through their 
foreign subsidiaries. And last year we opened the door to Iran's 
membership in the WTO. For 6 years, the Bush administration has 
violated U.S. law by refusing to apply the Iran-Libya Sanctions Acts to 
billions of dollars of investments in the Iranian oil sector. All this 
while energy sanctions were effective in changing Libya's behavior.
  Most recently, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush personally 
approved a visa for a five-city U.S. propaganda tour by Ahmadinejad's 
predecessor, former Iranian President Khatami. Amazingly, the U.S. 
taxpayer picked up part of the tab for Khatami's terrorism promotion 
tour. We paid for the security. As you remember, the last time there 
were American officials in Iran, there wasn't much security and they 
were taken hostage and held for 444 days.
  There is a certain symmetry to all this, Mr. Speaker. According to 
the 9/11 Commission, during the administration of Khatami, Iran used 
its taxpayer dollars to provide safe harbor and protection to al Qaeda 
terrorists. Now U.S. tax dollars are used to provide safe harbor and 
protection for Khatami.

[[Page 18544]]

  The failure of this administration to persuade the U.N. Security 
Council, particularly Russia and China, to impose sanctions on Iran for 
developing nuclear weapons is the greatest diplomatic failure of our 
time. Why have they failed? Because they refuse the concept of linkage. 
We seek Russia's help on Iran while refusing to make the slightest 
concession on issues Russia cares about like Moldova, Chechnya, 
Abkhazia, any reasonable U.S. policy which subordinates these issues 
that are minor to us to the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.
  Likewise, we refuse to link how China deals with Iran with how we 
deal with China on trade issues, such as how we choose to respond to 
their legally questionable currency manipulations.
  Mr. Speaker, the options are clear. We can use all our economic and 
diplomatic power, including linkage, to stop Ahmadinejad's nuclear 
weapon program, or we can bow down and surrender.
  Actually, the Bush administration has embraced a third option. Talk 
tough, avoid effective action, especially linkage, and take solace in 
the fact that the policy failure will not become manifest and Iran will 
not develop and test a nuclear weapon until after 2008. Bush refuses 
linkage. We are doomed to a nuclear Iran

                          ____________________