Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, this bill will not bring relief to the millions of North Koreans who are suffering every day. It is estimated that 2 million people have died of starvation in North Korea. More than 13 million North Koreans suffer from malnutrition, including 60 percent of all children, the worst rate among 110 developing nations surveyed by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. North Korea had an infant mortality rate of 2 percent in 2000. South Korea's infant mortality rate for the same year by contrast was 0.5 percent. There are chronic shortages of food and fuel already. Heavy military spending, estimated at between one-quarter and one-third of gross domestic product, has constrained and skewed economic development. North Korea has a per capita GDP of $1,000. South Korea's per capita GDP by contrast is $18,000.

Despite significant inflows of international assistance over the past decade, harsh economic and political conditions have caused tens of thousands of persons to flee the country.

The better approach the U.S. should be supporting is the approach adhered to by the South Koreans. They have taken the approach of unification as a way to pull North Korea into the modern world. It worked for East Germany,

and it can work for North Korea again. The downside of this approach is that missile defense advocates will have to create another false reason to spend in excess of $9 billion a year on the failed system. I am confident they can conjure up some new enemy and protect defense industry profits.

Now, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that North Korea has declared that it possesses nuclear weapons, this according to a report by Dr. Hans Blix that was presented and remarked on in a congressional subcommittee the other day. He said this report says it has not provided evidence of this claim. It has violated the NPT and twice declared its withdrawal from the treaty.

It operates a nuclear fuel cycle consisting of a 5-megawatt research reactor, which uses natural uranium; a reprocessing facility which produces plutonium; and various uranium processing and fuel fabrication facilities. The United States has claimed that the country also has an enrichment capability.

In 2005 Pakistan's President Musharaff stated that the A.Q. Khan network had provided centrifuge machines and designs to North Korea, although the scale of its enrichment capability remains unknown. North Korea has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Now, under a section called ``What Must be Done'' in the report that Dr. Blix delivered, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission makes many specific and detailed recommendations. The most important of them are summarized as, number one, to agree on general principles of action; number two, to reduce the danger of present arsenals, no use by states, no access by terrorists; number three, to prevent proliferation, no new weapons systems, no new possessors; number four, work towards outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all, including preventing an arms race in space by prohibiting any stationing or use of weapons in outer space. I would recommend this to the reading by Members of this Congress who are concerned about nuclear proliferation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is time that this Congress calls for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. That, in effect, is what the Nonproliferation Treaty is all about. It is true that the use of nuclear weapons threatens the future of mass public, cities, nations, civilization itself, and, indeed, all of life on Earth. Nuclear weapons in the arsenal of any country undermine the security of all countries, including the United States. Under the Treaty of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, all nuclear weapon states are committed to good-faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament.

On June 6, 2006, the Chair and Vice Chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission, cited as their number one concern for the security of the United States the availability of nuclear weapons materials for attack upon the American people. The 2006 report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission concludes: ``So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want to use them. So long as any weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day be used by design or accident. Any such use will be catastrophic. The model nuclear weapons convention circulated by the United Nations demonstrates the feasibility of achieving the global elimination of nuclear weapons.''

So, Mr. Speaker, I am once again asking this House to call for the abolition of all nuclear weapons and to ask that the House call upon the President to initiate multilateral negotiations for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We can start by opening up direct negotiations with North Korea for the purpose of getting their participation, and I think that is a much better approach than the legislation that we are about to send over to the President.

And for that purpose, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

I want to say that the gentleman from Oregon's point is well taken. As someone who engaged in the debate over India, I am familiar with the concerns that he has raised. And there are concerns about the ability of the United States Congress, which is being asked to on one hand ascent to the proliferation of one group, and deny the proliferation of another, for this Congress to be in a position of trying to help this country have a consistent program of nuclear nonproliferation, which I know is exactly the point that the gentleman relates to.

In addition to that, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission has said that North Korea ought to be given the same kinds of guarantees that is in the agreed framework of 1994 that they are not going to be attacked. This is the same thing that has been recommended that is done with Iran as well. So we do not need to get into these nuclear crises and say that people are threats if we engage them in talks that work towards nonproliferation.

This group made recommendations, Mr. Wu, that I am sure you are familiar with. They said that a negotiation with North Korea should aim at a verifiable agreement, including as a principle element, North Korea's manifestation of its adherence to the MPT and accepting the 1997 additional protocol, as well as the revival and a legal confirmation of the commitments made in the 1992 joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

And notably saying that neither North nor South Korea shall have nuclear weapons nor nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities, and fuel cycle services should be assured through international agreements. The agreements should also cover biological and chemical weapons as well as the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, thus making the Korean Peninsula a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

So what Mr. Wu is asking about, and which I certainly support, is some consistency in policy. And it beings with Congress since we are being called upon, as Mr. Wu stated, to either agree or disagree with these policies.

I want to thank the gentleman for raising that, because this is the appropriate time to raise that.

This is a discussion that should have been happening a long time ago in this Congress. Because no one really talked that deeply about the implication of our decision granting India the ability to gain access to fissile materials, in terms of the potential dialectic of conflict which develops between the proliferator, Pakistan, and India gaining the fissile materials.

Mr. Wu has raised the point that is really central to the discussion about how do we protect world peace. How do we stop some kind of a conflagration from breaking out on the subcontinent if we do not have a consistent policy?

I mean, we know as was pointed out in the WMDC report here, that in February of 1999, India and Pakistan signed a memorandum of understanding on a variety of nuclear confidence building measures.

Both countries, however, this report says: ``Are continuing their efforts to develop and produce nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles.'' So, Mr. Wu is right on in raising this. And this is the exact time this has to be raised, even though it is almost one in the morning on Saturday. I yield.

Mr. Speaker, if I could make just one last comment in support of what the gentleman is saying, I am sure many are familiar that in the Hindu religion Brahma, the Creator; and Vishnu, the Preserver; and Shiva, the Destroyer exist simultaneously and represent the multiplicity of God.

We here are called upon to determine which of the principles, Creator, Preserver or Destroyer, shall work through each of us. As the gentleman from Oregon says, if we continue to pursue nuclear proliferation as embodied in the nuclear agreement with India, we will be open to the principles of destruction. At this moment when world tensions are rising and violence is cycling higher, we need to take the direction of preserving the peace and creating a new opening through the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Again, I want to thank my friend from Oregon for raising this point at this propitious moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the installation of a statue of Mohandas Gandhi in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens. The statue stands as a beacon for the ideals Gandhi promoted: peace, amity, and cooperation of all people of all nations.

The unveiling event is being co-hosted by the Cleveland Cultural Gardens Association and the Federation of Communities of India Communities Association. The Cleveland Cultural Gardens started as a 256-acre tract of land donated to the City of Cleveland by John D. Rockefeller in 1896. With the theme ``Peace Through Mutual Understanding,'' the Gardens are represented by 24 nations from all around the world. These Gardens, which have become both a staple of Cleveland and the entire country, have inspired people of all backgrounds throughout its entire rich history. President Herbert Hoover once said of the Gardens that, ``Cleveland, by its series of cultural gardens, is setting a notable example to the nation.''

The addition of a statue of Gandhi continues this shining example of peace and cooperation. The statue stands in the India Cultural Garden on a mixture of Indian and American soil. In accordance with the values taught by Gandhi, the earth, which belongs to us all, can only be stewarded through cooperation, understanding, and embracing diversity.

Mohandas Gandhi, who pioneered the global civil rights struggle, has become a symbol of the movement for peace in international politics, brotherhood amongst diverse communities, and social progress through understanding. Gandhi, though a Hindu by practice, embraced diversity of all religions and expressions of spirituality and urged all human beings to stay in touch with a transcendental bond that connects us all. His life is a testament to strengthening international peace efforts through acknowledgement of each individual's power to make a positive peaceful change in this world.

Born in 1869 in Gujarat, India, Gandhi studied law at University College London where he found himself at a cultural crossroads trying to embrace English customs while still preserving the traditions of his Indian ancestry. Gandhi would go on to lead the civil rights struggle in South Africa and finally the independence movement in his native India. Though he studied, lived, and worked in many countries, Gandhi became more of a global citizen, adopting the idea that all humans on the earth share a common thread of wanting peace, security, self- expression, and individuality in a diverse society. It is this sense of global citizenship and acceptance of all people that is echoed in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens with the installation of this new statue.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the contributions to peace and community of Mohandas Gandhi through this statue in the Cleveland Cultural Gardens.

Iran should not have nuclear weapons; and, along with the United States as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should work with the community of nations to abolish all nuclear weapons, as is the express intent of the NPT.

However, this administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into another Iraq WMD hoax. There they go again.

Today, the House will consider a bill which will give the administration a pass on covert activities it has already undertaken in Iran to attempt to destabilize the government. Additionally, today's bill will enable another Rendon type propaganda machine to feed the U.S. media a steady stream of lies, all to set the stage for a war against Iran.

Think about it; this, without a single hearing on Iran in this Congress. Think about it; this, while the State Department and DOD is ducking even classified briefings.

There is a Chinese proverb that says: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Will Congress be fooled again into supporting still another war against still another nation, which is not an imminent threat and which has no intention nor capability of attacking the United States?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to go back a little bit in history here. The Iraq Accountability Act of 1998 was about funding a media propaganda machine which was, unfortunately, used to lay the groundwork for a war against Iraq. That act was about encouraging and funding opposition inside Iraq, unfortunately, to destabilize Iraq prior to a war.

You could call this bill the ``Iran Accountability Act.'' This act funds media propaganda machines to lay the groundwork for a war against Iran. It encourages and funds opposition inside Iran for that same purpose.

Notwithstanding what the words are in this bill, we have been here before. This administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into an Iraq-type WMD hoax. ``Iran is not an imminent threat,'' this from Dr. Hans Blitz, former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, speaking to our congressional oversight subcommittee the other day.

The International Atomic Energy Agency points out that Iran has an enrichment level of about 3.6 percent. You have to go to 90 percent to have weapons quality enrichment. Iran is not an imminent threat. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

This is a time for us to engage Iran with direct talks, our President to their President. This is the time to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them.

Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to conduct covert ops in Iran. This administration has chosen to select 1,500 bombing targets with the Strategic Air Command. This administration has chosen plans for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This administration looked the other way when a congressional staff report basically claimed that Iran was trying to engage in nuclear escalation.

We don't need war, we need to talk, and that is what we ought to stand for here. No more Iraqs.

The End of the ``Summer of Diplomacy'': Assessing U.S. Military Options

on Iran

A CENTURY FOUNDATION REpORT

(By Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Ret.))

This report is part of a series commissioned by The Century

Foundation to inform the policy debate about Iran-related

issues.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author.

Nothing written here is to be

construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Century

Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of

any bill before Congress.

``The doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain

an integral part of our national security strategy. We do not

rule out the use of force before the enemy strikes.''--

Stephen Hadley, March 16, 2006.

Introduction

The summer of diplomacy began with a dramatic announcement:

on May 31, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared

that if the Ahmadinejad government agreed to halt Iran's

nuclear enrichment program, the United States would talk

directly with Tehran. Secretary Rice crafted the statement

working alone at home. She called President Bush and received

his approval. The Bush administration announced it as a

significant initiative; it appeared to reflect a major change

in policy.

This shift was not uncontroversial within the

administration; Vice President Dick Cheney had opposed the

announcement. But the rationale that prevailed seems to have

been that if the United States were going to confront Iran,

the diplomacy box had to be checked. The secretary of state

was given the summer to try it.

Well, the summer is over. Diplomacy was given a chance, and

it now seems that the diplomatic activity of the past several

months was just a pretext for the military option.

Unfortunately, the military option does not make sense.

When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike

on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out

that an armed confrontation does not make sense--that it

would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American

policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to

yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot

understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options

through that filter. The ``making sense'' filter was not

applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely

to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran.

In order to understand the position of those within the

U.S. government who will make the final decision to execute a

military option against Iran, you must first consider the

seven key truths that they believe: Iran is developing

weapons of mass destruction--that is most likely true. Iran

is ignoring the international community--true. Iran supports

Hezbollah and terrorism--true. Iran is increasingly inserting

itself in Iraq and beginning to be involved in Afghanistan--

true. The people of Iran want a regime change--most likely an

exaggeration. Sanctions are not going to work--most likely

true. You cannot negotiate with these people--not proven.

If you understand these seven points as truth, you can see

why the administration is very close to being left with only

the military option. Administration officials say that they

want to give diplomacy a chance. But when they say that, we

need to remind ourselves that they do not mean a negotiated

settlement. They mean that Iran must do what we want as a

result of our nonmilitary leverage: suspend enrichment, and

we will talk. But enrichment appears to continue, and there

are no direct discussions between the two main parties.

Satisfied that nonmilitary leverage is not going to work,

those who believe the seven ``truths'' argue that the only

viable option remaining is a military one. The story,

however, is more complicated.

This report draws on my long experience of running military

war games to examine some of the complications of the current

situation: the various pressures and rationales for an attack

on Iran; the probable direct and indirect consequences of air

strikes; the significant gap between what proponents of the

military option want to achieve and what in fact such attacks

will achieve; and the likelihood that policymakers will

ignore those gaps and proceed to war despite them.

Timing and Uncertainty

Waiting makes it harder. The history of warfare is

dominated by attackers who concluded that it was better to

attack early than to wait. One source of the momentum in

Washington for a strike on Iran's nuclear program is the

strategic observation that if such an attack is in fact

inevitable, then it is better done sooner than later.

I conducted a war game for the Atlantic Monthly magazine

two years ago. On a chart prepared for a mock meeting of the

National Security Council, I identified thirteen nuclear-

related targets in Iran. I still do this kind of gaming. My

most recent chart reflects twenty-four potential nuclear-

related facilities. In the past few years we have seen Iran's

Natanz uranium enrichment facility buried under more than

fifteen meters of reinforced concrete and soil. There is

evidence that similar hardening is taking place at other

facilities, and there is some evidence of facilities being

placed inside populated areas. The longer the United States

waits, the harder the targets--and the harder the targeting.

Another major issue that affects timing is the conspicuous

absence of reliable intelligence about Iran. A report by the

House Intelligence Committee found that we have serious gaps

in our knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program.

Paradoxically, those gaps in intelligence produce not

caution, but further pressure to attack. U.S. intelligence

agencies do not know the locations of all of Iran's

facilities; they are not certain how far Iran has gone with

enrichment. They know that Iran's nuclear program bears a

striking resemblance to the Pakistani program, but they do

not know whether Iran has acquired technology that might put

it ahead of current estimates.

Some U.S. officials say that Iran is ten years from a

weapon. The Pentagon, we are told, is operating under the

assumption that Iran could have a weapon in five years. Some

Israeli estimates say that Iran could have a weapon in three

years. John Negroponte, the U.S. director of national

intelligence, recently said that Iran could not develop a

nuclear weapon until some time in the next decade. But the

next day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he did

not trust estimates of the Iranian program.

The very ambiguity of the intelligence picture has become

another argument for military options, because even if U.S.

policymakers could agree on a firm policy red line, there

would be no way of determining if and when Iran crossed that

line. Vice President Cheney's espoused calculation for

dealing with global threats is that if there is even a 1

percent chance of a country passing WMD to a terrorist, the

United States must act. Because there is a 1 percent chance

Iran could pass WMD to a terrorist, the Bush administration

finds itself obliged to reject nonmilitary options.

Regional Pressures

Adding to the political momentum toward war with Iran is

significant pressure from the Israeli security establishment.

Israel says that it has a plan for attacking Iranian nuclear

facilities. Israel recently appointed an airman to be in

charge of the Iranian theater of operations. It was announced

that this major general would coordinate Israeli planning for

Iran. Israeli military planners have U.S. penetrating weapons

and a replica of the Natanz facility. They say that the

attack would resemble the kind of operation they used against

Egypt in 1967. They say that the plan involves more than just

air strikes from the ``Hammers'' of the Israeli Air Force's

69 Squadron. It would include Shaldag commando teams,

possibly some version of sea-launched missiles, and even

explosive-carrying dogs that would penetrate the underground

facilities.

Israel probably could hit most of the known nuclear

targets. But such an attack would leave Iran with significant

retaliatory options. That is a serious problem. U.S. forces

and interests in the region would be likely targets of

Iranian retaliation, so even an independent Israeli military

operation would have critical consequences for the United

States.

Part of the problem is that the two countries' red lines

for Iran are not the same. Israel's red line is enrichment.

The U.S. red line used to be the development of an Iranian

nuclear weapon. But over the past six months, America's red

line has drifted closer to Israel's. On March 21, the

president said that the United States could not allow Iran to

have the knowledge to make a weapon. He repeated the phrase

in August.

By redrawing the red line in this manner, U.S. policymakers

are creating pressure to go to war with Iran. In saying that

Iran could not be permitted to have the knowledge to develop

nuclear weapons, the president used almost the exact words

the Israeli Foreign Minister had used a year earlier. More

recently, a senior State Department official said that Iran

was near ``the point of no return'' on its nuclear program.

Again, this was an exact echo of the words of Israeli

officials. The Israeli pressure has worked.

Marketing the Military Option

I often hear from those who were strongly supportive of the

Iraq invasion that the targeting of the Iranian facilities

would be simple. If you understand the elements of the

nuclear process, all you have to do is go after a small

number of targets. The argument continues that Iran's nuclear

facilities could be devastated on a single night, in a single

strike, by a small number of U.S. B-2 bombers. The apparent

ease of the operation is another element of this pressure to

go now: If the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped in one

night by a simple strike, why should the United States wait?

But the elimination of Iran's nuclear capability, while it

might be the stated aim for the United States, is only part

of the objective. While the Iranian regime's weapons program

is a genuine source of concern, American policymakers are

also troubled by Iran's interference in Iraq. Despite U.S.

warnings, the Revolutionary Guard continues to supply

weapons, money, and training to insurgents inside Iraq. Some

proponents of attacking Iran feel that Tehran should be

punished for supporting militias and extremists in Iraq.

In addition to Iran's role as an aspiring nuclear rogue and

a supporter of the insurgency in Iraq, the country has been

repeatedly portrayed as a key adversary in the war on

terrorism. The United States has put Iran into a separate and

new terrorism category, dubbing it the ``Central Banker of

Terrorism.'' The new National Security Strategy says, ``Any

government that chooses to be an ally of terror, such as

Syria or Iran, has chosen to be an enemy of freedom, justice,

and peace. The world must hold those regimes to account.''

``Unnamed intelligence officials,'' citing evidence from

satellite coverage and electronic eavesdropping, have told

the press that Iran is hosting al Qaeda, granting senior

operatives freedom to communicate and plan terrorist

operations.

Indeed, the case against the regime is so forceful, and so

multifaceted, that it becomes clear that the goal is not

simply to do away with the regime's enrichment program. The

goal is to do away with the regime itself.

And on top of all of those pressures--pressure from Israel,

pressure from those worried about a nuclear Iran, Iran in

Iraq, and Iran in the war on terrorism--is another, decisive

piece of the puzzle: President George W. Bush. The argument

takes several forms: the president is said to see himself as

being like Winston Churchill, and to believe that the world

will only appreciate him after he leaves office; he talks

about the Middle East in messianic terms; he is said to have

told those close to him that he has got to attack Iran

because even if a Republican succeeds him in the White House,

he will not have the same freedom of action that Bush enjoys.

Most recently, someone high in the administration told a

reporter that the president believes that he is the only one

who can ``do the right thing'' with respect to Iran. One

thing is clear: a major source of the pressure for a military

strike emanates from the very man who will ultimately make

the decision over whether to authorize such a strike-the

president. And these various accounts of his motivations and

rationales have in common that the president will not allow

does-not-make-sense arguments to stand in the way of a good

idea.

Below the CNN Line

Stay below the ``CNN line.'' That was the guidance given to

the Air Component Commander, General Mike Mosley, as the

secret air strikes began against Iraq in operation SOUTHERN

FOCUS. It was July 2002. This classified bombing campaign

would involve strikes on almost 400 targets. It was initiated

just after the president visited Europe where he announced

numerous times, ``I have no war plans on my desk.''

There was no UN resolution. The congressional authorization

was not to come for four months. But the United States was

starting the war.

All of the pressures described above are pushing for war

with Iran, and increasingly, a public case for such a war is

being made. But behind the scenes, military operations are

already under way. (See Figure 1.) Most likely, the same

guidance has been given to military commanders. The pattern

is repeating.

When U.S. commandos began entering Iran--probably in the

summer of 2004--their mission appears to have been limited.

The objective was to find and characterize the Iranian

nuclear program. From press reports, we know that the task

force doing these operations was implanting sensors to detect

radioactivity. Intelligence for these early operations inside

Iran was coming from information provided by A.Q. Khan, the

Pakistani dealer in black market nuclear material. The

incursions were focused in the northeast, where the Iranian

nuclear facilities are concentrated. The base of these

incursions was most likely Camp War Horse in Iraq.

Israel also was conducting operations inside Iran in late

2003 or early 2004. The Israeli commandos reportedly were

operating from a base in Iraq. These commandos also were

implanting sensors. I would expect the U.S. and Israeli

operations to have been coordinated. At about this time the

United States began operating remotely piloted vehicles

inside Iran over nuclear facilities. (Although this was

certainly an embarrassment to the Iranians, they mentioned

the flights numerous times in their press.)

In 2005, the balance within the U.S. government shifted in

favor of those who were pushing for regime change in Iran.

This was to result in the eventual creation of the Iran/Syria

Operations Group inside the State Department, a request to

Congress for $75 million, and the creation of a robust

``democracy promotion'' program. Meanwhile the United States

moved from intelligence collection inside Iran, to

establishing contact with ethnic minorities, to being

involved in--and most likely conducting---direct action

missions. Reports suggest that the United States is

supporting militant groups in the Baluchistan region of Iran.

There have been killings and kidnappings in this region. Iran

Revolutionary Guard convoys have been attacked. In a New

Yorker article, Seymour Hersh confirmed that this region was

one of the areas where U.S. forces were operating. The

Iranian press also has accused the United States of operating

there. In addition, press reports suggest that the United

States may be sponsoring former members of the Iraq-based MEK

(Mojahedin-e Khalq) in Baluchistan.

I recently attended a Middle East security conference in

Berlin. At dinner one night, I sat next to the Iranian

ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali-

Asghar Soltanieh. I told him I had read that the Iranians

were accusing the United States of supporting elements in

Baluchistan. I asked him how they knew that. Without any

hesitation, Soltanieh told me that they have captured

militants who confessed that they were working with the

Americans.

The United States is also directly involved in supporting

groups inside the Kurdish area of Iran. According to both

western and Iranian press reports, the Iranian Party of Free

Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) has been allowed to operate from

Iraq into Iran and has killed Revolutionary Guard soldiers.

The Iranians have also accused the United States of being

involved in shooting down two of their aircraft, an old C-130

and a Fa1con jet, carrying Revolutionary Guard leaders.

NEXT STEPS: Above the CNN Line

How do we get from being below the CNN line to the next

step? The path is fairly clear. The United Nations Security

Council will fall short of imposing serious sanctions on

Iran. The United States, then, will look for a coalition of

the willing to implement smart sanctions, focused on the

Iranian leadership.

But the sanctions will be designed less to ensure

compliance from the Iranians than to generate domestic and

international support for the American position. I do not

know an Iranian specialist I trust who believes that the

sanctions would cause the Iranians to abandon their nuclear

program, any more than did the sanctions on India and

Pakistan after their nuclear tests in 1998. The sanctions

will be used to raise the collective conscience that Iran is

a threat, and to convince the world that the United States

has tried diplomatic solutions.

If the experience of 1979 and other sanctions scenarios is

a guide, sanctions will actually empower the conservative

leadership in Iran. There is an irony here. It is a pattern

that seems to be playing out in the selection of the military

option. From diplomacy to sanctions, the administration is

not making good-faith efforts to avert a war so much as going

through the motions, eliminating other possible strategies of

engagement, until the only option left on the table is the

military one.

When imposing the sanctions fails to alter Tehran's

position, policymakers will revert to a strike on Iran's

nuclear facilities. One can imagine the words of a planner in

the meeting: ``If we are going to do this, let's make certain

we get everything they have.'' I have done some rough

``targeting'' of nuclear facilities for which I can find

satellite photos on the Web. By my calculation, an attack of

relatively high certainty on nuclear targets would require

400 aim points. (An aim point is the specific location where

an individual weapon is directed. Most targets would have

multiple aim points.) I estimate seventy-five of these aim

points would require penetrating weapons. (See Table 1, page

12.)

But it is unlikely that a U.S. military planner would want

to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical weapons

production plants. He would want to hit those. He would want

to hit Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles that have just

recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen

airfields with sheltered aircraft. Although the Iranian Air

Force is not much of a threat, some of these airfields are

less than fifteen minutes flying time from Baghdad. Military

planners would want to eliminate that potential threat. The

Pentagon would want to hit the assets that could be used to

threaten Gulf shipping. That would mean targeting cruise

missile sites, Iranian diesel submarines, and Iranian naval

assets.

I thank the gentleman.

It is good to cite Ben Franklin. Maybe we should also be citing Phineas T. Barnum, because there is a section in this bill, section 10, entitled ``Compliance with Court Orders and Antiterrorist Programs.'' That actually amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for someone who may have leaked classified information.

Now, Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon a pardon. I am wondering to whom this bill is giving a pardon. Does it give immunity or impunity for certain crimes and misdemeanors? This bill may actually be about someone's legal problems.

We need to look at this. We need to find out if someone leaked classified information and this bill is going to give them a get-out- of-jail-free card. Read the bill. Take a look at section 10. I want the sponsor to tell me that no one is going to get out of jail free who may have leaked classified information, and no one is going to escape prosecution for certain crimes and misdemeanors once this bill passes.

I want them to tell that to the Congress. Tell us you are not slipping in a clause here where you are trying to get somebody out of jail. Tell me that. Tell us that.

Mr. Speaker, Hans Blix, former chief U.N. weapons inspector, cautioned the U.S. before it attacked Iraq that Iraq was not an imminent threat. He was right. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Now America is more vulnerable than ever because of this administration's pathological deceptions.

Yesterday, Dr. Blix said Iran is not an imminent threat and we should open up direct talks with Iran, not attack Iran. He is right again.

Last week Intelligence Committee staff reports' deliberate distortion of the degree of Iran's uranium enrichment was exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nevertheless, according to credible reports, the administration has had covert operations in Iran, selected 1,500 bombing targets, and is preparing a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will set the stage not only for a war against Iran, but also for $5 a gallon gasoline.

Meanwhile, the State Department and the Department of Defense will not even appear in classified briefings to discuss the plans for a war against Iran.

Wake up, America. There is another war being planned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, and let my colleagues know that I have read the bill and what I read here is pretty chilling. Matter of fact, I want to quote something from the bill that has not been discussed and ask that all of my friends read this bill so that we can see if this really reflects what we want to do and the implications this could have for Members of Congress because I have stood on this floor time and time again to protect this institution, and I want Members of Congress to think about this provision.

You know, we have heard the President make comments that people who oppose this bill are really hurting the United States. We have all heard him say this.

Section 26, wrongfully aiding the enemy. Any person subject to this chapter, by the way anybody is who in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States or any of the co-belligerents of the enemy shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

I want to know, are Members of Congress who challenge this administration as to their taking us into illegal wars, is that somehow contrary to allegiance to the United States? I mean, we need to think about this. What are we doing to this institution here? Are we turning us all into mice here, running into a corner because we are afraid to challenge the President?

I mean, my friends who are Republicans, stand up for the Republic, to the Republic for which it stands. Stand up for the Republic. Read this provision in this bill.

There is another provision in the bill that I think deserves a careful look. Suppose a President sometime in the future declares that some country has weapons of mass destruction, and based on those claims, the Congress moves quickly to give the President the authority to wage war, and then war is waged and hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed as collateral damage, and then we find out later on they did not have weapons of mass destruction, and then you have all these dead people, but they were collateral damage. Under this bill, which I have read, collateral damage is precluded from applicability with respect to the enforcement of the rule of law, or if there is a lawful attack, collateral damage is precluded from being cited.

Now, suppose that happened in this country. That would be so awful that something like that happened, but essentially we are giving a get- out-of-jail free card to the very officials who could lead this country down a path to war and kill innocent people based on lies.

I do not see this as a Republican or a Democrat argument. I see this as a question of whether we stand up for what this country was founded upon. What are we about? What do we believe in? That is what we have to answer here, and this bill is everything we do not believe in.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Cleveland's Casey Coleman Day. Mr. Casey Coleman is a landmark in Cleveland radio broadcasting and sportscasting who has recently been diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer with only months to live. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson has proclaimed September 26 as ``Casey Coleman Day'' to honor the distinguished Cleveland resident.

Mr. Coleman has been an acclaimed sports broadcaster for over 25 years and has been recognized by the Associated Press for ``Best Regularly Scheduled Sports'' and ``Best Sportscaster'' in the State of Ohio. While performing television broadcasting, Mr. Coleman received four Emmy Awards. Mr. Coleman also has the honor of being the field and locker room reporter for the Cleveland Browns for the past five consecutive years.

Casey Coleman Day will be more than just a title, as a ceremony will be held at Tower

City, and on September 27 there will be a blood drive sponsored by the American Red Cross in Mr. Coleman's name. The region-wide blood drive effort will help hundreds of lives in 57 different Ohio hospitals. Everyone who donates blood at a Red Cross site on September 27 will be able to write a personal message to Mr. Coleman. The day of celebration also marks the creation of ``Casey's Fund,'' which will contribute all donations to help treat alcoholics and addicts as Mr. Coleman is a recovered alcoholic and his legacy will continue to aid in fighting addiction with the help of Recovery Resources.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join the city of Cleveland and myself in honoring and rejoicing over Mr. Casey Coleman's inspiring life, courage against cancer, and devotion to Cleveland. My thoughts go out to his wife and his six daughters during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, we have a right and an obligation to defend America, as one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle pointed out. It is in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

We also have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people. The Bible says: ``You shall know the truth. And the truth shall set you free.''

The truth is that about $70 billion in this spending will go for bridge funding to support the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The truth is there should have never been a war against Iraq. The truth is Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The truth is Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The truth is Iraq did not have any relationship to al Qaeda and 9/11. The truth is Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax attack on this country. The truth is Iraq did not have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States. The truth is Iraq did not try to get uranium from Najaf for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. The truth is Iraq did not try to secure aluminum tubes for the reprocessing of uranium. The truth is we never should have gone to war in Iraq, and the truth is we should bring our troops home from Iraq.

Of the numerous reasons to vote against this bill, the continued funding for the war in Iraq is most noteworthy. If the U.S. were to withdraw as soon as possible out of Iraq, we would save $1.5 billion each week in Iraq, $6 billion a month and $72 billion annually, and then maybe we would not have to borrow money from China, Japan and Korea to fight a war.

It is increasingly clear that this administration's occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has failed. For every $1 spent on war costs, we are taking away $1 from programs that are needed in this country for housing, for education, for health care, for the elderly. After 3\1/2\ years, Iraq is less safe, not more.

Mr. Speaker, this administration's policies have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists and created the greatest recruiting tool ever for al Qaeda. Even the national intelligence estimate suggests the invasion of Iraq has evolved into our largest terrorist threat. The more money we spend in Iraq, the more of a problem we will have with terrorism.

What should we do? We should get out of Iraq. We should support our troops by bringing them home, bring them home so that we can give them the appropriate honor for their service.

Congress has the power to end the war, and that power is in this moment. Cut off the funds for the war, and the war is over. The money in the pipeline can be used to bring our troops home.

The greatest tragedy is that we have lost close to 2,700 American soldiers and tens of thousands more have been injured. Up to 200,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion. Every day, 120 more Iraqis die at the hands of execution-style death squads, kidnappings, murders, IEDs and sectarian violence.

The war in Iraq has been a great and tragic mistake. It has cost us in blood and treasure. It has damaged our once unchallenged representation in the world. It has squandered the goodwill rained upon this Nation after 9/11.

We should vote against this rule, vote against the bill. This is a vote on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of GrafTech International upon the celebration of its 50th anniversary.

Beginning in 1956, GrafTech, with its global headquarters in Parma, OH, has led its industry in research, development and testing of graphite and carbon science. Through GrafTech's 50 years of dedicated work, the company boasts nearly 700 patents and new technologies. In 2003, GrafTech was named a National Chemical Landmark for its work on the discovery and development of carbon fibers. This great research scopes the discovery of carbon fibers to new graphite materials for fuel cells.

GrafTech has been recognized 11 times as the recipient of the R&D 100 awards. GrafTech employs 3,800 workers in 13-state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities spanning 4 continents and serving over 80 countries. With its global headquarters located in Parma, OH, and more than 100 years of manufacturing excellence in Lakewood, OH, GrafTech International provides nearly 300 jobs for the area and has been recognized for significant job creation in Northeast Ohio. I am proud that this great company is located in my congressional district.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the 50-year anniversary of GrafTech International. GrafTech has served as a pioneer in its industry. I wish GrafTech International continued years of success and offer my thanks in providing many northeast Ohioans with a great workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, as it celebrates 10 years of innovative journalism exploring the possibilities for peace and environmental justice in our world. Yes! is more than just a magazine, it is a catalyst for positive social action, encouraging its readers to actively take part in the global movement for a more harmonious and sustainable world.

Yes! magazine is a quarterly journal produced by the Positive Futures Network, a non-profit organization dedicated to the collective power of individual and community efforts worldwide to bring healing, justice, and peace to all sectors of our society. In 1996 Yes! Magazine was founded to promote the belief that profound change is needed to save our society from an unsustainable path. Printed on recycled paper and available online, this ad-free alternative news source embodies the sustainable and inclusive lifestyle it advocates. Distributed worldwide, Yes! Magazine is a growing phenomenon that has tripled its subscriptions in the past 3 years alone. In 2001, Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures received the Utne Magazines Alternative Press Award for Best Cultural Coverage.

In addition to saying ``No!'' to the dominant trends of violence and oppression, this journal shouts a resounding ``Yes!''for creative and constructive alternatives. Each issue addresses a specific concern within the fields of social, economic, and environmental justice, identifying innovative scientific and cultural solutions. Yes! Magazine serves as a tool to unite the activists of different peace movements by reporting on the grassroots efforts of ordinary individuals creating extraordinary transformations across the board and challenging readers with a call to action.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and tribute to Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures for 10 years of meaningful journalism proving that peace is not only possible, but practical as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in admiration and remembrance of my cherished friend, Robert T. Woodworth--devoted father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, United States veteran and long- time community activist.

Mr. Woodworth was born in Cleveland to loving parents. His father drove streetcars in the city and his mother was a loving housewife. With extended family nearby, he learned early on the significance of family and community.

As a young adult, Mr. Woodworth enlisted in the United States Air Force, giving him the opportunity to travel the world. The languages he learned and friends that he made never left him, transcending time and distance. He spoke fluent German, Spanish and French and always remained closely connected to friends living in faraway lands.

Mr. Woodworth's warm demeanor and quick smile easily drew others to him. His unwavering belief in community service and volunteerism was illuminated throughout Cleveland's Westside, especially within our democratic process, where his grassroots involvement constantly affected our neighborhoods in a positive way. His leadership and diligence had been key in several political races, including his role as campaign manager for then council candidate Nelson Cintron. Councilman Cintron became the first Hispanic councilman in Cleveland's history. I had the opportunity to work with Mr. Woodworth in his role as a Ward 14 and precinct leader. He also played an active role in my first election to Congress in 1996 and in my subsequent reelection campaigns.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition, gratitude and celebration of Robert T. Woodworth, for his civic activism that uplifted our entire Westside Cleveland community. His unwavering commitment to his family, friends and community, enriched and inspired all throughout our Cleveland community and far beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute and recognition of Hospice of the Western Reserve as it celebrates the opening of its Lakewood office. The new office will enable the Hospice to provide more quality care to the people of Lakewood.

Hospice of the Western Reserve is a community-based agency that provides comfort and care as well as emotional support to its patients and their families. Regardless of age, disease, or ability to pay, all are welcomed to the Hospice. Serving more than 1,000 patients daily, The Hospice of the Western Reserve is the largest program of its kind in Ohio and the fourth largest in the country.

In addition to pain alleviation, the Hospice also offers social, psychosocial and spiritual support for both patients and family members. The Hospice is ever increasing its ability to provide quality care and support and enhancing quality of life.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the Hospice of the Western Reserve and the opening of its Lakewood office. Providing quality assistance to those who need it most, the Hospice stands as a monument to palliative care and end-of-life service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and recognition of Evelyn Kahan Dubrow who passed away on June 20, 2006. Known to her friends and colleagues as ``Evy'', she dedicated her life to the public service of worker's rights in the United States for over 5 decades. Known on Capitol Hill as the lobbyist everyone loves, Evy had the ability to be a uniter and inexorable activist for the power of the people. As a union activist and general advocate for working families from across the country, Evy's accomplishments ranged from being named one of Washington Magazine's Top 100 Women to winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

From a humble upbringing as the daughter of immigrant Belorussian factory workers, Evy rose to become one of America's most notable labor organizers. Her ability to not stray from her roots while still embracing a wide variety of viewpoints led to her success as a civil rights activist and a champion of the average American.

Her distinguished career in labor organizing eventually led her to Washington, DC, where she became a pillar of the movement as an unflinching and vigilant lobbyist for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union.

Her accomplishments were honored in 1999 nationally when President Clinton named her a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Upon meeting Evy Dubrow, President Clinton said that she was a tiny woman, larger than life. The President went on to note her candor, strength, and dedication to being the champion of the impoverished.

Indefatigable until the end, Evy lived until age 95 and never lost her passion for human rights and the spirit of each individual person.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory and recognizing the great accomplishments of Evy Dubrow in the field of labor organizing. For over 50 years, Evy Dubrow stood for the strength, resolve, and gritty integrity of millions of working class Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and recognition of Flossie Perry Collins who passed away on September 8, 2006. A beloved mother, grandmother, and local democratic organizer, Flossie embodied the true spirit of the Democratic Party both publicly and in her daily life.

Born in Newville, Alabama, Flossie moved to Cleveland, Ohio after high school where she married Frederick Douglas Collins and began a career as a nurse. Upon her retirement, Flossie dedicated herself to her community by becoming an active volunteer for organizations including the Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, War 19 Democratic Club, the Parent Teacher Association, and the Gunning Recreation Center. Her service to her community stands as a beacon of the American Spirit of dedication to civic improvement and rich cultural development.

Her steadfast loyalty to volunteering for charitable and meaningful causes locally earned Flossie lifetime friendships and the respect of many that knew her. The programs she spearheaded, including after school activities for at-risk youth and an effort to improve undeveloped neighborhoods through community interaction, became staples to the cultural development of the Cleveland area.

Flossie's unwavering courage and commitment to core values such as honesty, integrity, grace, and love were strengthened and reinforced by a deep faith in God and a sturdy foundation in the true principles of Christianity. For over 60 years, Flossie embodied these principles through being an active member and leader in the Gethsemane Baptist Church. Though she held many titles and performed many duties for the church, her passion was in singing. To her, the choir brought together the voices of many people and bound them together in unity and community--just as she did in her life.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory and recognizing the accomplishments of Flossie Collins as a woman who stood for true American values.