Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

[From Time Magazine, Sept. 17, 2006]

What Would War Look Like?

(By Michael Duffy)

The first message was routine enough: a ``Prepare to

Deploy'' order sent through naval communications channels to

a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two

mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships

out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1.

But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than

usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of

Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing

U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian

Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of

those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the

analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash

up once again.

What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing dues.

There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers

top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor,

petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of

the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide

bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of

the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the

CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of

minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest

that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--

prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for

war with Iran.

No one knows whether--let alone when--a military

confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that

admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of

their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for

scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be

put into practice. ``Planners always plan,'' says a Pentagon

official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only

that the Navy is

stepping up its ``listening and learning'' in the Persian

Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran

tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two-

week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to

the White House to the highest reaches of the

military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown

with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons,

its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of

the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to

avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom),

General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference

for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he

holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda.

On its face, of course, the notion of a war with Iran seems

absurd. By any rational measure, the last thing the U.S. can

afford is another war. Two unfinished wars--one on Iran's

eastern border, the other on its western flank--are daily

depleting America's treasury and overworked armed forces.

Most of Washington's allies in those adventures have made it

clear they will not join another gamble overseas. What's

more, the Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza

Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any

other project in its 5\1/2\ years in office. For more than 18

months, Rice has kept the Administration's hard-line faction

at bay while leading a coalition that includes four other

members of the U.N. Security Council and is trying to force

Tehran to halt its suspicious nuclear ambitions. Even Iran's

former President, Mohammed Khatami, was in Washington this

month calling for a ``dialogue'' between the two nations.

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or

the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides

would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they

won't stumble into one anyway. And for all the good arguments

against any war now, much less this one, there are just as

many indications that a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis

between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than

many realize. ``At the moment,'' says Ali Ansari, a top Iran

authority at London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy think

tank, ``we are headed for conflict.''

So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of

experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and

elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture:

military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have

a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost. And

therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and

its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the

dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short

of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its

dangerous game?

Madam Speaker, all the signs of preparation for war against Iran are there for anyone who can see. Covert action, the Strategic Air Command, the selection of 1,500 targets, and a plan for a naval blockade, a faked or hyped intelligence report on the degree of uranium enrichment and the manipulation of the media.

It is Iraq all over again, but instead of a Nation of 25 million, Iran is a Nation of 70 million sitting right next to Iraq, where 130,000 U.S. troops are in danger simply because of the war planning.

Today, while our government borrows money from China, Japan and Korea to pay for a war in Iraq that could cost up to $3 trillion, the administration is preparing to spend more money for a war against Iran. This Congress must not permit this administration to open up another war without permission, without oversight, without justification, without the financial resources, without the human

resources, without a shred of common sense or realism.

Bombs are no substitute for diplomacy. You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Student and Teacher Safety Act.

Two days after celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, this House comes to the floor to debate a bill to limit the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment to students in our Nation's schools. This bill purports to make schools safer for our children and the employees of those schools. Instead it adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that protects no one.

We make a mistake when we rely on randomized searches to prevent the abuse of drugs by children and ensure the peaceful resolution of conflict. Instead of focusing our efforts on educating our children about conflict resolution and engaging them in the decisions about their lives and futures, random searches assume all youth are the same. Searches of students' property may be right and entirely necessary in situations with reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. But randomized searches render all youth suspect and treat them as criminals. High expectations for our children may reap great rewards, but what will we sow with the expectation of deception?

We should rather focus our time and energy on equipping students with the tools and skills necessary to make responsible decisions about their lives. Our guidance must not be based on suspicion and an expectation of poor choices. An environment of distrust will not encourage students to seek out teachers or administrators when they are in trouble or need advice. It will not help students to develop strong character or stand up to negative peer pressure. Instead, it will only further isolate them from the teachers and advisors they see every day.

This bill will not make students and teachers safer. It will only create new divisions between them, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Tom McCaffrey, beloved husband, devoted musician, and teacher to so many. Mr. McCaffrey dedicated his life to encouraging and inspiring Clevelanders and brought them that which they had never felt and taught them the joy, warmth, power and strength of Irish traditional music.

Mr. McCaffrey was born in 1916, in Mohill, County Leitrim, Ireland, where he worked on the family farm until coming to America in 1955. Mr. McCaffrey was unable to resist the allure of music and at 10 years of age he took up the fife and flute. After a year of flirtation with the woodwinds, Mr. McCaffrey found his true love and calling in the fiddle. For knowledge Mr. McCaffrey turned to his father, also a teacher and player of the fiddle, and sought all musicians who traveled through town. It was not long before he mastered the fiddle and with his fine, strong voice, Mr. McCaffrey was requested at local festivals and dances. In Cleveland, he teamed up with Tom Byrne, a master flute player and fellow inspirer, to record the album Irish Music From Cleveland. Mr. McCaffrey and Mr. Byrne had a lifelong friendship full of music and laughter.

At the age of 83, Mr. McCaffrey found his other great love, Alice Kelly. Mr. McCaffrey was known to always have a smile and story ready and never hesitated to share his wealth of knowledge or his music. Recorded at the Smithsonian Institute, Mr. McCaffrey's music will truly live on in those whom he taught and in the hearts of all that have heard him play.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Tom McCaffrey, whose smile, charm, wit, and Irish wisdom will be remembered and shared and whose memory will live in the tunes and tales. I offer my deep condolences to his wife, Alice, to all his family and friends, and to the many who have been inspired and touched by all that he has given.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Satish Kumar, for a lifetime dedicated to teaching and serving as an inspiration to all. Mr. Kumar has done more, seen more, accomplished more and walked more than most and has never ceased in bringing his message to others.

Mr. Kumar started as a Jain monk at the age of nine before being called to greater causes. At 18, Mr. Kumar sought to make Gandhi's vision of a renewed India and peaceful world a reality. To this end Mr. Kumar walked, more than 8,000 miles, from India to four nuclear powers: Russia, France, Britain and the United States, to bring the leader of each a bag of tea and a message of peace and understanding. Carrying no money, he crossed deserts, traversed mountains, withstood snow and was even thrown in jail. Though Herculean in scale, Mr. Kumar's quest was completed, the tea was delivered, and he is still working to bring the message of peace to the world.

Mr. Kumar settled in England in 1973 to become the editor of Resurgence magazine, a post he maintains to this day, as well as the

founder of the Small School in Hartland. The school focuses on combing education with ecological and spiritual values. In 1991, Mr. Kumar helped found Schumacher College, an international center for ecological studies, and serves as its Director of Programmes. Mr. Kumar has also co-founded Jain Spirit, an international magazine that provides insight and information on Jain values and teachings, and helped to etablish the School of the Seed, a college devoted to sustainable living in India. At 70, he still offers a weeklong course on Gandhian Values.

When Mr. Kumar was 50 years old he undertook another pilgrimage, once more with no money, he walked the holy sights in Britain, Glastonbury, Canterbury, Lindisfarne and Iona. In 2000, Mr. Kumar was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Education from the University of Plymouth and in 2001 an Honorary Doctorate in Literature from the University of Lancaster. Mr. Kumar continues to teach, lecture, and run workshops on ecology, holistic education and voluntary simplicity and authors books on the same subjects.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join in honor, gratitude and recognition of Satish Kumar. His neverending quest to encourage and teach serves as an inspiration and his messages of world peace and simple living continues to affect the lives of many. I wish Mr. Kumar, his wife June Mitchell, and son, Mukti Kumar Mitchell, an abundance of health, peace and happiness as he continues his journey onward from here.

Mr. Speaker, today's Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 has nothing to do with protecting the right to vote and everything to do with restricting it. The real threat to our electoral system is not a contrived conspiracy of noncitizens illegally voting in Federal elections. The true threat is vulnerable electronic voting machines.

It is machines with no paper trail. It is poll workers with inadequate training and resources. It is voter alienation because people have lost faith in the political process. Congress has the ability and the duty to act on real voting reform that addresses the real issues that mar our electoral system, issues researched and documented by countless activists and academics.

There is a reason the article in the Washington Post, ``Major problems at Polls Feared,'' does not once mention concerns about noncitizens voting. It is not a real issue of voting reform. If we want to strengthen democracy, we want to protect the right to vote. We want to reengage Americans in our government.

We need real voting reform now. Throw out electronic voting machines, that Diebold technology election hacker's dream. Go to paper ballots, a paper trail. Make our election process honest again. Enough of stolen elections. Make every vote count, and let every vote be honestly counted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and Chairman Shuster, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Lantos for your support of this bill.

What is noteworthy is that in the last few days, this Congress has had three pieces of legislation in front of it that have a similar theme: The tribute that we paid to the Dalai Lama, and yesterday our support for the one day of peace, and today our support for the PETS Act, all are about compassion and the recognition of the importance of compassion in the life of this Nation.

I think it is important for us to reflect that this is a strong capacity that we have that when we touch it, it touches people's hearts everywhere.

I encourage my colleagues to join in support of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation Transportation Standards Act. Passage of this bill is essential to the safety of all citizens and their pets in emergency and disaster circumstances. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will long be held in our collective conscious. It has been just over 1 year since we saw the terrified and helpless faces of the victims these natural disasters claimed, displaced, and horrified. The unbearably inadequate response to these disasters exacerbates the shame, the heartache and insecurity that has resulted. The images haunt us; and it is not just the images of our fellow human beings, but that of our gracious household pets and service animals.

Among the injustices incurred in the gulf coast were citizens forced to choose between their own safety and that of their pet or service animals. And the example that Mr. Lantos gave of the 9-year-old boy who had to part with his beloved dog is an example of the heartbreak that all of us can relate to.

Some chose to compromise their own safety, unwilling to evacuate without their pet, despite the great risk to themselves and their families. Others were forced to leave these important friends behind, abandoned and alone. Animals were left to survive on their own with little hope of survival, causing the very understandable human emotions of pain and agony that accompanied this choice.

Some, dependent upon a service animal for their own safety and survival, were made to leave their companions behind, a direct threat to their own security.

It is estimated that well over half of U.S. households include a pet or vital service animal as a member of the family. In the Kucinich household, we have three dogs, two beagles and one cocker spaniel, and anyone who has a pet understands how it would tug at your heart to have to be separated from that pet in a time of emergency.

We know that the gulf coast region affected by the hurricanes had as many as 600,000 pets and service animals. Most of these animals could not be saved, and few have been reunited with their original owners.

H.R. 3858, the PETS Act, will ensure that emergency preparedness for the safety of our own citizens includes the proper protocol to identify, evacuate, and shelter people, pets and service animals in times of emergency evacuations.

Natural disasters are unavoidable; compromising the safety of our citizens is not. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3858, the PETS Act, to ensure that in times of disaster no citizen is forced to compromise their own safety or well-being for that of their service animal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Ohio (HCCO), as they celebrate 25 years of promotion and support of the economic growth and development for Hispanic business owners.

The HCCO was formed in 1981 to address the glaring absence of Hispanic-owned businesses in American society. Concerned, motivated and determined, a small group of Hispanic business owners united forces to incorporate the HCCO as a recognized non-profit in 1983. The membership and scope of services of the HCCO has grown, yet the mission has remained the same--to focus on providing assistance, services and support to local Hispanic business owners.

Over the past quarter century, HCCO has vastly evolved from its diminutive beginnings to a viable coalition of business owners that represent the interests and memberships of more than 7,500 Hispanic- owned businesses in the State of Ohio. The HCCO provides a wide range of support services, including: the sponsorship of seminars, workshops and networking luncheons and dinners; technical assistance and support; discounts on medical and dental benefits; and a wide range of support services for individuals interested in starting their own business.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Ohio, as they celebrate 25 years of service and promotion of economic justice for Americans of Hispanic heritage. As they work together to create avenues of business opportunity for Hispanic Americans, the pathways to economic security and stability for every American is elevated from a vision, to reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Emily Stuart. Throughout her lifetime, Mrs. Stuart brightened the lives of family and friends in the community of Parma, Ohio.

As a kind and active citizen, Mrs. Stuart played an integral role in local politics. She was a member of the Parma Democratic Club and the Woman's Democratic Club. Mrs. Stuart revolutionized the process of communication between constituents by devising a system of post cards to collect contact information. In addition, she spent countless hours making phone calls and posting yard signs for local politicians. During her involvement in local politics, she herself rose to the ranks of precinct committeewoman; a position she maintained for more than 20 years.

But Mrs. Stuart is not just an integral part of Parma politics. From her home on Harold Avenue, she has enjoyed 43 years of marriage to her loving husband, Joe Stuart. Together they became involved in committees and clubs across northeast Ohio. Her brothers, Edward and Stephen Mazur and sister Janice Warner along with many nieces and nephews are among the many family members touched by Mrs. Stuart's delightful stories and laughter.

While the world changed dramatically over the course of Mrs. Stuart's lifetime, she believed in maintaining the traditions of her Polish ancestry. Mrs. Stuart contributed to the culture of Parma by joining the Polish Legion of American Veterans. Close friends say she welcomed any and every opportunity to speak her native language.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebrating the life of Emily Stuart; a beloved family member and friend. Over the years, her dedication to service brought joy to the lives of so many, including mine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute and recognition of Ramon A. Torres upon retiring from his position as Executive Director of the Multilingual Multicultural Education Office in Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. Torres was raised in Coamo, Puerto Rico where he attended the Barrio Pedro Garcia School from kindergarten to seventh grade. At age 11, he moved to Cleveland to join family members and attend St. Augustine Elementary School. With limited proficiency in English, Mr. Torres overcame many challenges in order to assimilate to life in the United States. His hard work and perseverance enabled him to attend Cleveland State University where he earned a bachelor's degree in Education and a Masters of Education in Secondary School Administration and Supervision.

During his career as an educator, Mr. Torres served and inspired students in the Cleveland Public Schools for 29 years. In the community, Mr. Torres assumed responsibilities such as Project Manager and Education Teacher Consultant of Bilingual Education Programs and Latin American Cultures. Mr. Torres also served as President of Woodmen of the World Fraternal Lodge and on the Hispanic Steering Council at Cuyahoga Community College.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Ramon A. Torres. After making many notable contributions to education and the community, may he enjoy a peaceful and rewarding retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Honorable Dr. Oleh Shamshur, Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States and extend a warm welcome to him as he visits Cleveland, Ohio to celebrate the Fifteenth Anniversary of Ukraine's Proclamation of Independence with leaders and members of our Ukrainian-American community.

For nearly 80 years, the United Ukrainian Organizations of Greater Cleveland have served as a vital coalition of historical and cultural significance, aimed at preserving and promoting all aspects of Ukrainian culture. These guardians of history have succeeded in keeping alive the rich traditions of their beloved homeland--from Ukraine's religious and social customs, to the artistic, history and world contributions that have left an indelible mark across the globe.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of Ukrainian statehood, the United Ukrainian Organizations of Greater Cleveland bolstered fundraising and outreach efforts that extended from the shores of Lake Erie to the sands of the Black Sea. Additionally, this organization was instrumental in the creation of the

Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Here in Cleveland, the Ukrainian Museum-Archives is a monument to the struggles and triumphs of the people of the Ukraine and reflects the passion and dedication of the members of our Ukrainian community who seek to keep the stories, spirit, and history of the Ukraine alive by preserving cultural artifacts, advancements, historical documents. books and photographs to pass along to every new generation.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and welcome of Dr. Oleh Shamshur, Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, along with the leaders and members, past and present, of the United Ukrainian Organizations of Greater Cleveland. Their vigilant determination to raise awareness of their struggle for liberty serves as a monument to all who have traveled to America seeking freedom and opportunity and reflects the vibrant fabric of diversity of our Cleveland community and our entire nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of George M. Nashar, dedicated father and community leader, whose lifelong service has merited him this year's North Olmsted Democrat of the Year Award.

Born in Detroit, Michigan, Mr. Nashar grew with a strong sense of responsibility and family values as the oldest of seven siblings. After graduating from Detroit Institute of Technology and Cuyahoga Community College, he proudly served in the U.S. Army for two years. During his service, Mr. Nashar bore witness to the Berlin Wall crisis, a harsh reality of the Cold War that left a lasting impression upon him, strengthening his democratic values and call to civic duty. Back in America, after his service, Mr. Nashar fell in love with his wife Donna and settled down in Ohio, where the two have been happily married for 41 years and blessed with three beautiful daughters, Nancy, Nicole, and Noelle, and nine lively grandchildren. A devoted husband and father, Mr. Nashar has supported his family throughout the years with his employment at General Motors. After retirement, Mr. Nashar stayed active working for Gerald Fuerst at the Clerk of Courts.

In addition to being a hard-working and warm-hearted family man, Mr. Nashar is an exemplary American citizen because of his enthusiastic involvement throughout his local community of North Olmsted. Actively committed to his children's education, Mr. Nashar served for several years on the St. Richard School Parent Club as President and as Chairman of fun and successful fundraisers, in addition to serving for 12 years on the Magnificat High School Board of Governors. A devote Catholic, Mr. Nashar has been ushering for Sunday Mass at St. Richard Parish for over 20 years and has made many friends within the church community.

Mr. Nashar goes above and beyond his civic responsibility with engagement in the political process. As a member of the North Olmsted Democratic Club, serving as its President for two years and repeatedly sponsoring their annual picnic, he works to foster unity and political awareness. From 1990-2006, Mr. Nashar honorably served as Ward 3 Councilman for the City of North Olmsted, chairing several committees including Streets and Transportation and Safety. During these 16 years he was well-respected and repeatedly

re-elected by his constituents because of his steadfast and earnest dedication to their needs as not only a representative, but a friend.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of George M. Nashar, the 2006 North Olmsted Democrat of the Year, whose unwavering commitment to serving his family, community, and country has left a lasting impression, inspiring those around him.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lantos for his undying commitment to human rights. It was you and Mrs. Lantos who worked to see a Human Rights Caucus created, and you have kept these issues in front of the Congress, and I salute you for that.

I also salute my colleague Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her commitment to human rights. I think it is important that we always bring these issues before the House.

But I think it is also important to relate to Members of Congress the context in which this resolution is occurring and to look back over the last 4 years at a similar context.

The Baha'is in Iran certainly deserve to have a full according of their rights. As a matter of fact, this House has passed eight resolutions that condemns Iran for persecuting the Baha'i faith. At the same time, the House has not passed any resolutions condemning any other Nation for the persecution of the Baha'is.

The 2006 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has identified three nations that persecute the Baha'i faith: Iran, Iraq and Egypt. I have quotes here that I would like to submit for the Record that establishes in each case, of Iran, Egypt and Iraq, the objections out of the 2006 annual report. This 2006 annual report also highlights concerns with the treatment of the Baha'i faith in China, Eritrea, Laos and Belarus.

I think it is important to note that the Baha'i faith is one which celebrates peace and human unity. That is why it is significant for us to always defend any religion which is trying to work for peace.

It is, therefore, paradoxical that this resolution is being offered at a time when some in the administration are on a path towards war against Iran.

I would like to submit for the Record a copy of the current issue from Time magazine which says: ``What Would War Look Like?'' We are talking about war with Iran, and it says, ``A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable.'' This particular article out of Time magazine is very significant. The Navy has said that there is a submarine, a cruiser missile, mine sweepers and mine hunters that are prepared to deploy to the Persian Gulf. It is very serious. A naval blockade of Iran would be an act of war, and if we started with that, Iran would surely escalate.

There have been independent reports published in the New Yorker magazine and the Guardian that U.S. military personnel have been or are already deployed inside and around Iran gathering intelligence and targeting information, and there are reports published in Newsweek, ABC News and GQ magazine that the U.S. has been planning and is now recruiting members of MEK, a paramilitary group inside of Iran, to conduct lethal operations and destabilizing operations inside Iran. I submit articles from the New Yorker, from an antiwar.com Web site, from the Weekly Standard with regard to those facts.

Our Director of National Intelligence has said that Iran is a long way away from having a nuclear capability, 5 to 10 years, and that assumes that they are working around the clock, something that has not been proffered. We should keep in mind that last week, according to the Washington Post, the U.N. inspectors are disputing an Iran report by a House staff of the House Intelligence Committee which, according to the comment to the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was ``false, misleading and unsubstantiated.'' I have here a copy of the letter from the IAEA to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to misleading and false information that was included in a staff report that is being circulated around Congress, and I submit it for the Record.

I have a copy of a letter from myself to Christopher Shays, he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, which asks for an accounting by the Director of National Intelligence, who was supposed to be charged with the responsibility of reviewing this particular staff report before it reached publication. I submit this for the Record.

I have a copy of a Washington Post article which characterizes the U.N. inspectors' dispute with Iran or the U.N. inspector disputing the Iran report by the House panel.

Why am I submitting all this in the context of a resolution that has to do with standing up for the rights of the Baha'i to practice their faith? Because, once again, the Baha'i would not want this resolution to be used as part of a series of steps to encourage an attack on Iran. I can state that with certainty, knowing the Baha'i religion as I do, and yet we are seeing a series of steps, covert operations affecting Iran, preparation of bombing targets having already occurred, preparations for a naval blockade. I mean, this all points to the United States moving in a direction of attacking Iran. That is antithetical to the spirit of the Baha'i faith, which we are here today to stand up for.

There will be other resolutions that will relate to Iran which will be on the floor of the House this afternoon, and I expect to be speaking to those as well.

I want to say that, as the Speaker may be aware, it was 4 years ago I warned this House that the administration was taking steps to take this country to war against Iraq, and they had not made their case, and we actually went to war against Iraq based on false pretenses.

I am once again stating to the people of this Congress that we ought to be very careful about these series of initiatives which this administration is putting forth at this time so that we have to be aware that if they are making a case for war based on these resolutions, we should be very careful about what our intention is in passing these resolutions.

I want to thank the gentleman from California for the opportunity to point out these matters relevant to Iran.

I want to thank the gentleman from California, and I appreciate your commitment to constitutional democracies. My statement here today, while I can certainly agree with the sentiment that was expressed and the spirit of this resolution with respect to hoping for constitutional democracies, I think we need to look at the letter of the resolution and put it in the context of the administration's policies.

First of all, this particular resolution expresses its profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. I would like to read from some research that is available on the Web, Recent Iranian History from Wikipedia. It says that: with the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905 to 1911. In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty.

During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The allies of World War II forced the Shah to abdicate, in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive.

In 1951, a pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, rose to prominence in Iran. Now, Mossadegh was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of an Anglo-Iranian oil company that was later named BP, which controlled all the country's oil reserves.

Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower agreed and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad.

Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing conducted from the U.S. embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence, and as a result protests broke out across the nation, anti- and pro-monarchy. Protesters violently clashed in the streets leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days pro- Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's

residence. Mossadegh surrendered and was arrested on the 19th of August 1953, tried for treason, and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Now, keep in mind that on March 8 of 1951, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian mullahs his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. According to the Cornell University library, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, most of whose stock was owned by the British Government, had been paying Iran much less than the British Government took from the company in taxes. Mossadegh's nationalization bill scared the company into concessions that were made too late. The Premier was committed to nationalization. Much to the surprise of the British, he went through with it right down to the expulsion of British technicians without whom the Iranians could not run the Abadan refinery. Results? The West lost the Iranian oil supply, and the Iranian Government lost the oil payments.

When we are talking about democracy in Iran, Iran had a democratic government which was overthrown because of oil. So let's celebrate democracy and not try to at the same time praise a process that resulted in an overthrow of democracy.

I think when we look at this particular resolution, you have to read these resolutions to the letter to get an idea of what is going on here.

Here we are expressing the profound hope that the people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906. They had a democratic government. The U.S. helped overthrow it.

One of the last resolutions, we talked about initiating an active and consistent dialogue with other governments in the European Union in order to persuade the Government of Iran to rectify its human rights practices. We should be talking to the Government of Iran if we object to their human rights practices.

Resolution 415 says human rights will be considered a significant factor in the foreign policy of the United States with regard to Iran, but we are not stating that with the other countries that have violated the human rights of their citizens.

My concern is that while these resolutions in and of themselves may have elements that are salutary, at the same time you have to put them in the context of the administration's policy, which is a buildup to war against Iran. That is why I am raising a note of caution here. You have to see why we have three resolutions on the floor of the House dealing with Iran on the same day our President is before the United Nations making a statement which characterizes Iran in much the same way that Iraq was characterized before the United Nations in another visit by the President. I think we have to be very cautious about the path this country is taking.

We can stand for democracy and human rights in Iran. We can do all of those things without taking steps and letting our efforts, which might be in good faith, by the way, without letting those efforts be used as a buildup towards war. I am saying look at all of this in the context in which it is occurring.

Look at Time magazine this week and look at the stories that have been published in The New Yorker. Watch the development of this administration with respect to covert activities in Iran.

Madam Speaker, you might be interested to know that our House Subcommittee on Government Operations, which has jurisdiction over national security and international relations, we were supposed to have a classified briefing by the State Department and by the Department of Defense on this issue on what is going on in Iran. They refused to appear. They still refuse to appear. They are not accountable to Congress. I am raising this issue so my colleagues know that you have to look at the context in which these resolutions are being offered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the opportunity to present these observations.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this resolution, and I ask the gentleman with his consent that I could be added as an original cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for this opportunity to address this resolution, which calls upon the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing.

The prayer of Saint Francis begins with these words: make me a channel of our peace. And the gentleman from San Francisco, certainly throughout his career and here again today, affirms his work for peace. I want to join with him and the prime sponsor, Mr. Conyers, in requesting the President to issue this annual proclamation.

This is an important moment when we can unite as a Congress to stand for peace. Because if we can do that for one moment, and we can advocate that it be done for a day, we know that we have the capacity to master the social arts to the point where we can make peace a practice in our everyday lives, not just the absence of war, but the active practice of a capacity for mutuality, for understanding, for peace-giving, for peace-sharing. We have this capacity.

We showed it last week when we came together on a resolution honoring the Dalai Lama with a Congressional Gold Medal. I want to thank Mr. Lantos for giving me the opportunity. Because of you, I had the chance to meet the Dalai Lama years ago.

We have this capacity in this Congress to bring our aspirations to the highest level possible and in that way connect with the whole world. Because what this talks about is one day around the world for peace and sharing. So we at this moment unite with a family of humanity. We at this moment stand strong on principles of human unity. We can do that in this moment, and we can do it for many other moments as well.