Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Pierre Bejjani, the president of the Northeast Ohio Lebanese American Association, NOLAA, as he is honored by the American Nationalities Movement.

Mr. Bejjani was born in Lebanon and immigrated to Cleveland, Ohio 1981. He attended The Ohio State University where he earned a degree in civil engineering. He returned to Cleveland after graduating and began working as a construction manager. Mr. Bejjani started his own business in 1991. Today, he serves as the managing director/executive editor of Profile News Ohio and is the senior partner for Diversity Advertising Agency.

Mr. Bejjani has served the Cleveland community since the mid-1990s. He organized the first Annual Lebanon Day on November 22, 2011. He currently serves as the president NOLAA and vice president of the Cleveland American Middle East Organization. He is also on the boards of Worldwide Intercultural Network of Cleveland, Global Cleveland Initiative and the Recruiting Battalion of Northern Ohio.

As a result of his dedication to the community, Mr. Bejjani has been received numerous awards. He received NOLAA's Community Recognition Award in 2009. In 2010 he was the recipient of the Census 2010 Partnership Award. Mr. Bejjani was also recognized for his work on the U.S. Army Strength in Diversity Program in April, 2011.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the life and achievements of Mr. Pierre Bejjani and congratulating him on being this year's American Nationalities Movement's honoree.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. David Dawson as he retires after 40 years of service at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Legal Aid Society of Cleveland is a law firm for low-income individuals and provides services in the areas of consumer rights, domestic violence, education, employment, family law, health, housing, foreclosure, immigration, public benefits, utilities and tax. It was founded as a nonprofit in 1905 and until 1966 operated primarily with volunteers. In 1966, staff attorneys were hired and today there are 53 attorneys, 40 staff members and more than 1800 volunteers that serve Cleveland's low-income individuals. Legal Aid's mission is to secure justice and resolve fundamental problems for those who are low income and otherwise vulnerable by providing high quality legal services and working for systemic solutions.

Mr. Dawson attended Kenyon College where he received a degree in English in 1964. He earned his Juris Doctor in 1971 from Vanderbilt University. He bravely served with the United States Navy between 1964 and 1967. He began working at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland in 1971 as a staff attorney in the Hough Neighborhood Office. Throughout the past 40 years Mr. Dawson has also served as an Attorney in Charge, the Civil Director, and today serves as the Deputy Director for the Main Office and Interim Managing Attorney for the Lorain County Office.

Because of his dedication to serving the people of Cleveland and vast expertise in poverty law, Mr. Dawson was honored by the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation in 2010.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mr. David Dawson as he retires after 40 years of dedicated service to the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Reverend Marvin McMickle and congratulate him on his retirement after twenty- four years of service as the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. Rev. McMickle will become the president at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

Rev. McMickle was born in 1948 in Chicago, Illinois. He was ordained as a reverend in New York City in 1973. Rev. McMickle served as the pastor of St. Paul Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey and as the associate pastor for the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City prior to becoming the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio in 1987.

In addition to being a staple in Cleveland's spiritual community, Rev. McMickle is also a major influence in academia and politics. He earned his undergraduate degree from Aurora College, a Master of Divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary, a Doctor of Ministry degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and a doctorate in philosophy from Case Western Reserve University. Over the years, Rev. McMickle has taught at several colleges and universities including Ashland Theological Seminary, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland State University, Fordham, Princeton and spent a semester as a visiting professor at Yale University.

Rev. McMickle has served as president of Shaker Heights School Board and Montclair Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He has also served on the boards of Greater Cleveland Roundtable, United Pastors in Mission, Urban League of Greater Cleveland, Gateway Economic Development Committee and United Way Services of Greater Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in thanking Rev. Marvin McMickle for more than two decades of leadership and service to the congregation of Antioch Baptist Church and residents of Cleveland. I wish him luck in his new position.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commemorate the life of James E. Burch, military veteran, advertising executive and lifelong anti-war and environmental activist. A renaissance man with a passion for leaving the world better than he found it, Jim spent his life acting on the life philosophy passed along to him by his mother, ``I am my brother's keeper.''

Born in Evanston, Illinois on February 27, 1926, Jim served in the United States Infantry in the South Pacific. At age 19, he became the program director of the Armed Forces Radio Service station WVTQ in Osaka, Japan. He was honorably discharged in May 1946. After working in the radio business in Hollywood, he moved to Arizona where he met and married his wife of 61 years, Wileta. In 1951, Jim, Wileta and their two children, Bill and Barbara moved to northern California where Jim began a 23-year career working with the San Francisco-based advertising agency Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn where he created numerous award winning advertisements.

Jim left his professional position and began his second career as a volunteer activist. Instrumental in the beginnings and ongoing work of Sequoia Seminar, Creative Initiative, Project Survival, Beyond War and the Foundation for Global Community, Jim contributed his many talents to groundbreaking projects. Among them were, the beginning of a recycling program in Palo Alto, California that became a model for the Nation, the first space bridge to connect the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War (1984), the first satellite space bridge connecting seven countries on five continents (1985) and the creation of a series of nature documentaries that were featured on PBS. Jim served as a Member of the Board of Trustees for the Foundation for Global Community until December of 2010.

Launching yet a third career, Jim was elected to the Palo Alto City Council in 1999. In 2005, at the age of 78, he was elected mayor, the oldest mayor in the city's history. While knowing that the job required a local focus, Jim continued to bring his understanding of global interconnectedness to city government. He observed on more than one occasion that, ``It's one world, it's one Earth, it's one planet; it's one ecosystem. We're either all going to make it or nobody's going to make it.''

Jim is survived by Wileta, his son Bill Burch, (Bill's wife, Kathy), his daughter Barbara Lindsay, (Barbara's husband, Targe) and grandchildren Merrill Burch, David Lindsay, (David's wife, Stephanie), Kristina Lindsay, and his many friends and colleagues whose lives were enriched by his sense of humor, creativity and generosity.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

The Declaration of Occupy D.C.

Consented to by General Assembly November 30th, 2011

We have been captives of corrupt economic and political

systems for far too long. The concentration of wealth and the

purchase of political power stifle the voices of the

increasingly disenfranchised 99 percent. Corporate dominance

subverts democracy, intentionally sows division, destroys the

environment, obstructs the just and equitable pursuit of

happiness, and violates the rights and dignity of all life.

Occupy D.C. is an open community of diverse individuals,

facing different forms of oppression and impacted by economic

exploitation to differing degrees, but united by a shared

vision of equality for the common good. The harsh economic

conditions that have plagued the poor, working class, and

communities of color for generations have begun to affect the

previously financially secure. This acute awareness of our

common fate has united us in our struggle for a better

future. We recognize that inequality and injustice

systemically affect every aspect of our society: our

communities, homes, and hearts. To build the world we

envision, we commit ourselves to overcoming our personal

biases so we can successfully challenge systems of oppression

in solidarity.

We are peaceably assembled at McPherson Square, practicing

direct democracy on the doorstep of K Street, the epicenter

of destructive corporate and governmental relationships.

Recognizing that the term ``occupy'' is associated with

exploitation, violence, and imperialism, we are reclaiming it

to mean the peaceful liberation of public space. In this

disenfranchised city, we are insisting that our economic and

political systems serve the people's interests. Now is the

time to advance and complete the struggles of the many who

came before us.

We are assembled because . . .

It is absurd that the 1 percent has taken 40 percent of the

nation's wealth through exploiting labor, outsourcing jobs,

and manipulating the tax code to their benefit through

special capital tax rates and loopholes. The system is rigged

in their favor, yet they cry foul when anyone even dares to

question their relentless class warfare.

Candidates in our electoral system require huge sums of

money to be competitive. These contributions from multi-

national corporations and wealthy individuals destroy

responsive representative governance. A system of backroom

deals, kickbacks, bribes, and dirty politics overrides the

will of the people. The rotation of decision makers between

the public and private sectors cultivates a network of public

officials, lobbyists, and executives whose aligned interests

do not serve the American people.

The entrenched two-party system overlooks public interests

by pursuing narrow political goals. This climate encourages

candidates to polarize voters for individual power and

personal gain. Citizens' meaningful input has been

compromised by gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and

unresponsive politicians. Residents of Washington, D.C.,

continue to lack autonomy and legislative representation.

The 1 percent benefits from economic, political, and legal

structures that oppress

communities long targeted by displacement, denial of

sovereignty, slavery, and other injustices. These persecuted

but resilient communities continue to suffer through

generations of disproportionately higher rates of

unemployment, poverty, criminalization, and homelessness.

Facets of the 1 percent campaign to blame these groups for

these problems while obstructing healing and restoration.

Those with power have divided us from working in solidarity

by perpetuating historical prejudices and discrimination

based on perceived race, religion, immigrant or indigenous

status, income, age, gender, gender identity, sexual

orientation, and disability, among other things. These

divisions have inhibited our ability to work in solidarity,

though today we recognize the power of uniting as the 99

percent.

Financial institutions gambled with our savings, homes, and

economy. They collapsed the financial system and needed the

public to bail them out of their failures yet deny any

responsibility and continue to fight oversight. Corporations

loot from those whose labor creates society's prosperity,

while the government allows them to privatize profits and

socialize risk.

Corporate interests threaten life on Earth by extracting

and burning fossil fuels and resisting the necessary

transition to renewable energy. Their drilling, mining,

clear-cutting, overfishing, and factory farming destroys the

land, jeopardizes our food and water, and poisons the soil

with near impunity. They privilege polluters over people by

subsidizing fossil fuels, blocking investments in clean

energy and efficient transportation, and hiding environmental

destruction from public oversight.

Private corporations, with the government's support, use

common resources and infrastructure for short-term personal

profit, while stifling efforts to invest in public goods.

The U.S. government engages in drawn-out, costly conflicts

abroad. Numerous acts of conquest have been, and continue to

be, pursued to control resources, overthrow foreign

governments, and install subservient regimes. These wars

destroy the lives of innocent civilians and American

soldiers, many of whom suffer adverse effects throughout

life. These operations are a blank check to divert money from

domestic priorities.

Government authorities cultivate a culture of fear to

invade our privacy, limit assembly, restrict speech, and deny

due process. They have failed in their duty to protect our

rights. Exacerbated by profiteering interests, the criminal

justice system has unfairly targeted underprivileged

communities and outspoken groups for prosecution rather than

protection.

Corporatized culture warps our perception of reality. It

cheapens and mocks the beauty of human thought and experience

while promoting excessive materialism as the path to

happiness. The corporate news media furthers the interests of

the very wealthy, distorts and disregards the truth, and

confines our imagination of what is possible for ourselves

and society.

Leaders are trading our access to basic needs in exchange

for handouts to the ultra-wealthy. Our rights to healthcare,

education, food, water, and housing are sacrificed to profit-

driven market forces. They are attacking unemployment

insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, creating

an uncertain future for us all.*

A better world is possible.

To all people,

We, the Washington D.C. General Assembly occupying K Street

in McPherson Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble and reclaim the

commons. Re-conceive ways to build a democratic, just, and

sustainable world.

To all who value democracy, we encourage you to collaborate

and share available resources.

Join your voice with ours and let it amplify until the

heart of the movement booms with our chorus of solidarity.

*These grievances are not all inclusive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Harold L. Williams as he retires after 35 years of service at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Legal Aid Society of Cleveland is a law firm for low-income individuals and provides services in the areas of consumer rights, domestic violence, education, employment, family law, health, housing, foreclosure, immigration, public benefits, utilities and tax. It was founded as a nonprofit in 1905 and until 1966 operated primarily with volunteers. In 1966, staff attorneys were hired and today there are 53 attorneys, 40 staff members and more than 1800 volunteers that serve Cleveland's low-income individuals. Legal Aid's mission is to secure justice and resolve fundamental problems for those who are low income and otherwise vulnerable by providing high quality legal services and working for systemic solutions.

Mr. Williams began working at Legal Aid Society of Cleveland in 1975 in the Law Reform Unit. Since 2003, he has served as the managing attorney of Legal Aid's Consumer Law Unit. Mr. Williams also supervises Legal Aid's law participation in Ohio's Save the Dream foreclosure prevention program. He is the editor and principal author of Ohio Consumer Law.

Because of his dedication to serving the people of Cleveland and his vast expertise in consumer law, Mr. Williams was the recipient of the William J. Brown Consumer Protection Award from the Ohio Attorney General in March 2010.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mr. Harold L. Williams as he retires after 35 years of dedicated service to the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Schrader amendment to H.R. 10, the REINS Act. The REINS Act makes certain regulations that protect American priorities like public health, our economy, and workers' rights, extraordinarily difficult to enact by requiring Congressional approval even though Congress already has the power to disapprove any regulation. The Schrader Act further hobbles regulatory efforts by requiring an additional cost-benefit analysis, which is heavily biased against regulations which protect things that are not usually monetized like clean air, clean water, and public health protections. I could not support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. I support a number of provisions included in this bill such as the $10 million for the Gulf War Veterans' Illness Research Program. Yet I cannot support legislation that includes billions of dollars for our military operations overseas.

I remain concerned over the funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund at DoD and the State Department included in this bill. H.R. 2055 includes a total of $126.3 billion for the OCO account, which is used to support our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. has spent a total of 19 years combined in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a total of more than $1.3 billion. As official military operations in Iraq draw to a close, we have to note that Iraq is not much closer to a democracy than it was when we first invaded the country in 2003. Similarly, we would be foolish to think that our support of the corrupt central government and continued military intervention in Afghanistan would result in stability.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the President unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress.

The Founders saw article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power as essential to a check and balance against executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.

This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the State. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this. We're giving the State more power over individuals with this bill. It's the wrong direction.

Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Our children deserve a world where they know that while their government will protect them, that it's not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts and going, as the PATRIOT Act does, into their banking records or into their educational records.

We've got to keep the government out of people's lives and stop the government from getting more into war, which gives the government more control over people. This is a time we take a stand for the Constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it comes to matters of war.

As I am preparing to speak, I'm thinking about a debate we had 3 years ago where banks received $700 billion, about the Fed 1 month ago printing $7.7 trillion for banks in this country and abroad, and here we're telling the American people who happen to be unemployed, you know, we're thinking of cutting benefits 40 weeks.

People want work, not welfare. People want work, not unemployment compensation. But when people do not have work, unemployment insurance is essential. It is a lifeline. And this legislation significantly cuts unemployment insurance, that safety net that millions rely on. It reduces the number of weeks unemployed workers are eligible for by as much as 40 weeks.

We need more jobs, and yet we have more long-term unemployed. We know the unemployment rate is actually higher because people have stopped looking for work. Nearly 14 million Americans are out of work, and among the long-term unemployed, more than half have been out of work for over a year.

The problem is not a lack of effort for those seeking a job, the problem is a lack of jobs. Let's get America back to work, not be cutting unemployment compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I would like to place in the Record an article from the Christian Science Monitor entitled, ``Used-car salesman as Iran proxy? Why assassination plot doesn't add up for experts,'' and also from Mother Jones, ``Four Things You Need to Know About the Iran Bomb Plot.''

[From The Christian Science Monitor--CSMonitor.com, Oct. 12, 2011]

Used-Car Salesman as Iran Proxy? Why Assassination Plot Doesn't Add Up

for Experts

(By Scott Peterson)

The U.S. has blamed the specialist Qods Force in an Iran

assassination plot. But those who track the group say the

plot doesn't reflect the careful planning, efficiency, and

strategy the Qods Force is known for.

How careful is Iran's Qods Force when it comes to covert

operations abroad?

This wing of the Revolutionary Guard was accused by U.S.

military commanders in Iraq in 2007 and 2008 of jeopardizing

the efforts of more than 150,000 American troops on the

ground, of backing militias of all stripes, and of exercising

strong influence on Baghdad's rulers.

Yet how many Iranian Qods Force operatives did that take?

One U.S. diplomat posted to Baghdad at the time had the

consensus answer: There were just eight Qods Force men in all

of Iraq.

IN PICTURES: Iran's military might

Indeed, the Qods Force has a reputation for careful,

methodical work--as well as effective use of local proxies,

and ultimately their pragmatic deployment by Tehran as covert

tools to expand Iran's influence across a region in flux.

That explains why Iran experts are raising questions about

fresh U.S. charges of an Iran-backed bomb plot, this time to

kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington and blow up the Saudi

and Israeli embassies.

A criminal complaint filed by U.S. prosecutors on Tuesday

charge Mansour Arbabsiar--a naturalized U.S. citizen with an

Iranian passport from Corpus Christi, Texas--and Gholam

Shakuri, ``an Iran-based member of Iran's Qods Force,'' with

plotting to kill the Saudi diplomat on U.S. soil in an

operation ``directed by factions of the Iranian government.''

Details of alleged plot

Those who know Iran well are skeptical, but do not rule out

any possibility. Mr. Arbabsiar may have arranged for $100,000

to be transferred from Iran as a downpayment of $1.5 million

for the hit, as U.S. charges indicate.

Arbabsiar may also have boasted to one alleged accomplice

in the plot--an associate of Mexico's Zeta drug cartel, who

also happened to be an informant of the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration--that his cousin was a ``big general'' in the

Iranian military.

While also describing a series of potential attacks to the

associate, he may even have stated--apparently in secretly

taped conversations--that mass American casualties as a

result were not a problem: ``They want that guy [the

ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f* *k

'em,'' reads the legal complaint.

Why the plot doesn't add up

But Iran specialists who have followed the Islamic Republic

for years say that many details in the alleged plot just

don't add up.

``It's a very strange case, it doesn't really fit Iran's

mode of operation,'' says Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at

the Rand Corp. in Arlington. Va., and coauthor of studies

about the Revolutionary Guard.

``When you look at Iranian use of terrorism, it has some

very specific objectives, whether it's countering the United

States in Iraq or Afghanistan, or retaliating against

perceived Israeli actions,'' says Mr. Nader.

``This [plot] doesn't seem to serve Iran's interests in any

conceivable way,'' says Nader. ``Assassinating the Saudi

ambassador would increase international pressure against

Iran, could be considered an act of war . . . by Saudi

Arabia, it could really destabilize the government in Iran;

and this is a political system that is interested in its own

survival.''

No apparent cost-benefit analysis

Iran has been trying to evade sanctions, strengthen

relations with non-Western partners, while continuing with

its nuclear program, notes Nader.

He says it is ``difficult'' to believe that either Qassim

Soleimani--the canny commander of the Qods Force--or Iran's

deliberative supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali

Khamenei, would order such an attack that ``would put all of

Iran's objectives and strategies at risk.''

That view has been echoed by many Iran watchers, who are

raising doubts about the assassination plot allegations.

``This plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian

policies and procedures,'' writes Gary Sick, an Iran expert

at Columbia University and principal White House aide during

the 1979 Iranian revolution and hostage crisis.

While Iran may have many reasons to be angry at the U.S.

and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Sick notes in a posting on the

Gulf2000/Columbia experts list that he moderates, ``it is

difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic

criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all

possible missions.''

Relying on ``at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal

drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and

U.S. intelligence agents'' appears to be sloppy, adds Sick.

``Whatever else may be Iran's failings, they are not noted

for utter disregard of the most basic intelligence

tradecraft.''

The odd set of details means that the usual cost-benefit

calculation that experts often attribute to Tehran's

decisionmaking does not apply here, says Muhammad Sahimi, in

an analysis for the Tehran Bureau website.

At a time when pressure is building on Iran over ``gross

human rights violations,'' sanctions are showing signs of

working, Iran is ``deeply worried about the fate of its

strategic partner in Syria . . . tensions with Turkey are

increasing . . . and a fierce power struggle is under way

within Iran,'' says Mr. Sahimi, ``it is essentially

impossible to believe that the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran]

would act in such a way as to open a major new front against

itself.''

Previous assassinations only targeted Iranians

Sahimi also notes that, even at the height of the regime's

assassinations of opponents in the past, it did not target

non-Iranians.

``It is keenly aware that it is under the American

microscope,'' says Sahimi, making even less likely Iran

embarking ``on such a useless assassination involving a low-

level, non-player individual.''

Such reservations are not the same ones given by Iranian

officials when they dismiss the charges of a murder plot. But

analysts suggest more information will need to be revealed

before judgment can be made.

``Iran does have a history of terrorism, but they also like

to go through proxies--and true and tested proxies, not

necessarily just anybody,'' says Nader of Rand, citing

Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, or Iraqi Shiite insurgents

trained in Iranian camps.

The man arrested by U.S. law enforcement at JFK airport on

Sept. 29 does not seem to fit that mold.

Not your average proxy

Arbabsiar, a former used car salesman, would appear to have

been a surprise choice of the Qods Force. Yet he apparently

traveled several times to Mexico to recruit drug-cartel hit

men, had $100,000 from Iran paid into a U.S. account and

promised much more, and discussed the plot on a normal

telephone.

``The Iranian modus operandi is only to trust sensitive

plots to their own employees, or to trusted proxies such as

Hezbollah, Saudi Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadr faction in Iraq,

Iran-friendly extremist Muslims in Afghanistan and other pro-

Iranian Muslim groups,'' wrote Kenneth Katzman of the

Congressional Research Service on Gulf2000 on Wednesday.

``Are we to believe that this Texas car seller was a Qods

sleeper agent for many years resident in the U.S.?

Ridiculous,'' said Mr. Katzman, who authored a study of the

Revolutionary Guard in the 1990s. ``They (the Iranian command

system) never ever use such has-beens or loosely connected

people for sensitive plots such as this.''

And what kind of man is he? The Associated Press spoke to

Arbabsiar's friend and former Texas business partner David

Tomscha, who said he was ``sort of a hustler.'' The Iranian-

American, the AP reported, ``was likable, albeit a bit

lazy.''

``He's no mastermind,'' Mr. Tomscha told the AP. ``I can't

imagine him thinking up a plan like that. I mean, he didn't

seem all that political. He was more of a businessman.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record an article from the Washington Post ombudsman entitled, ``Getting ahead of the facts on Iran,'' which states that the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb nor does it say it is building one.

[From The Washington Post, December 9, 2011]

Getting Ahead of the Facts on Iran

(By Patrick B. Pexton)

Headlines are tricky and difficult. They're written

quickly, with print and Web publishing deadlines always

looming, and with space limitations, yet headline writers try

to be creative, informative, and occasionally, humorous.

Few readers remember the hundreds of well-crafted headlines

that entice yet describe a story accurately. But when a

headline is bad, it sticks with you, like a burr you can't

get out of your sock.

So it was with recent headlines that appeared on one of The

Post's online photo galleries.

I was bombarded--about 1,500 e-mails--with complaints about

this headline (it was an organized campaign, but more about

that in a minute).

The photo slideshow depicted Iran's nuclear research

facilities and originally had a headline and subhead that

readers felt were misleading: ``Iran's quest to possess

nuclear weapons, the main headline said, followed by this

subhead: ``Intelligence shows that Iran received foreign

assistance to overcome key hurdles in acquiring a nuclear

weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy

Agency.''

The gallery was linked to two stories by The Post's

national intelligence reporter, Joby Warrick, one on Nov. 6

and one on Nov. 8 describing the latest IAEA report, in which

the U.N. agency said that Iran's drive for nuclear technology

has military aspects that could bring it to the threshold of

a nuclear bomb.

``But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor

does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear

effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad

enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb.

Iran steadfastly denies it is aiming for a nuclear bomb and

says its program is aimed at civilian nuclear energy and

research. Of course, Tehran could be lying. But no one knows

for sure.

This is what the U.S. director of national intelligence,

James R. Clapper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in

March: ``We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open

the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing

various nuclear capabilities that better position it to

produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not

know, however, if Iran will evantually decide to build

nuclear weapons.''

So are there 1,500 Post readers so attuned to headlines

that they wrote me spontaneously to object? Well, no.

This was an effort organized by a left-leaning nonprofit

goup called Just Foreign Policy. On the group's board, among

others, are Julian Bond, longtime NAACP chairman, and Tom

Hayden, former California legislator and 1960s activist.

Founded in 2006, Just Foreign Policy is a shoestring

operation, and it has no staff in Washington.

Robert Naiman, a recent master's degree graduate from the

University of Illinois, runs the group's online campaigns

from his home in Urbana.

``We're not a super-sophisticated operation,'' Neiman

acknowledged with a chuckle. But it is savvy enough to use

the Web effectively. ``We try to inform and agitate,'' he

added. The group works mainly to end the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan and to prevent new ones, such as with Iran.

``Most of what I do is read the newspaper and try to tell

people about what I read,'' Naiman said. ``I stumbled on the

headline, and was astonished, even knowing The Post's

editorial line on Iran. I'm old-fashioned. The editorial page

is one thing and the news is the other. The gallery headlines

belonged more in the former and not the latter.''

So he spotlighted the headline on the top of Just Foreign

Policy's home page, with this message: ``U.S. media helped

railroad the nation into war with Iraq by treating unproven

claims about Iraq's alleged [weapons of mass destruction]

program as facts. Now we're seeing the same behavior

concerning Iran.''

Visitors to Naiman's site could click on a link that sent a

pre-written e-mail urging yours truly to fact-check the

headline. Daily Kos and other left-leaning Web sites picked

it up, adding fuel to the fire. Pretty soon, the ombudsman's

inbox was crammed.

I think Naiman and his Web army were right. The headline

and subhead were misleading.

Photo galleries generally are built by photo editors and

then passed to copy editors for captions and headlines. I

couldn't identify exactly where in the process these

headlines went wrong, but when I raised the issue it was

quickly fixed.

In a Web-driven world, one bad headline can check the globe

in minutes and undermine The Post's credibility. It can also

play into the hands of those who are seeking further

confrontaion with Iran.

I would like to place in the Record an article, ``Experts Cast Doubt on Iran Sanction Strategy'' which raises questions about the Iranian stockpile and how much enriched uranium they actually have.

Experts Cast Doubt on Iran Sanctions Strategy

Monday, November 28, 2011

(By Ardavon Naimi)

Washington, DC.--``We have succeeded in imposing the

strongest sanctions to date on the Iranian regime,'' said Tom

Donilon, National Security Advisor, last week at the

Brookings Institution. Donilon, addressing the

administration's concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program in

light of the latest IAEA report, stated that sanctions have

isolated Iran internationally, helped delay Iran's nuclear

program, and facilitated divisions inside Iran's political

establishment.

But according to some of the experts participating in a

panel discussion preceding Donilon's keynote address, the

sanctions have largely punished ordinary Iranians and have

united, not divided, political factions in Iran.

According to Kevan Harris, U.S. Institute of Peace Jennings

Randolph peace scholar and Ph.D. candidate at the Johns

Hopkins University, the sanctions are ``not as smart as we

think.''

Harris described the effects of sanctions inside of Iran.

``Sanctions are having an impact . . . in what I like to call

`trickle down' sanctions.'' Sanctions affect the ability of

certain banks and large enterprises to obtain foreign

exchange and goods, consequently affecting small and medium

sized enterprises

inside Iran--such as the construction and automobile

industry. This process has resulted in the rising cost of

business. This trickling down helps to rise ``unemployed to a

certain extent, and also decreases wages,'' affecting

everyday Iranians.

Harris challenged the assumption that sanctions facilitate

divisions inside Iran's political elite. ``If you threaten

countries . . . all of a sudden they have a real big

incentive to start working together,'' said Harris. ``At high

peaks of perceived external threat, the discourse of unity

raises and the discourse of factionalism dies down.''

We spend a lot of resources on sanctions . . . political

and economic . . . we need to ask ourselves, what's the cost

benefit of that versus spending resources on diplomatic

options.''

Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the

Council on Foreign Relations believes that ``Iran's nuclear

program is driven by domestic political factors.'' Yet,

Takeyh takes the argument against sanctions a step further.

He believes that Iran's nuclear program is actually the

Islamic Republic's only perceived path to ``international

legitimacy.'' By withstanding sanctions and obtaining a

nuclear weapon, Iran would ``extract tributes from

international concession.'' ``This program . . . may be

beyond diplomatic mediation . . . underpinned by economic

coercion,'' said Takeyh.

Harris challenged Takeyh's assertion, stating ``if the goal

of the program is their perceived only path to international

legitimacy, then it seems like an alternative policy would be

to provide a different path to international legitimacy for

Iran that they don't perceive as open.''

Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American

Scientists, discussed the latest IAEA report on Iran's

nuclear program. ``Is there anything really new in the annex

of the IAEA report?'' asked Ferguson, ``you have to say, not

really. There's not a whole lot of new stuff in there.''

Although there are reasons for concern regarding Iran's

ongoing efforts, Ferguson says that ``most of the things that

are documented, that we know well, happened prior to 2004.''

Iran continues to build up its stockpile of 19.75 percent

enriched uranium, yet Ferguson acknowledges that ``even at 20

percent enrichment, it's still going to take a few hundred

kilos of that amount of material to have enough for one bomb

. . . and Iran so far according to the IAEA, has something

like 80 kilograms enriched to that level.'' Even when

factoring in Iran's 4900 kilograms of 3.5 percent low

enriched uranium, Ferguson concludes that it is ``still not

enough material to provide Iran with a true breakout

capability.'' Ferguson suggested that the best response to

Iran's defiance is not further isolation, but creating

openings for dialogue to facilitate increased safeguards and

limits on Iran's nuclear program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of people who want to speak on this who are in favor of this resolution. In order to make sure that everyone is provided a chance, although I may disagree with what Mr. Sherman is about to say, I'll defend his right to speak, and so I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time all parties have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to place in the Record an article from the Arms Control Association which states that the IAEA board resolution avoided direct censure of Iran, and did not declare Iran to be in noncompliance with its nonproliferation activities.

[From armscontrol.org, Nov. 8, 2011]

The IAEA's Iran Report: Assessment and Implications

The IAEA report and annex released today provides

disturbing and ``credible'' additional details regarding

Iranian nuclear warhead development efforts that have allowed

Tehran to acquire some of the expertise needed to build

nuclear weapons, should it decide to do so.

The broad outline in the IAEA' s latest report on the

military dimensions of Iran's program is not new, but rather,

provides greater detail regarding weapons-related activities

outlined in previous public reports.

The IAEA report and annex reinforce what the

nonproliferation community has recognized for some time: that

Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons development

activities until 2003, then stopped many of them, but

continued other.

The activities documented in the IAEA report, including

research related to nuclear warheads, underscore that

Tehran's claims that it is only seeking the peaceful use of

nuclear energy are false.

Iran's warhead work also contradicts its obligation not to

pursue nuclear weapons under the nuclear Nonproliferation

Treaty (NPT), under which states parties commit ``not to seek

or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear

weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.''

The report suggests that Iran is working to shorten the

timeframe to building the bomb once and if it makes that

decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran

is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.

The report should prompt greater international pressure on

Tehran to respond more fully to the IAEA's questions, allow

for more extensive inspections of its nuclear facilities,

engage more seriously in talks on its nuclear program, and to

agree to confidence building steps to help resolve the

crisis.

Comparison of the IAEA's Findings with Public U.S. Intelligence

Assessments

Because the IAEA report is based largely on intelligence

the United States and other IAEA member states have been

sharing with the agency for some time, in addition to the

agency's own investigations, the information in the report

likely provides greater insight into current U.S. assessments

about Iran's nuclear program.

The U.S. intelligence community appears to stand by the

judgment made in the 2007 NIE that Iran had a nuclear weapons

program that was halted in the fall of 2003.

Moreover, in his testimony before a Senate committee in March

2011, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

confirmed that the intelligence community still had a high

level of confidence that Iran has not yet made a decision to

restart its nuclear weapons program.

Because the weapons program is believed to refer to the

series of projects the IAEA report details, Clapper's

statement is not inconsistent with the notion that some

weapons-related R&D has resumed which is not part of a

determined, integrated weapons-development program of the

type that Iran maintained prior to 2003.

Consistent with the finding of the 2007 U.S. National

Intelligence Estimate, the IAEA report says that a

comprehensive weapons program (known as the AMAD Plan) ``was

stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a `halt order,' '' in

late 2003, but that some of the program's activities were

resumed later. Key personnel are still involved in those

renewed activities apparently tying up loose ends regarding

their prior research and development work.

Summary of Key IAEA Findings on Weapons-Related Activities

The IAEA deserves credit for continuing to press the issue

and to present this important information to the IAEA Board

of Governors in spite of Tehran's unwillingness to cooperate

with the investigation. This resolve helps to bolster the

integrity of the agency and show that countries cannot simply

get away with nonproliferation violations by denial and

obfuscation.

According to the report, Iran was engaged in an effort

prior to the end of 2003 which ran the full range of nuclear

weapons development, from acquiring the raw nuclear material

to working on a weapon they could eventually deliver via a

missile. Just as important as the type of work being carried

out is how that work was organized. The series of projects

that made up Iran's nuclear program appears to have been

overseen by ``senior Iranian figures'' and engaged in

``working level correspondence'' consistent with a

coordinated program.

Key components of this program include:

Fissile Material Production: As documented in previous

reports, Iran ran an undeclared effort to produce

uraniumtetrafluoride (also known as Green Salt), a precursor

for the uranium used in the enrichment process. The

affiliation between this project and other projects directly

related to warhead development suggests that Iran's nuclear

weapons program included both fissile material production and

warhead development Although the report does not detail a

uranium enrichment effort as part of the AMAD Plan, the

secret nature of the Natanz enrichment plant prior to 2002

suggests that it was originally intended to produce the

highly enriched uranium (HEU) for weapons.

High Explosives Testing: Iran's experiments involving

exploding bridgewire (EBW) detonators and the simultaneous

firing of explosives around a hemispherical shape points to

work on nuclear warhead design. The agency says that the type

of high explosives testing matches an existing nuclear weapon

design. Iran admits to carrying out such work, but claims it

is for conventional military purposes and disputes some of

the technical details.

Warhead Design Verification: Iran carried out experiments

using high explosives to test the validity of its warhead

design and engaged in preparatory work to carry out a full-

scale underground nuclear test explosion.

Shahab-3 Re-entry Vehicle: Documentation reviewed by the

IAEA has suggested that, as late as 2003, Iran sought to

develop a nuclear warhead small enough to ft on the Shahab-3

missile. Confronted with some of the studies, Iran admitted

to the IAEA that such work would constitute nuclear weapons

development, but Tehran denies carrying out the research.

The IAEA admits that it has less information regarding

warhead-related work Iran has continued to pursue since 2003,

but the report has provided some insight into the type of

activities that Iran subsequently resumed, which seems to be

focused on warhead design verification. The act that the

agency was able to detail some of the organizational changes

that have taken place since 2003, including the current

position of the person who formerly oversaw the AMAD Plan,

suggests that intelligence agencies still have considerable

insight into Iran's nuclear program. Tehran will likely be

concerned about its inability to hide such important

information and will likely engage in further restructuring

following this report, which may delay its efforts once

again.

Considering the IAEA's reliance on intelligence information

from states, it went through considerable length to

demonstrate why it thought this information was credible. It

was not just a matter of acquiring consistent information

from over 10 countries, but it seems some of the most

incriminating evidence comes from the AQ Khan network, which

Iran admits it relied upon. The information from the Khan

network includes details about nuclear warhead designs the

network gave Iran that match up to the research and

experiments detailed in the intelligence information.

The IAEA Board of Governors Needs to Respond

The report will be considered by the IAEA Board of

Governors at its next meeting Nov. 17-18, along with a draft

resolution censuring Iran for violating its nonproliferation

commitments. The Board's 35 members cannot ignore Iran's

warhead development activities or Tehran's refusal to

cooperate with the IAEA's investigation into that work. It

must also insist that Iran improve its cooperation with the

agency prior to the next board meeting.

A consensus response is unlikely given existing divisions

among the 35 countries, and in particular, Cuba's current

membership on the board. Beijing and Moscow have also

unfortunately played an unhelpful role prior to the release

of the report by calling on Director-General Yukiya Amano to

limit the information detailed it contains.

However, it is important that the board's response receives

support from as many countries as possible to demonstrate to

Tehran that it cannot engage in work directly related to

nuclear weapons with impunity.

In particular, developing countries on the IAEA Board of

Governors should no longer treat the Iran nuclear issue as a

test case for preserving the right to the peaceful uses of

nuclear energy. Rather, it is time that all states insist

that Iran stop abusing that right for the development of a

nuclear weapons capability and take meaningful steps to

cooperate with the IAEA and suspend enrichment work,

particularly enrichment of uranium at the 20% level.

Rights and Responsibilities

Iran cannot complain that Western states are trying to deny

the Islamic Republic its nuclear ``rights.'' The U.S.

position, consistent with the 2006 offer by the P5+1, has

been that Iran could resume enrichment some time in the

future after it reestablishes confidence with the

international community that it is not pursuing nuclear

weapons.

As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained it

to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on March 1, 2011,

it is the U.S. Government's position is that ``under very

strict conditions'' and ``having responded to the

international community's concerns,'' Iran would have a

``right'' to enrich uranium under IAEA inspections.

In response to the IAEA's report, the international

community should redouble efforts to implement existing U.N.

Security Council-mandated sanctions on Iran's nuclear and

missile sectors and, if Iran remains unwilling to cooperate

with the IAEA and ignore the Security Council, further

isolate Iran diplomatically and economically.

Maintain Pressure and Engage

In response to the report, the White House has

appropriately underscored that the United States continues to

focus on using diplomatic channels to pressure Iran to

abandon its sensitive nuclear activities.

To keep open the option for an effective negotiated

resolution to the crisis, President Barack Obama should also

reiterate the willingness of the United States and its P5+1

partners to follow-through on the recent letter from the EU's

Catherine Ashton to Iran's leaders offering to engage them in

further talks to address the nuclear program.

Continuing pressure through targeted sanctions against

Iran's nuclear and missile sectors, coupled with the pursuit

of a negotiated agreement to resolve serious concerns over

Iran's sensitive nuclear activities and to limit its uranium

enrichment capacity provides the best chance of preventing a

nuclear-armed Iran.

Talk of military strikes against Iranian nuclear and

military targets is unhelpful and counterproductive. Military

strikes by the United States and/or Israel would only achieve

a temporary delay in Iran's nuclear activities, convince

Iran's leadership to openly pursue nuclear weapons, rally

domestic support behind a corrupt regime, and would result in

costly long-term consequences for U.S. and regional security

and the U.S. and global economy.

Ultimately, resolving the nuclear issue will require

sufficient pressure and inducement to convince Iran that it

stands more to gain from forgoing a nuclear-weapons option

and much to lose from any decision to build them.

My friend from Oregon earlier mentioned the question of oil prices, and it's something that we ought to be concerned about.

I would like to place in the Record an article from Slate that says that this sanction could lead to an increase in the price of gasoline that could be as much as $1.25 a gallon.

[From Slate, Dec. 2, 2011]

Will Sanctions Against Iran Raise Gas Prices?

(By Brian Palmer)

The Senate unanimous passed a bill Thursday that would

impose economic sanctions on Iran, over the objection of the

White House. One of the administration's complaints was that

the move could increase oil prices. How much could

sanctioning Iran cost us at the pump?

The nightmare scenario would be an additional $1.25 per

gallon. Iran produces just over 5 percent of the world's

crude, which doesn't seem like a lot. But oil demand is

price-insensitive--people and businesses refuse to change

their fuel-buying habits until the costs go way up. That

means a reduction in supply will have a disproportionate

affect on prices. In the past, price increases have been

about 10 times greater than their precipitating drops in

production. Based on the same historical data, and given

that oil is currently hovering at around $100 per barrel, a

complete shutdown of Iranian exports could force prices as

high as $150. (That's 5 percent, times the tenfold

multiplier, times the current price of $100.) Since a one-

dollar change in the cost of a barrel of oil usually

translates to a two-and-a-half-cent surge in retail gas

prices, cutting Iran off from world oil markets could

increase the price of gasoline by a dollar and a quarter.

This theoretical scenario is extremely unlikely, however.

The Senate bill permits the president to delay the sanctions

if there isn't adequate supply on the market. In addition,

the bill would make it harder for foreign banks to deal with

the Iranian central bank, which acts as a middle man in oil

transactions. But it wouldn't make buying Iranian crude

impossible, and sanctioned countries have historically found

ways to sell their oil. (Consider, for example, the oil for

food program that undermined sanctions against Iraq. The

Senate sanctions against Iran also have a humanitarian

exemption.) There hasn't been a truly effective, worldwide

boycott of a country's oil exports since 1951-53, when Iran

nationalized its oil industry. As long as Iranian oil

continues to flow to Asia and parts of Europe, the sanctions

would have a relatively small impact on prices.

There's also the possibility that Saudi Arabia could make

up for some of the banned Iranian oil, as it did during the

first and second Persian Gulf wars. The Saudis wouldn't be

able to plug the gap entirely, because they don't have as

much excess capacity as they used to. They could soften the

blow, though.

There is one long-shot scenario that should be mentioned,

in which oil prices go even higher than $150 per barrel. When

pressured in the past, Iran has threatened to block oil

deliveries through the Strait of Hormuz. Around 17 percent of

oil traded globally passes through that waterway.

While such an occurrence could theoretically lead to $8-

per-gallon gasoline, based on the historic relationship

between supply and price, it's a practical impossibility.

Demand would drop significantly at those dizzying prices,

causing the cost of a barrel of oil to increase more in

proportion with changes to supply. More importantly, the

economic shock of such a scenario would likely trigger a

naval response from the U.S. and its allies.

Mr. Speaker, an article in the Wall Street Journal raises this question as well. It says that crude flirts with $100 a barrel on geopolitical unrest. And it also quotes a commodity strategist at the Standard Bank in London as saying the timing of an Iranian embargo could hardly be worse. Relatively small disruptions could cause spikes in oil prices.

A director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, Mr. Adam Szubin, stated that there are real scenarios in which an oil spike might hit. This is from an article: U.S. officials warn that new sanctions could be a boon to Iran. There's another article that cites that, and an article from The New York Times which states that U.S. officials have declared they'd hold Iran accountable for a purported plot, but they've now decided that a proposed move against Iran's central bank would disrupt international oil markets and further damage the reeling American and world economies. I think that's something that we ought to be concerned about; that if, in fact, we are moving forward with sanctions, sanctions which will have an effect on the price of oil, is this the timing to do that kind of thing, and are we prepared in this Congress to accept the responsibility for a sharp increase in the price of oil?

Here's a quote from a blog called San Francisco Gate quoting the Undersecretary of State, Wendy Sherman, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ``There's absolutely a risk the price of oil would go up, which would mean that Iran, would, in fact, have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would respectfully respond to my friend from New York that the price of oil is, in fact, a moral question.

I want to raise the question of the constitutionality of this particular proposal. I believe that it's unconstitutional because it is an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech and freedom of association. It is an unconstitutional abridgement of the right of free expression by Federal employees. It is a violation of whistleblower protections which have been granted a constitutional basis; that, in fact, it violates our own speech and debate clause of the Constitution of the United States because we have an obligation to inquire and to ask questions; that it violates the Constitution's separation of powers and challenges the President's power to engage in foreign diplomacy; that it is operationally impossible; that you can have even Admiral Mullen, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs, point out that with the miscommunications that can occur from a lack of diplomacy, we could be putting our own people at risk.

In fact, there was an article that was published that deals with a scenario that would happen in the Gulf where there are run-ins between American and Iranian vessels. The no contact provision, if enacted, could outlaw the U.S. Navy's bridge-to-bridge communications with Iranian vessels.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to place in the Record an article by Seymour Hersh which cites the IAE's report suggesting, according to the Arms Control Association, that Iran is working to shorten a time frame to build a bomb once and if it makes the decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent, nor is it inevitable.

[The New Yorker Online Only Daily Comment, November 18, 2011]

Iran and The I.A.E.A.

(Posted by Seymour M. Hersh)

The first question in last Saturday night's Republican

debate on foreign policy dealt with Iran, and a newly

published report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The report, which raised renewed concern about the ``possible

existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in

Iran,'' struck a darker tone than previous assessments. But

it was carefully hedged. On the debate platform, however, any

ambiguity was lost. One of the moderators said that the

I.A.E.A. report had provided ``additional credible evidence

that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon'' and asked what

various candidates, upon winning the Presidency, would do to

stop Iran. Herman Cain said he would assist those who are

trying to overthrow the government. Newt Gingrich said he

would coordinate with the Israeli government and maximize

covert operations to block the Iranian weapons program. Mitt

Romney called the state of Iran's nuclear program Obama's

``greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint'' and

added, ``Look, one thing you can know . . . and that is if we

reelect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon.'' The

Iranian bomb was a sure thing Saturday night.

I've been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker

for the past decade, with a focus on the repeatedly inability

of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations

Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons

production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk

American covert operations was to find something physical--a

``smoking calutron,'' as a knowledgeable official once told

me--to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an

undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to

attack and destroy the site.

The Times reported, in its lead story the day after the

report came out, that I.A.E.A. investigators ``have amassed a

trove of new evidence that, they say, makes a `credible'

case'' that Iran may be carrying out nuclear-weapons

activities. The newspaper quoted a Western diplomat as

declaring that ``the level of detail is unbelievable. . . .

The report describes virtually all the steps to make a

nuclear warhead and the progress Iran has achieved in each of

those steps. It reads like a menu.'' The Times set the tone

for much of the coverage. (A second Times story that day on

the I.A.E.A. report noted, more cautiously, that ``it is true

that the basic allegations in the report are not

substantially new, and have been discussed by experts for

years.'')

But how definitive, or transformative, were the findings?

The I.A.E.A. said it had continued in recent years ``to

receive, collect and evaluate information relevant to

possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program'' and,

as a result, it has been able ``to refine its analysis.'' The

net effect has been to create ``more concern.'' But Robert

Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who

previously spent more than thirty years with the Department

of Energy's nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could

find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He

noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from

a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the

I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance

could not be established. Those materials, and others, ``were

old news,'' Kelley said, and known to many journalists. ``I

wonder why this same stuff is now considered `new

information' by the same reporters.''

A nuanced assessment of the I.A.E.A. report was published

by the Arms Control Association (A.C.A.), a nonprofit whose

mission is to encourage public support for effective arms

control. The A.C.A. noted that the I.A.E.A. did ``reinforce

what the nonproliferation community has recognized for some

times: that Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons

development activities until 2003, then stopped many of them,

but continued others.'' (The American intelligence community

reached the same conclusion in a still classified 2007

estimate.) The I.A.E.A.'s report ``suggests,'' the A.C.A.

paper said, that Iran ``is working to shorten the timeframe

to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it

remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not

imminent nor is it inevitable.'' Greg Thielmann, a former

State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst

who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me,

``There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are

still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran

is really building a bomb.'' He added, ``Those who want to

drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of

aggressively misrepresented the report.''

Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshare Fund, a

disarmament group, who serves on Hillary Clinton's

International Security Advisory Board, said, ``I was briefed

on most of this stuff several years ago at the I.A.E.A.

headquarters in Vienna. There's little new in the report.

Most of this information is well known to experts who follow

the issue.'' Cirincione noted that ``post-2003, the report

only cites computer modelling and a few other experiments.''

(A senior I.A.E.A. official similarly told me, ``I was

underwhelmed by the information.'')

The report did note that its on-site camera inspection

process of Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment facilities--

mandated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which

Iran is a signatory--``continues to verify the non-diversion

of declared nuclear material.'' In other words, all of the

low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is

accounted for; if highly enriched uranium is being used for

the manufacture of a bomb, it would have to have another,

unknown source.

The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change

at the top. The I.A.E.A.'s report had extra weight because

the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable

arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the

I.A.E.A.'s Director General two years ago, was viewed

internationally, although not always in Washington, as an

honest broker--a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel

Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei's replacement is Yukiya Amano

of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable

from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described

Amano as being ``ready for prime time.'' According to the

cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in

September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent

representative to the I.A.E.A., said, ``Amano reminded

Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make

concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries],

which correctly required him to be fair-minded and

independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on

every strategic decision, from high-level personnel

appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear

weapons program.'' The cable added that Amano's ``willingness

to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy . .

. bodes well for our future relationship.''

It is possible, of course, that Iran has simply

circumvented the reconnaissance efforts of America and the

I.A.E.A., perhaps even building Dick Cheney's nightmare: a

hidden underground nuclear-weapons fabrication facility.

Iran's track record with the I.A.E.A. has been far from good:

its leadership began construction of its initial uranium

facilities in the nineteen-eighties without informing the

Agency, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Over the

next decade and a half, under prodding from ElBaradei and the

West, the Iranians began acknowledging their deceit and

opened their enrichment facilities, and their records, to

I.A.E.A. inspectors.

The new report, therefore, leaves us where we've been since

2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the

Axis of Evil--with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive

evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.

I would ask how much time is left on all sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to place in the Record a letter from 26 organizations that urge Congress to oppose the provision restricting contact with Iranian officials.

December 8, 2011.

Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose the provision

restricting contact with Iranian officials in the Iran

sanctions bill H.R. 1905 and to work with your colleagues to

remove it from the bill when it comes to the House floor. We

are concerned that Section 601c of this legislation would

undermine prospects for a diplomatic resolution of Iran's

disputed nuclear program, increasing the threat of war.

This provision was inserted into the bill during committee

markup, after most of the cosponsors had already signed onto

H.R. 1905. Section 601c of H.R. 1905 would expressly prohibit

contact between U.S. government officials and certain Iranian

officials, as noted below:

(c) Restriction on contact.--No person employed with the

United States Government may contact in an official or

unofficial capacity any person that--(1) is an agent,

instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is

serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and

(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated

with terrorist organizations. (d) Waiver.--The President may

waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President

determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional

committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority

that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an

unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national

security interests of the United States.

If this provision were to be enacted into law, it could

have a chilling effect on any diplomatic engagement that this

or any future administration might wish to pursue to address

Iran's nuclear program, its role in exacerbating or de-

escalating regional conflicts, and its failure to respect the

human rights of its citizens. It would also place

restrictions on members of Congress, likely precluding the

potential for inter-parliamentary dialogue with Iranian

parliamentarians.

As Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers have

pointed out, this provision also raises ``serious

constitutional issues over the separation of powers''. For

the administration to exercise its waiver authority, the

President would have to certify 15 days in advance that the

failure to do so would ``pose an unusual and extraordinary

threat to the vital national security interests of the United

States''.

At a time of heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran,

sustained and flexible diplomacy is an essential tool to

prevent war. Just before he retired from the position of

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen called

for an established channel of communications with Iran,

noting that: ``We haven't had a connection with Iran since

1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War we had links

of the Soviet Union . . . If something happens it's virtually

assured that we won't get it right, that there will be

miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that

part of world . . . I think any channel would be terrific.''

We urge every member of Congress to oppose Section 601c of

H.R. 1905 speak out on the House floor against efforts

designed to constrain diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Sincerely,

Friends Committee on National Legislation; Americans for

Peace Now; Arms Control Association; Center for

Interfaith Engagement, Eastern Mennonite University;

Church of the Brethren; Council for a Livable World;

Fellowship of Reconciliation; Just Foreign Policy;

Lancaster Interchurch Peace Witness; Mainstream Media

Project; Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns;

Mennonite Central Committee; Minnesota Peace Project.

Middle East Peace Now; National Iranian American Council;

New Internationalism Project, Institute for Policy

Studies; Peace Action; Peace Action West; Peace

Catalyst International; Progressive Democrats for

America; Project on Middle East Democracy; Student

Peace Alliance; United Church of Christ, Justice and

Witness Ministries; United Methodist Church, General

Board of Church and Society; Women's Action for New

Directions; 3P Human Security: Partners for

Peacebuilding Policy.

It's interesting that what we're actually suggesting here is taking diplomacy off the table. I was here for the debate in Iraq. I led the effort in this Congress in challenging the then-Bush administration's assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which they intended to use against the United States. I was here. I don't know how many of you were here. But I saw a case being made for war, and that case was based on exaggerations and unfortunately in some cases distortions and lies.

We have to be very careful that we're not setting the stage for still another war. We must be very careful that when we assert a certain level of preparedness on the part of Iran with respect to their nuclear capability that we aren't actually shutting the door that needs to be open in order to try to resolve any difficulty between our nations. We can say, well, we want to get them back to the table, but then don't talk to them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to say I have respect for all of my colleagues who are concerned about nuclear proliferation. We all ought to be concerned about nuclear proliferation. We can start with our own country. Right now we've set the stage for continuing to develop nuclear weapons. It's very difficult to be able to have a strong position of standing on this issue if we have one set of rules for ourselves and another set of rules for the rest of the world.

I don't want to see a nuclear proliferation in Iran, but I think that if we want to have a standing where people want to take what we say, we have to be consistent. We have to make sure that what we do is consistent with what we say.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask how much time is remaining.

I would respectfully suggest to my friend from New Jersey that the certainty that Congress had in the debate in October of 2002 with respect to Iraq is very much paralleled with the certainty that some of my friends here have about not only Iran's intention to have a bomb but an intention to use it. That's why we need diplomacy. That's why the provisions of this bill in section 603(c), which say U.S. Government employees can't have any contact with Iranians, is really upside down.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

In reclaiming my time, section 603(c) was added in committee. I would inquire of the gentleman, was it stripped from the bill?

I reclaim my time.

Perhaps the President is not restricted, which is good for the gentleman to say; but the very clear and plain reading of that is that it says no U.S. Government employee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Correct.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I am quoting from an article in The Hill, which I cited earlier:

Section 601 would prohibit U.S. Government employees in any official or unofficial capacity from contacting anyone who is affiliated with the Iranian Government who presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with a terrorist organization.

Look, if you want to stop war, you have to have communication with people. I mean, if you look back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is one of the gravest crises of the 20th century, it was the fact that the United States and Russia were able to engage in a communication.

So we have to be very careful that we don't pass any kind of a law that would restrict, not just First Amendment rights and not just freedom of association, but would restrict the basic kind of diplomacy that's used, because everyone here knows that diplomacy is not just leaders talking to leaders. All kinds of backdoor diplomacy goes on, and I think that that needs to be taken into consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues very much, for whom I have the greatest respect, for the opportunity to discuss this; although I painfully must disagree with you here.

Broad sanctions against Iran can only further isolate Iran from the international community and cause the regime to be increasingly secretive. The sanctions actually play directly into the hands of the Iranian Government. They directly undermine the efforts of the Iranian people, who have courageously challenged their government often at the cost of their lives. The sanctions could be seen as a gift to the regime, not just a political gift for polarization within their country to cross opposition, but also an economic gift because the price of oil will go up, and Iran will cash in on that.

Section 302 of this bill revokes the President's authority to license the export of civilian aircraft parts and repairs for Iranian civil aircraft, authority which would ensure the safety of flight for humanitarian purposes. This provision recklessly places the lives of Iranian Americans in danger. We ought to defeat this bill and stand for diplomacy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We're rapidly moving from Iran sanctions to sanctioning the world here.

I stand in support of nonproliferation. I think that this country should be leading the world towards nuclear abolition. Let us not forget that when the Soviet Union fell, there was one country that got rid of its nuclear weapons, Ukraine.

And Ukraine today, while there are political problems there, they still stand strong as a nation among nations for having taken that direction.

We need to be encouraging all of the nations of the world to get rid of their nuclear weapons. But if we don't do that and we instead say: We will keep our nuclear weapons, and half a dozen other nations and more can keep their nuclear weapons, but you, you, you and you, you cannot have nuclear weapons, actually what we're doing is we're setting the stage for more proliferation. It is the inconsistent U.S. policy on nuclear proliferation that has actually brought us to this moment.

So I have a great deal of sympathy for my colleagues who don't want to see more nuclear proliferation among certain nations, but I would ask them to join me in taking a stand for nuclear abolition among all nations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will once again yield time to a colleague who I may disagree with, but he is entitled to 3 minutes, and I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Congressional Quarterly House Action Report on this legislation states the following: that the measure, however, exempts such restrictions for assistance for the Bashir nuclear reactor in Iran which is being developed with the aid of Russian entities unless the President determines such assistance is contributing to Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

Now, that is very interesting because what that means is that it is not axiomatic that the mere presence of nuclear power capability necessarily means that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, you wouldn't have that provision unless the President had the authority to be able to make a finding with respect to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask how much time remains?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Dr. Robert Pape from Harvard's Journal of International Security has been quoted as saying the following: Sanctions have failed to achieve their objectives in 95.7 percent of cases since World War I, and sanctions are more than three times more likely to end in military conflict than success.

So what we have here is that sanctions inevitably equal a failure of diplomacy, and war becomes a failure of sanctions. So we must ask ourselves, while we stand here for nonproliferation, something that I agree with, how do we stop the nonproliferation of war? Particularly, how do we forestall any possibility of a nuclear war?

Now, Lawrence Korb was the Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, and he serves now as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Last month, he submitted an article to the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, and I want to quote from it because it's relevant not only to this debate, but it is relevant to the economic stress this country is feeling right now.

He says that since the second term of the Reagan administration, nuclear weapons have been of declining strategic relevance, but our budget barely reflects that. Our country is slated to spend $700 billion over the next 10 years on nuclear weapons programs. This is unsustainable, a directionless budget driven in large part by inertia and the pressure from Members of Congress to preserve programs in their own States at the expense of the country as a whole. Military leaders agree that spending on these programs is disconnected from a strategic vision and that we are at risk of wasting a vast amount of money.

General James Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has argued we haven't really exercised the mental gymnastics, the intellectual capital on what is required for nuclear deterrence yet. I'm pleased that it's starting.

Other leaders from the Pentagon have also identified nuclear weapons programs as an area to make cuts. The commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General Robert Kehler, has pointed to the unsustainability of this spending. We're not going to be able to go forward, he said, with weapons systems that cost what weapons systems cost today. A case in point is a long-range strike bomber; a case in point is the Trident submarine replacement. The list goes on.

The savings to the American taxpayer could be considerable. The long- range penetrating bomber will cost $50 billion over the next 10 years and fills no need that isn't already filled by our existing fleet of B- 52 and B-2 bombers.

Rightsizing our fleet of nuclear-armed Trident subs to eight or fewer from 12 and building no more than eight new nuclear-armed subs would save approximately $26 billion over the next decade and help close the budget deficit and reduce Russia's incentive to maintain a large nuclear arsenal in the bargain, and we will still have a nuclear arsenal vastly superior to any other and remain a deterrent capacity second to none. Fiscal conservatives have also targeted the nuclear weapons budget as a clear area for cuts.

Senator Tom Coburn voted against the new START arms control treaty last December but now advocates spending cuts that would lower the number of nuclear weapons below new START numbers.

The point is that, far from saying we shouldn't have other nations proliferating, we should start with ourselves here. Let's start cutting back these nuclear programs. Let's take a stand that all nations should get rid of their nuclear weapons. Let's move forward to see what a world would like look like without nuclear weapons instead of just saying, well, there are some nations that shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.

One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is, and it may be the area of the legislation that has not received much attention but it needs to have attention right now, and that is

that this legislation puts this country at odds with Russia in a way that I think is actually against the interests of world peace. It goes on to call out the Russian Federation specifically with respect to saying that they're assisting these nuclear programs. This really, in a sense, is a confession of how far away we've gone from the mark of START I and START II, about how far we've gone away from that time when President Reagan met with Premier Gorbachev to talk about what we can do to start to build down these nuclear weapons.

I remember when Vladimir Putin, who is now being reviled, when Vladimir Putin made the offer to President George W. Bush to start to get rid of nuclear weapons, and, unfortunately, his efforts were rebuffed.

We should be engaging Russia directly on getting rid of nuclear weapons. Instead, what we have here is a restriction on payments in connection with the International Space Station. That's in here. You know, remember, the International Space Station was the centerpiece of U.S.-Russia cooperation. We held that out as proving that we could work together on Earth as it is in heaven. We showed that that space station was a platform for cooperation and peace between Russia and the United States.

What we're doing here is we're saying in effect that all extraordinary payments in connection with the International Space Station to Russian Aviation and Space Agency, any organization or entity under the jurisdiction or control of Russian Aviation and Space Agency, would basically be restricted.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Well, I thank the gentleman for pointing that out.

I'm asking you, when you say this was amended out, it was amended out with respect to the citation of the Russian Federation----

As well as the section which spoke directly to the restrictions on the payments.

Okay. Well, I appreciate your pointing that out. But I would yield to my friend for a question.

Does this legislation, or does it not, have a reference to the International Space Station and Russia? Is there a reference to it?

And is there any kind of restriction being placed on Russia with respect to payments in connection with the International Space Station?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I would reclaim my time and respectfully suggest to my friend from California that even if you're extending the non- applicability, our friends in Russia will read this as being an attempt to try to put Russia in a position where we are forcing them to put at risk the International Space Station if in fact they wish to have a different kind of diplomacy than we have.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time I have left.

Does the gentlelady wish to close?

It's time for the United States as a Nation to change its direction, to begin to see ourselves as a Nation among nations, not a Nation above nations, to begin to set aside war as an instrument of policy, to be sensitive to the power that we have so that we're not attempting to use our force in a way that would punish someone militarily who doesn't agree with us.

The underlying premise that my friends here have of nonproliferation is something I agree with, but where we depart from agreement is where we're focusing on nonproliferation among only a few countries.

I will say it again: we need a new direction in America. It's a direction where we stand for peace, not the kind of peace which is some airy-fairy notion, and not just looking at peace as the absence of war, but peace as an active presence and the capacity we have to pursue the science of human relations, and to be able to use diplomacy to get to a place where we all feel secure.

But we don't have that today. So what we do is we try to find our security through straitjacketing other nations with sanctions that inevitably are bound to fail and which inevitably turn the people of the countries who we're sanctioning against us and help to strengthen the hands of the regime that's being sanctioned.

We need to, as a Nation, take a stand for nuclear abolition once and for all. We need to, as a Nation, get rid of this idea that war is acceptable. We need to determine that we can get strength and be a strong Nation through peace. Strength through peace is the approach that we ought to be taking, have a national security strategy that involves strength through peace and let our diplomacy, let our pursuit of diplomacy guide us in taking our relations with other nations to a new level.

This isn't naive. I stood here challenging the war in Iraq, and I was right about that. And I can tell you that this Congress took a direction that wasted $5 trillion, the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, tens of thousands of troops injured, millions of Iraqis dead. Why don't we try diplomacy rather than sanctions? It's something that we really haven't tried, and it's time that we did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Team 4Mil as they continue their mission to inspire, invigorate, and support wounded veterans through rehabilitative cycling programs and competitions.

Team 4Mil is a volunteer, non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity comprised of veterans from all branches of the United States military. This group of athletes has joined together to produce a cycling team which competes annually in Race Across America, RAAM, in order to generate support and promote the Wounded Warrior Project. This cycling competition is among the most strenuous acts of endurance. A three thousand mile course, which stretches from coast to coast, is travelled twenty four hours a day and takes about a week to complete, pushing even the most elite athletes to their limits. For Team 4Mil this act of endurance is a commemoration to those who have so bravely served our country.

By participating in this highly regarded competition, Team 4Mil hopes to raise funds and spread awareness of the Wounded Warrior Project, which aims to ensure that injured veterans returning from service are successfully and fully adjusted back to civilian life. The Wounded Warrior Project enables fellow veterans such as Team 4Mil to support and aid those who have sustained serious injury while serving their country.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me today in honoring Team 4Mil as they continue their journey of extraordinary determination and manifest their duty to those who have bravely served our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Rick Case and in acknowledgement of his 50th anniversary as the owner and founder of the Rick Case Automotive Group, located in Northern Ohio, South Florida and Atlanta, Georgia.

Mr. Case began his work with automobiles while in high school by selling cars from his parents' yard. The business has grown from a local Ohio dealership to 16 dealerships in three different states. Rick Case founded the Rick Case Automotive Group in 1962 in Northeast Ohio and expanded to South Florida and Atlanta in 1986. Today, the Rick Case Automotive Group employs more than 900 people.

Rick Case Automotive Group has been honored with many awards over the years. It was presented with the Honda President's Award in 2009 and in 2011, the Rick Case Automotive Group was the recipient of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Mr. and Mrs. Case have also received the title of ``Business Leaders of the Year'' from the Florida Sun Sentinel and ``Humanitarians of the Year'' by Nova Southeast University.

Beyond running a successful business, Mr. and Mrs. Case founded the Rick Case Bikes for Kids program to provide bicycles for the less fortunate children in their community.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Rick Case and the Rick Case Automotive Group's 50th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. John A. Pestovic, Sr., who is being honored by the Polish Legion of American Veterans at the 52nd Annual Veteran and Women of the Year Recognition Banquet.

Mr. Pestovic was born on November 28, 1940 in Cleveland, Ohio. He attended Lawn Elementary and Tremont Elementary Schools. After graduating from Lincoln High School in 1958, Mr. Pestovic joined the Army. Mr. Pestovic joined the 86th Engineer Battalion at Fort Dix New Jersey once he was a properly trained electrician. In 1959, he was deployed to Seoul, Korea with the Area Engineers of Headquarters Detachment Seoul. Mr. Pestovic spent a year abroad and then returned to Missouri to lead a group of electricians handling fire ranges. February 12, 1962 marked the end of Mr. Pestovic's service; he left service with the rank of Specialist E-5.

From the early sixties until his retirement in May of 2000, Mr. Pestovic worked with AT&T and Ohio Bell. Since 1982, Mr. Pestovic has been an active member of Post # 30 of the Polish Legion of American Veterans.

Since 1963, Mr. Pestovic has been married to Marene Skufca. They are the proud parents of two sons, Edward and John Jr. John Jr. served America, like his father, in the U.S. Navy and now works at the Pentagon. Edward is an architect in Texas.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mr. John A. Pestovic as he is being honored at the Polish Legion of American Veterans' 52nd Annual Veteran and Women of the Year Recognition Banquet.