Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations.

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie "Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this?

It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.

In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of "international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter.

It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat.

The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States.

I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina.

This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States.

I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist.

I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place.

There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason.

On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis--what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran.

After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a "very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, "world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend.

Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is "a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner.

The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the "Little Satan'' and America as the "Great Satan.''

It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran.

The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries.

In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President.

I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran.

One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a "disgrace,'' and he said, "It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.''

I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, "never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

BREAK IN TEXT

Source