SHARAREH MOGHADDAM'S DETENTION

SHARAREH MOGHADDAM'S DETENTION

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2026)] [House] [Pages H2772-H2774] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SHARAREH MOGHADDAM'S DETENTION (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Sherman of California was recognized for 30 minutes.) General Leave Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House and to the American people a truly heartbreaking, desperate, and unfair situation involving Ms. Sharareh Moghaddam. She resides in my district with her U.S. citizen husband and is currently being detained hundreds of miles from her home by immigration officials, despite the fact that a Federal immigration court has already ruled in her favor. According to that court, she should be home with her family in the San Fernando Valley, pursuant, in part, to the green card or permanent residency card that she has held for many years. Sharareh Moghaddam is pictured here with her family. She is a respected resident of the Los Angeles area's great San Fernando Valley. She is respected throughout our community, as evidenced by the hundreds of constituents who have contacted my office through a written petition and the nearly 100 telephone calls that have come into my office. The fact is that she and her husband are well-known small business owners in our community. They are beloved members of our community. Specifically, over 400 constituents have signed a petition to our office describing Sharareh Moghaddam as a valued member of our community. As I said, over 100 people have called our office. Wherever I go in the San Fernando Valley, I have talked to dozens of people who come up on their own and say, Congressman, why is Sharareh Moghaddam still imprisoned? What can we do? Along with her husband, Sharareh Moghaddam was pursuing the American Dream when they founded a small business, Elegant Balloons, located at 4052 Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Studio City. They have served the San Fernando Valley for years, and hundreds and hundreds of residents describe that business as a beloved mainstay of our community. Balloons. Why is a woman imprisoned in Arizona when she should be with her balloons and with her family in our community? Arguably, most importantly, she is the primary caregiver for her 75- year-old husband, a U.S. citizen who is recovering from two heart surgeries. She, herself, has diabetes, and in her detention, this has only worsened. She has not received the care or medication regimen recommended by her physician. Her release would help her health and be critical to the health of her U.S. citizen husband. This is a family that needs to be reunited in the San Fernando Valley. This is not the profile of someone who would abscond from her responsibilities, abscond from her family, abscond from her community. Despite this, DHS has detained Sharareh Moghaddam for over 7 months, as she is in declining health and her husband needs her care, as well. {time} 1850 It is time to send her home. There is simply no reason to insist that she continue in detention to the detriment of her health and her husband's health. There is considerable evidence, overwhelming evidence, that she shares strong ties to her family and our community, and that she will be accessible to comply with whatever requests or orders authorities might make. This is not the profile of a person who is a danger to our community. This is the profile of a woman who has created a balloon store right there in Studio City. She uplifts my district and brings smiles to thousands in our district with her business. A habeas corpus petition challenging her detention is currently pending before a judge, and her family is simply asking for a fair and timely decision. I look forward to the day when Sharareh can be reunited with her family. I look forward to welcoming her back to the San Fernando Valley. She represents what makes American communities strong, and her continued detention is a travesty and antithetical to American values. Sharareh, please stay strong. Your community thinks of you every day. I will not give up, and the San Fernando Valley will not give up until you come home. No Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years, I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I currently serve as the chief Democrat on the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. I have spent 30 years fighting to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. I have given dozens of speeches on this floor on that very subject. Yet, there is another subject that has not been addressed very much and may be almost as important. That is preventing Saudi Arabia from developing a nuclear weapon. MBS, the Crown Prince, the real head of government, has made it plain that he would like to have access to a nuclear weapon or at least the capacity to build one. He has said in the past that he wants the same deal as Iran got. Well, I don't think he wants that deal now because Iran is not looking all that good. Yet, what he does want is a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that any nuclear cooperation agreements, particularly in the Middle East, should meet the highest level of safeguards so that, in an effort to allow for the creation of nuclear power, we don't see a clandestine effort to develop a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, I wrote and got passed in 2020 section 1264 of that year's National Defense Authorization Act, requiring that 90 days before even asking Congress to review a nuclear agreement, we get an extra 90 days before that to know that the President is anticipating sending us a nuclear cooperation agreement with inadequate safeguards, or at least not meeting the safeguards that are specified. The President did send us that very notice on November 21 of last year. Now, get this: The notice was sent only to Republicans, only to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, not to the ranking member. All comity will break down in this House if notices to the House are notices to only one political party. Yet, alas, this subterfuge will probably lead to nothing because, in February, finally, months later, Democrats were notified. I am sure that it is probably another 60 days from now before the President sends us a proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia because, as I understand it, other things are happening in the Middle East. Why is it so important and so reasonable that we have safeguards in any agreement? First of all, the safeguards that are called for are the same safeguards that the United Arab Emirates has already agreed to. These are safeguards fully consistent with the efficient and economic production of nuclear power. There is no reason for Saudi Arabia not to sign up for the same safeguards unless they want a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Why should we be concerned about a Saudi nuclear program? First, we have no idea what that does for the Middle East, assuming that MBS is still running Saudi Arabia. I am old enough to remember a time when there was a powerful--the most powerful--Middle East monarch. It was 1978, and the most powerful Middle East monarch was the Shah of Iran, a good friend of the United States. Every weapons system that the Shah had in 1978 was in the hands of the ayatollahs in 1979. There is no guarantee that, even if you have faith in MBS, the weapons systems developed by his government will be controlled by his government. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Its government does not reflect an elected will of its people, and who knows who will be running Saudi Arabia in the next decade. [[Page H2773]] The second problem, or a third problem, really, is the effect that it will have on nuclear proliferation worldwide. Right now, only certain countries have nuclear weapons: the five that won World War II; India and Pakistan that face off against each other; and North Korea, a pariah state that does face genuine challenges to its security. Saudi Arabia is not a pariah state. No one is calling for the abolition of Saudi Arabia, as they call for the abolition of Israel. Saudi Arabia is just a country like many other countries: a middle power, a regional country. If Saudi Arabia is going to have nuclear weapons, how can Egypt say they are not going to have them? Are they going to take second fiddle to Saudi Arabia? What about Turkiye? What about Argentina and Brazil? If Saudi Arabia is able to develop nuclear weapons not because it is a country that won World War II, but, rather, just because, well, they have some money and want one, then other countries will be there, as well. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we are not giving a green light to a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia that does not have the safeguards, that deliberately excludes the safeguards that are quite reasonable if all you want to use nuclear material for is the generation of electricity. I will be introducing the No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act. I believe we are going to do that tomorrow. The text is the same as the one that was introduced by me and Senator Rubio in 2018. That is right. It is Rubio's bill as much as anyone's. I hope he will support it now that he is Secretary of State. It requires that any nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that doesn't have the key safeguards in it can go into effect only if it gets the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress. If it is in America's interests, come to this House and get a majority vote. Otherwise, do not add to nuclea