[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2406-H2409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
                                  IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the

[[Page H2407]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend my friend from 
California (Mr. Schiff) for what he is doing. I think it is a very 
noble thing to do when people are killed. Whether you want to call it a 
genocide or not, I just appreciate very much my friend Adam Schiff 
calling those names and giving them recognition after the hell on Earth 
they went through. It was a very noble endeavor.
  Mr. Speaker, what I came to the floor to talk about is the so-called 
deal that the administration is trying in every way they can to get 
Iran to even just say that they are okay with. Unfortunately, the 
Iranians have been dragging this out for years now. I read that Valerie 
Jarrett had been talking before with the Iranians before the deal--the 
negotiations, at least--ever surfaced. And we have reports that there 
was an informal negotiation taking place. It was denied back 
originally, and it turns out there were negotiations.
  So what this has done to Israel--our ally, our friends in Israel, the 
people that are actually our forward observers out there in the middle 
of the chaotic Middle East that this administration has helped make 
more chaotic--they are out there, and they are kind of like, as some 
people have referred to them, the miner's canary. When they are under 
attack, when they are struggling because of other countries, then we 
can anticipate the United States will be shortly behind it.
  Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal dated April 17, 
entitled, ``U.S. Suggests Compromise on Iran Sanctions,'' the byline, 
``President Obama said Tehran could receive significant economic relief 
immediately after concluding a deal to curb its nuclear program.''
  Isn't that great, though? We are now using the word ``curb'' their 
nuclear deal. At one time, it was to ``dismantle'' their nuclear 
efforts. At one time, it was going to be totally unacceptable for 
Iran--probably the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. 
Certainly they have supported plenty of terrorism that has killed 
Americans. They have built and used and furnished IEDs that have killed 
and maimed so many thousands of Americans. But now we are down, at this 
point, to just curbing. If we can just curb them, apparently that will 
be satisfactory.
  And after the last so-called mutual agreement was announced, we had 
the leaders of Iran saying, We didn't agree to any of that.
  Now having been a former judge, having tried no telling how many 
cases, I know that if you have one side saying ``we have an agreement'' 
and the other side saying ``we never agreed to anything,'' and that is 
before any of the terms of the agreement are ever undertaken by either 
side, then you don't have an agreement. They teach you it is basic 
contracts.
  I know the President, in Chicago, was concentrating on the 
Constitution, but the fact is, under contract law, one of the contract 
101 things they teach you is, you have to have a mutual meeting of the 
minds. If one side says, ``We haven't agreed to anything,'' and you 
don't have a document they signed, and you don't have a tape recording 
even of them saying, ``Yes, we agree to those things,'' you don't have 
a deal. You don't have an agreement. There is absolutely nothing 
enforceable. And the interesting thing about international law is, 
basically, if the most powerful country in the world is not willing to 
enforce something that it says is an agreement, then it doesn't matter 
whether you have got an agreement or not.
  I was very fortunate to have had, for a semester at Baylor Law 
School, a visiting dean of a Japanese law school who taught an 
international law course that I took. I did as well as you can do in 
that course. Our professor, the visiting dean, was such a brilliant 
guy. I did a paper on law of the sea and did very well with that.
  I loved to sit down and visit with the dean from Japan. After the 
conclusion of the course, I had my grade. I said: You know, Dean, I 
hope this is not inappropriate to say; but having taken your course, 
having studied diligently for your course, it seems to me that the 
bottom line with international law is that, really, international law 
is whatever the biggest, most powerful country says it is, if they are 
willing to use their power. And the dean said; Well, Mr. Gohmert, you 
did learn something in my course. Yes, you have got it.
  In international law, if nobody is willing to stand behind a deal and 
force another country to abide by the deal, you don't have a deal. You 
might as well not even have a written agreement in international law if 
somebody is not willing to enforce it.
  Under most people's definition of an act of war, if you would attack 
an embassy, then for purposes of most people's international law, you 
have committed an act of war. That embassy is considered to be 
sovereign. If you attack that embassy, you have attacked that country--
it is an act of war--which is what happened in 1979 in a place called 
Tehran, Iran.
  I was in the Army, stationed at Fort Benning at the time, so we 
obviously were paying close attention to an act of war against the 
United States. I think most people at Benning were put on alert, but 
nothing happened.
  An act of war was committed against the United States, but our 
failure to do anything but basically beg the Iranians to let our 
hostages come home was deemed as weakness and, as I understand, still 
is used from time to time today as part of the recruiting effort to 
show that Americans have no backbone. They are not going to stand up to 
radical Islamists. Radical Islamists can have their will because 
America is a toothless tiger, unwilling to enforce anything.
  Oh, sure. Somebody, to want to look tough, may send a boat to tag 
along behind a convoy, and we may send planes to blow up a tent or, 
like President Clinton did, blow up a camel from time to time. It 
seemed like there may have been an aspirin factory or something. Maybe 
there was something more serious, but that is not shock and awe, as we 
have shown some places before.
  So when they are recruiting, of course they use the toothless, 
feckless United States examples. Like after the USS Cole, I had a 
servicemember that told me recently he was there and they couldn't 
believe that anybody could attack a United States naval ship and 
basically we don't do anything.
  I understood from somebody in the Reagan administration that one of 
President Reagan's great regrets was after, I think it was, probably 
Iran behind the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut where we lost 
about 300 precious Marine lives, Congress made clear we are not funding 
anything else, and we pulled out. Another recruiting tool for radical 
Islamists.
  And even that example from Beirut, under such a great American 
President as Ronald Reagan, going back to 1979 when radical Islam first 
committed an act of war against the United States, that was in response 
to President Carter--at least, it followed his pronouncement that the 
Ayatollah Khomeini was a man of peace. They hit our Embassy.
  I know at first they were saying: Oh, the college students attacked. 
The college students have the hostages. And it seemed to me, as a 
member of the United States Army watching the news carefully from Fort 
Benning, that it seemed like they kept saying, you know, the students 
have the hostages. And I kept thinking if President Carter will just 
say: Okay. The students have the hostages. Then you get them back to us 
within 48 hours or even 72 hours; otherwise, you are going to see the 
entire power of the United States military coming at Iran. And heaven 
help you, if you harm our hostages at all, we may just wipe Tehran off 
the map if you do, and you as part of it.

  I really felt like they would probably release the hostages and say: 
See? See? The students had them. We talked them into releasing them.
  But rather quickly, they figured out that the Carter administration 
was not going to use the U.S. power and that all it was going to do was 
basically beg for the hostages to be released until they scaled back an 
effort to rescue the hostages that ended up being inadequate because 
the Carter administration didn't authorize enough helicopters. They 
needed six. General Boykin confirmed what I was told at Fort Benning, 
that they needed six to get to the staging area, crossing 500 miles or 
so of desert. Their helicopters had turbine engines. They expected that 
they might lose as many as 50 percent of their choppers. But they had 
to have six get to the staging area, meet the C-130 there and the other 
aircraft

[[Page H2408]]

and get ready and then launch, because they knew where the hostages 
were.
  The Carter administration didn't allow enough helicopters so they 
could get there with six. They got there with five. And as General 
Boykin confirmed what I had heard before, when they got there with 
five, then they had to abort because they had to have a minimum of six 
to make it work. Perhaps the helicopter pilot got disoriented. The 
chopper leaned, the blades went through the C-130, and the people on 
the C-130 and the helicopter were killed.
  But it goes back to having a Commander in Chief that is not willing 
to do everything he can to use our power to save American lives and to 
send a message around the world: Don't mess with the United States. 
Don't mess with our Embassy. Don't mess with our Embassy workers, 
because if you do, there will be a powerful price to pay.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, the message instead was: We got the power, but we don't 
have the backbone to use it. And that is being carried out. Of course, 
President Reagan used American power to send a message. President 
George H. W. Bush, after Kuwait was invaded by Iraq--I love the fact, 
as a former military member, that President George H. W. Bush was a 
former military member, and instead of trying to micromanage the 
freeing of Kuwait, instead of micromanaging, President Bush told the 
military leaders that the goal is to liberate Kuwait; you tell me what 
we've got to do. They told him how many people we would need in theater 
before we attack. You hit them hard with bombing, loosen them up, and 
the mission went incredibly well until Democrats in Congress started 
yelling, in essence, figuratively speaking, that President Bush needed 
to stop, stop, stop. Many in the media, stop, stop, stop, they are not 
fighting, they can't stand up against us, oh, please stop, you are 
being too brutal.
  So President Bush, because of the left, was persuaded not to go all 
the way to Baghdad at that time. Then later he was beat up by the left 
in 1992 for not going ahead and taking out Saddam when he had the 
chance.
  So it is an interesting place to work here.
  Mr. Speaker, I go through that history so we understand where we 
stand historically with radical Islam in the Middle East. They don't 
see us with the kind of fear that they should.
  Now, this article from The Wall Street Journal, dated April 27, by 
Carol E. Lee and Jay Solomon, says:
  ``President Barack Obama suggested on Friday that Iran could receive 
significant economic relief immediately after concluding a deal to curb 
its nuclear program, a gesture towards one of Tehran's key demands.''
  It is really great. Tehran makes demands, the President follows right 
in line, and Secretary Kerry follows right in line as if he is going to 
be throwing medals over the White House fence that belonged to somebody 
else. It is great. They just follow right in line. Okay, Iran, please, 
we beg you. Do a deal with us. At least come out and announce with us 
we have a deal, and we will do anything you want.
  That is the way it is appearing not only to the radical Islamists of 
the world. It sure seems that they have our President wrapped around 
their little finger and that they can get anything they want.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what should they think after the Taliban in 
Afghanistan was begged by the Obama administration to, gee, just sit 
down with us, we will buy you wonderful offices in Qatar, and we will 
give you international prominence. Heck, if you sit down, we will let 
murderers go of your Taliban leaders. Just sit down with us. That is 
all we are asking.
  It sent a pretty clear message. That gets around. They understand who 
they are dealing with.
  On page 3 of the 4-page article from The Wall Street Journal it says 
this:
  ``The Obama administration estimates Iran has between $100 billion 
and $140 billion of its oil revenue frozen in offshore accounts as a 
result of sanctions. U.S. officials said they expect Tehran to gain 
access to these funds in phases as part of a final deal. Iran could 
receive somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion upon signing the 
agreement, said congressional officials briefed by the 
administration.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is from The Wall Street Journal. Then 2 days 
later, April 19, in an article by Jennifer Rubin, it says: ``Washington 
Post: Obama is prepared to give anything and everything for a deal.'' 
Then it goes on to say:
  ``Just days after releasing the Iran framework, Secretary of State 
John F. Kerry reaffirmed that the United States would insist on phased-
in sanctions relief. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei publicly rebuked that 
suggestion and declared he would insist on sanctions relief up front. 
On Friday, the President cleared up matters by hanging Kerry out to 
dry, pulling the rug out from under his dwindling band of supporters 
and telling the world that phased negotiations were up for grabs.
  ``The President declared:
  ``With respect to the issue of sanctions coming down--I don't want to 
get out ahead of John Kerry and my negotiators in terms of how to craft 
this. I would just make a general observation and that is that how 
sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there's a 
violation--there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that. 
Part of John's job and part of the Iranian negotiators' job and part of 
the P5+1's job is to sometimes find formulas that get to our main 
concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their 
body politic that is more acceptable.''
  So going down the article, it said:
  ``This is a dramatic change in the administration's position and a 
foolish one. We know, as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger 
and George P. Schultz have warned, snap-back sanctions are cumbersome 
and hugely ineffective. Sanctions once lifted are enormously difficult 
to reinstate after Western powers have commenced doing business. 
Inspections (not even of the go everywhere/anytime variety) are never 
foolproof and the parties contemplate a system designed for endless 
wrangling about whether violations have occurred.
  ``But wait. It gets worse. The Wall Street Journal reports: `The 
Obama administration estimates Iran has between $100 billion and $140 
billion of its oil revenue frozen in offshore accounts as a result of 
sanctions' ''. . . ``The monies of course will be instantly available 
to fund terrorist activities.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess that wouldn't be President Obama saying 
that because apparently he hadn't recognized that, but, okay.
  The article says:
  ``That would be a huge boost to Iran's economy, given up front and 
with no evidence of compliance. The monies of course will be instantly 
available to fund terrorist activities and Iranian surrogates in Yemen, 
Syria, and elsewhere.
  `` `Obama is willing to grant Iran access to funds that equate to 
about 10 percent of its GDP' ''--Iran's GDP--`` `just for signing a 
deal. That percentage boost is equivalent to a $1.7 trillion injection 
into the U.S. economy today (which is twice the dollar amount of the 
2009 stimulus package).' ''
  That was explained by JINSA CEO Michael Makovsky.
  `` `This was a terrific present to Iran for its Army Day celebration 
on Saturday, when the regime showed off some of its weapons to slogans 
of ``Death to America,'' and ``Death to Israel.'' ' He adds, `Equally 
dismaying was Obama's minimization in the same press conference of 
Russia's announcement to sell S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries to 
Iran, which will make a military strike against Iran's nuclear 
facilities much harder. Perhaps Obama was trying to save face by this 
Russian move, and/or perhaps he no longer opposes the Russian sale 
because it will make it harder for Israel to spoil the nuclear deal 
through military action.'
  ``If Israelis are expressing `shock and amazement Friday night at 
U.S. President Barack Obama's stated openness to Iran's demand for the 
immediate lifting of all economic sanctions, and his defense of 
Russia's agreement to supply a sophisticated air defense system to 
Iran,' they should not be. The President will give the Iranians 
anything and everything to get his deal. `It's deeply troubling that 
President Obama declined to publicly reject Iranian Supreme Leader Ali 
Khamenei's demand that all economic sanctions against Iran be lifted 
upon concluding a final nuclear agreement,' Senator

[[Page H2409]]

Mark Kirk told Right Turn. `The President is clearly leaving open the 
door for significant sanctions relief to Iran up front to secure a 
controversial deal that will neither significantly nor permanently 
dismantle Iran's vast capabilities to make nuclear weapons.'

  ``The President who once declared the framework a `historic' deal has 
been forced to concede there is no deal. Now he is signaling the final 
deal will be much worse than he or his defenders ever suggested was 
possible. He promised to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program; now 
he is locking it in. He once insisted on robust inspections and gradual 
lifting of sanctions. Those will go by the wayside too. Ultimately, 
Congress, the 2016 Presidential candidates, our allies and the American 
people will need to explain that total appeasement--which is where this 
is leading--will not be acceptable. They will then have to devise the 
means for stopping Obama or immediately reversing his `diplomacy,' 
which is more like promising to make a ransom payment. Unfortunately 
for the Saudis, that likely means beginning an arms race as they seek a 
bomb of their own. It will be quite a legacy if Obama gets his way.''
  Mr. Speaker, this President's foreign policy in the Middle East and 
North Africa has created chaos.
  Then April 20, there is this article from the Washington Free Beacon:
  ``The State Department on Monday would not rule out giving Iran up to 
$50 billion as a so-called `signing bonus.' '' . . . ``Experts have 
said this multimillion dollar `signing bonus' option, which was first 
reported by The Wall Street Journal, could be the largest cash infusion 
to a terror-backing regime in recent memory.''
  So they are getting access to money, the article points out.
  So then, Mr. Speaker, I want to take us back to March 2 from The 
Blaze, where they report on President Obama saying Netanyahu has been 
wrong on Iran. And they have this quote in the article, and it quotes 
from Reuters, this is a quote from Obama, reported by Reuters:
  `` `Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a 
terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion 
worth of relief,' Obama told Reuters in an interview Monday. `Iran 
would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.' ''
  That was March 2. Now here we are on April 22, and it turns out 
everything Prime Minister Netanyahu said has been true. So far, Mr. 
Speaker, everything that he has said that we have been able to get 
evidence on has been true. President Obama was wrong, Prime Minister 
Netanyahu was right, and knowing President Obama to be the big, 
courteous, and wonderful man he is, I am sure he will be sending an 
apology to Prime Minister Netanyahu very soon since he does owe him 
one. On March 2 he tells Reuters that Netanyahu was wrong on 
everything, and now just over a month later we find out he was right 
about everything. So I think that will be good news when the President 
admits to Israel they were right, I was wrong.
  By the way, what could we do with that $50 billion that they may let 
Iran have access to after all the damage, all the Americans Iran has 
funded killing and maiming. We could use some of that money. Wow, $50 
billion.
  But one final article dated today from John Sexton, ``Iran Says It 
Will Refuse Access to IAEA Inspectors Anywhere' Nationwide.''
  ``A spokesman for Iran's nuclear agency has once again rejected calls 
to grant IAEA access to military sites, continuing a war of words on 
the issue that began Sunday.''
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, this President is putting the world in 
jeopardy. He is putting Israel in jeopardy. He is putting us in 
jeopardy. He is putting all of Israel's neighbors in jeopardy. It is 
time he woke up and smelled the baklava.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________