[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3208-H3210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REVIEW ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) until 10 p.m.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been quite an eventful week. We have 
taken up many things, and I couldn't be more proud of my friend from 
Texas, Chairman Thornberry.
  He has done tremendous work on the National Defense Authorization and 
is to be applauded for trying to prevent the military from being 
weakened further than the sequester has already made it.
  One of the bills that we took up and passed today was the Iran 
Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and I am anal enough I will get these 
bills and read them, so that is what I did.
  Amazingly, the first paragraph--of course, this bill came to us from 
the Senate as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and many of us had 
concerns about it, but I didn't realize that the actual title of the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was--and this is the opening 
paragraph of the bill:

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives, 
     H.R. 1191, entitled ``An act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are 
     not taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' do pass with the 
     following.

  That is what it is. It is an IRS bill to adjust the Affordable Care 
Act, and it is hard for me to use those words ``Affordable Care Act'' 
because it is anything but affordable. It has cost people their 
insurance, their doctors, their health, their health insurance. It is 
laughable to call it affordable.
  Nonetheless, this is a bill to attempt to amend the Affordable Care 
Act; and, Mr. Speaker, you might wonder, wait a minute, I thought you 
said this was the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--well, exactly. It 
is an IRS bill to fix this exception for emergency services volunteers 
that they not be considered under the Affordable Care Act.
  Then we go to the Senate bill. This is like the Affordable Care Act 
because they take a House bill that is intended for one purpose, 
delete, beginning with line 1, page 1, delete everything in it, and 
then make it the Iran Nuclear Review Act--talk about democracy in 
action, really impressive. They strip out everything to do with making 
the ObamaCare bill better and, instead, replace it with the Iran 
Nuclear Review Act.
  There were a few dozen of us that had major concerns about it. First 
of all, we had already heard that this bill was going to turn the 
Constitution upside down. The constitutional requirements for a 
treaty--what is a treaty? It is an agreement between one country and 
another. The President has authority to negotiate those agreements.
  Then, under the Constitution, if we still care about the 
Constitution, then that treaty has to go before the Senate and get two-
thirds of the votes of the Senators; otherwise, that treaty means 
nothing, and it is not binding.
  It doesn't matter what the President or the executive branch or the 
Secretary of State call that agreement, that treaty; it is a treaty 
between one country and another. For purposes of the Constitution, it 
should go before the Senate for ratification.
  But Congress has gotten so used to this President just ignoring it, 
so used to the Justice Department saying: We don't care what you are 
requesting. We are not going to give you any of those documents or any 
of the information.
  We have gotten so used to that, we said, okay, we will pass a bill 
that will force the administration to let Congress know what is going 
on, even though we are going to flip the Constitution upside down and 
go from requiring, as the Constitution does, a vote of 67 Senators in 
order to ratify a treaty, or agreement, with a foreign country, and we 
are going to go with requiring 67 Senators to vote it down, completely 
reversing the constitutional requirement, but we will make it better 
because we will add a requirement that the House has to have two-thirds 
vote, get 290 votes, to vote it down, but at least this way, Congress 
gets to be a player and gets to know what is going on.
  What is it that is in this bill that will teach the executive branch 
a lesson

[[Page H3209]]

about why you don't mess with Congress? It is in here, and it is 
actually at page 8. It is entitled--number 5, on page 8--``Limitation 
on actions during congressional reconsideration of a joint resolution 
of disapproval.''
  So here we are, the President supposedly under this bill will send 
the agreement that he wants Congress to see, kind of like the trade act 
that they classified and we hadn't gotten all of it, but we are going 
to vote on it anyway, it makes no sense; but for those of us that are 
anal enough to want to read these things before we pass them, this has 
got to have enough teeth that it will teach the President a lesson if 
he dares to betray us and not give us what we need in order to make a 
proper determination.
  The structure is both the House and Senate under this bill, this 
Affordable Care Act bill--now Iran Nuclear Review Act--we get the 
chance to strike that down if we can come up with two-thirds votes in 
both the House and the Senate.
  What happens, what is the meat, what is the real teeth in this bill 
that will teach the President and the entire State Department a lesson 
if they mess with us and we vote in the House and the Senate two-thirds 
to disapprove it?
  Well, here it is. If a joint resolution of disapproval passes both 
Houses of Congress and the President vetoes such joint resolution--wow, 
people forgot that even though we are going to give ourselves the 
opportunity to vote with two-thirds to strike it down, if he vetoes 
that, here is the real punishing aspect for the President who many of 
us believe has been violating the law by loosening sanctions that were 
put in place by Congress.
  You are not supposed to be able to change the law unilaterally when 
Congress and another President has passed and signed law into being, 
but the sanctions are there, duly passed, signed into law.
  Well, this says, here it is, this will teach him a lesson. If the 
disapproval passes both Houses of Congress and the President vetoes 
such joint resolution--here it is, ``the President may not waive, 
suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the 
application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any 
provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant 
to an agreement described in subsection (a)''--here it is--for a period 
of 10 days.
  If the President has been violating the law, as some of us believe, 
by lifting sanctions that he doesn't have authority to lift and we come 
along and the House and Senate disapprove the treaty with Iran and he 
vetoes that treaty--here is the lesson--he can't illegally lift 
sanctions against Iran for 10 whole days--10 calendar days. It says 10 
calendar days.

                              {time}  2145

  Man, that is going to teach him a lesson. This is a powerful bill 
that will teach the President that you don't mess with Congress. If you 
loosen the sanctions that the law put in place, why, we will pass 
another bill that says you can't do it for 10 whole days, and that is 
what we did here.
  Now, on page 9, we have got ``the effect of congressional action with 
respect to nuclear agreements with Iran.'' It is a sense of Congress.
  B says: ``It is a sense of Congress that these negotiations are a 
critically important matter of national security and foreign policy for 
the United States and its closest allies.''
  Then C: ``This section does not require a vote by Congress for the 
agreement to commence.'' That is helpful.
  Anyway, that ``these negotiations are a critically important matter 
of national security and foreign policy for the United States and its 
closest allies'' is interesting. I don't really agree with that because 
the way I see this agreement, Mr. Speaker, is it has been drug out for 
months and, apparently, for years. I know friends at Judicial Watch 
have tried to get what are supposed to be public documents--those are 
the travel logs for Valerie Jarrett--so we can find out when she first 
started flying over to Iran to start negotiations and open up the 
dialogue with Iran. It would be nice to know.
  Most of us on both sides of the aisle staunchly agree that Israel is 
a very dear friend and ally. What this negotiation has meant is that--
and Israel understands this--if President Obama and John Kerry and 
Wendy Sherman, who is the lady who gave North Korea nukes, are 
negotiating with Iran and are telling the world, ``Oh, we have got a 
deal. We are nearly at a deal. We have almost got one worked out'' and 
Iran is saying, ``We have got no deal. We haven't agreed to any of 
that. That is not true,'' then it doesn't matter what Iran is saying. 
If the United States' leaders are saying, ``We are getting close to a 
deal, and we have almost got a deal,'' if Israel does the right thing 
by Israel and attacks Iran's nuclear capability and takes it out as 
best they can without our best bunker buster and without our best 
planes to deliver it--they would probably need two or three sorties to 
take out four--if they actually do the self-defense process of hitting 
Iran, then this administration would be able to unite the world against 
Israel--call them warmongers, call them all kinds of things--because, 
``Oh, gee, we almost had a deal with Iran. Yes, they have been dragging 
this out for 2 years or so, but we nearly had a deal. Oh, don't pay any 
attention to Iran's saying we didn't have a deal. We were so close to 
having a deal. Therefore, Israel is a bunch of warmongers. Therefore, 
the whole world and the U.N. should punish them.''
  That is what Israel, I believe, understands that this deal means 
regardless of whether a deal is ever reached, and I wouldn't put it 
past this administration to agree to keep dragging it out and dragging 
it out for the rest of this President's administration. It is, 
certainly, in Iran's interests because they are continuing to enrich 
uranium, and nothing has slowed them down. As we know now, they are not 
even letting anybody at the IAEA examine all of their facilities. 
Forget the openness that this administration says they are going to 
get.
  I think the bottom line of this bill that we passed today and that 
the Senate passed also is that we are going to ignore the President's 
and the executive branch's illegal actions in lifting the sanctions 
they are not entitled to lift if he will be kind enough to allow 
Congress to think about the sanctions some more and if he will give us 
information on how things are going in Iran. I mean, there is a 
requirement here for 30 days within which they have got to give us 
notice unless they think that is not enough time, and then they would 
give us 60-days notice. They have to give us a semiannual report. Every 
6 months, we will find out what is going on.
  The thing that concerns me, of course--one of many things--is that I 
have been asking for the documents that the Justice Department gave to 
people who were convicted of supporting terrorism in the Holy Land 
Foundation trial. The conviction occurred in November 2008. As part of 
the discovery in that prosecution, they were given massive numbers of 
documents from the FBI and from the Justice Department that they had 
obtained about radical Islam here in the United States. They gave it to 
the convicted terrorists. We now know they are convicted of supporting 
terrorism, and they got all of those documents.
  When Eric Holder tells me in a hearing, basically, that there may be 
some classification issues, you gave them to terrorists, for heaven's 
sake. Don't you think you can afford to give them to Members of 
Congress so we can see what the evidence was that you had? For heaven's 
sake. They have not given us the information on that. They have 
obfuscated about the Fast and Furious evidence. They have covered up 
evidence in the administration about the IRS conspiracy to prevent 
conservative groups from raising money like the liberal groups were so 
that the Republicans would have a better chance in the 2012 election.
  Now, this bill says we haven't been able to trust them on any of 
these other things, but we are going to trust them on this. We are 
going to trust Iran to let us have a full review of everything they are 
doing even though they have never done that before, and we are going to 
trust this administration for the first time in 6\1/2\ years to start 
giving us full information about what is going on. Some might think 
that is a little foolhardy, and I would be one of those.
  Here at the bottom of page 17: ``If the President, in his own 
determination, decides he is able to make the certification required,'' 
then he will do that.

[[Page H3210]]

  Nice. Real nice.
  Page 18 is another sense of Congress: ``The United States sanctions 
on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will 
remain in place'' under an agreement.

  Of course, that is unless the President wants to ignore this like he 
has been ignoring the sanctions already; but you can't forget that 
language on page 8. By golly, if he vetoes a bill, disapproving and if 
he can't lift sanctions, he has got to quit doing that illegal stuff 
for 10 full days.
  Now, it does say at the bottom of page 18: ``The President should 
determine the agreement in no way compromises the commitment of the 
United States to Israel's security.'' It says he ``should'' do that, 
but it doesn't say he ``shall'' or he ``must.''
  The good news is on page 19: Expedited Consideration of Legislation. 
``In the event,'' as it says here, ``the President does not submit a 
certification with all of the information that is required,'' like he 
has ignored on lots of other things we have requested or at least the 
executive branch has, then we are going to introduce legislation--it 
says right here--``within 60 calendar days'' of his not following the 
law.
  It is going to go quickly to the House floor and the Senate floor. 
That is on page 21. We are going to get it to the floor quickly.
  Page 22: ``Qualifying legislation shall be considered as read.''
  So we are going to get here quickly, and we are going to waive points 
of order against whatever legislation it might be. It may be that, if 
we really get our spines stiffened and we pass legislation that extends 
that 10-day period where he can't lift sanctions like he has been 
doing, maybe we will extend that to 20 days and really show him that he 
can't mess with Congress.
  Yes, for the liberals who might someday read the transcript of this, 
Mr. Speaker, I am being sarcastic. Liberals have trouble understanding 
sarcasm sometimes, but this is a very, very deadly serious issue.
  Iran has shown they can't be trusted about anything. The Ayatollah 
cannot be trusted. For heaven's sake, Jimmy Carter decided the other 
Ayatollah--the first Ayatollah Khomeini--was a man of peace. He 
welcomed him for the first time in a century or so--well, not quite a 
century--to let a radical Islamist take over a country's military, and 
as a result, Americans have died in the last 35 years, 36 years, and I 
am afraid more will.
  It is ridiculous to play footsie with Iran. They only know one thing, 
and that is power. I read the statements by one of the Iranian military 
leaders who said they welcome war with America, and it clicked. I 
remember somebody in the Saddam Hussein regime saying the same thing 
and that, if we tried to do anything, it would be the mother of all 
wars. It was amazing because we moved faster and further than any 
military has ever moved in the history of the world. Mistakes were 
made, absolutely, but the American military could put Iran in its place 
very quickly--and should--before they get nuclear weapons and hundreds 
or thousands or millions of people die.
  There is one thing I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, before time runs 
out. We took up this week the USA FREEDOM Act. Actually, there are some 
very good things in here. Again, I just felt I have to read the bill. 
Sorry if that bothers some of my friends.
  For example, one of the things that was heralded as a great 
accomplishment, we found out from Snowden that the FISA courts had just 
not really issued constitutional orders or warrants--no specificity--
just an order saying, for example: Verizon, give the government every 
record on every caller you have in your records. Give it all to the 
government.
  I would submit that is unconstitutional, and when we found out the 
FISA court did it, it was outrageous to me. That is not probable 
caution. That is not specificity. There are all kinds of problems 
there, and this bill was going to try to address that.
  On page 35, one of the things that was heralded was--and it is a good 
idea--to create amicus curiae, which is a group of lawyers who will 
represent those people who have records that are being sought even 
though those people don't know that their records are being sought.
  It says in title IV, section 401, that the judges shall designate not 
fewer than five individuals to be eligible to serve as amicus curiae--
or friends of the court--to represent those interests.
  The trouble is--it says down here at the bottom of page 35--that the 
court shall appoint these lawyers and individuals who serve as amicus 
curiae to assist in any application if, in the opinion of the court, 
the government is presenting a novel or a significant interpretation of 
the law.
  That means they are not going to be there to protect the civil rights 
of people whose records are being obtained, as they were under the FISA 
orders previously, unconstitutionally, because the court can just 
decide, no, this is not a novel interpretation, so we are not going to 
take it up. Then, even if it is a novel or a significant 
interpretation, it says: ``unless the court issues a written finding 
that such appropriation is not appropriate.''
  If you just look over at page 40, it tells you the government can 
discuss on an ex parte basis--that is without the other side's being 
present--to the court. So they can tell the court we don't want the 
amicus curiae here on this issue. That is just one of so many major, 
major loopholes.
  We found out in the summer of 2007 there were perhaps 3,000 cases 
with the national security letters--the IG determined this--where FBI 
agents just sent out national security letters, demanding records. 
There was no case; there was no probable cause; and it was a crime if 
the people from whom the records were sought revealed that to friends.
  We thought that would be tightened up a little bit. It still says in 
here that the only people who can authorize what basically is a warrant 
is the FBI Director himself or herself, or he can designate his deputy, 
but nobody lower than that other than any special agent in charge 
anywhere in the country, which was the problem that we ran into in 2007 
with all of the abuses.
  There is still a lot of reason not to feel comfortable that people's 
rights are going to be protected in the FISA courts. I am not 
comfortable with the FISA courts anymore, but, Mr. Speaker, I 
appreciate the time to point this out.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________