[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5231-H5234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN'S NUCLEAR DEAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Zeldin). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of tragedy going on
in the world. I know that at times there are people around this
Congress that have felt very much alone.
I know there have been times when Presidents have felt very much
alone, like Abraham Lincoln, a year or so after his son had died. His
wife was fussing at him. He was going to commemorate a battlefield.
There have been people who have been very alone in this town. But, Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest that no one in the world feels more betrayed
and dejected than the leader of our former friend, Israel.
Now, Israel is still the friend of many of ours. We still hold it in
the highest regard because of its similarity in belief and human rights
that we have here, even there in the midst of the Middle East.
The President has announced that he is going to the United Nations to
get their approval before he would even ask for a vote in Congress.
That struck a chord. That rang a bell.
March of 2011, a letter from the White House in which the President
advises that, he says:
At my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations
to assist an international effort authorized by the United
Nation's Security Council and undertaken with the support of
European allies and Arab partners to prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe and address the threat posed to international
peace and security by the crisis in Libya.
The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that our President created the
catastrophe, created the crisis, the real crisis in Libya, as it exists
today, far worse than anything that anybody conceived would or could
exist in 2011 before the President went to the U.N. to seek authority
instead of coming to Congress.
Since 2003, Qadhafi had given up all efforts at supporting terrorism.
He had given up efforts, all efforts, at pursuing weapons that the
United States did not give him authority to keep.
As some of our Muslim Arab leaders in the Middle East have told some
of us privately, since 2003, Qadhafi was doing more to help you tamp
out terrorism than most anybody in the world, and yet this President
decided that a small problem in Libya was enough to justify him taking
out Qadhafi.
Oh, I know, we were going to create a no-fly zone, but let's be
serious. The President's bombing runs that he authorized ended up, even
in the face of Qadhafi asking to be allowed to just leave, and leave
the country peaceably, he asked for a response within 3 days, and this
President authorized bombing, apparently, as an answer.
[[Page H5232]]
So make no mistake, the incredibly bad judgment in this White House
created a debacle in northern Africa that has spilled into other
nations around Libya, that has created all kinds of human atrocities,
that has created a massive movement of people heading for boats from
Libya, heading north to anywhere they can go.
This President did that without authorization of Congress. He caused
that without authorization of Congress. But he did have the consent of
the United Nations, as he now says he is going to seek before he gets
approval for his Iranian deal in Congress.
March 21 of 2011, an article by Charlie Savage in The New York Times,
points out: ``Some Democratic lawmakers--including Representatives
Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California and Michael E.
Capuano of Massachusetts--complained in the House Democratic Caucus
conference call as the bombing began that Mr. Obama had exceeded his
constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without
Congressional permission.''
I would have to say that my friend, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lee, Mr. Capuano
of Massachusetts, they were right. I haven't said that a whole lot
about my friend, Mr. Nadler, but he was right.
The article goes on: ``On Monday, Mr. Obama sent Congress a two-page
letter saying that as commander in chief, he had constitutional
authority to authorize the strikes, which were undertaken with French,
British and other allies.''
The article points out: ``As a presidential candidate who promoted
his background as an instructor of constitutional law, Mr. Obama
appeared to adopt a more limited view of executive power when he
answered a question about whether a president could order the bombing
of Iranian nuclear sites without a use-of-force authorization from
Congress.''
{time} 1915
Then it quotes Mr. Obama. It says:
``The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,'' Mr.
Obama told The Boston Globe in December of 2007.
It mentions further down that, in the Globe survey, Vice President
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., then a Senator, argued that a President would
have no authority under the Constitution to bomb Iranian nuclear sites
without congressional authorization because even limited strikes can
unintentionally prompt all-out war.
Well, they have violated what Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden said before
they were in the White House and the Vice President's quarters. They
created a disaster in northern Africa because they believed that their
opinion was adequate and that the massive number of countries in the
United Nations that hate Israel were better confidants than Congress.
Regardless of whether that is true or not, it is not constitutional.
In March of 2011, there was a national review article by Bill Burk
which points out: ``President Obama's war in Libya is unconstitutional
without congressional authorization. But that is so only because the
President has not yet given us a reason to fight that is
constitutionally sound.'' And it goes on.
So the President helped create this massive disaster in northern
Africa that has human tragedy occurring day after day, people fleeing
in boats, some dying trying to get away from the Libya that he created
because he decided it was time for Qadhafi to go.
Some of our Muslim leader friends in north Africa and the Middle East
continue to ask: ``Does your President not understand that he keeps
helping the people that are at war with the United States? Does your
President not understand that he is harming the people that are helping
stop terrorism in the world?''
This deal that has now been cut with Iran, the largest supporter of
terrorism in the world, is going to do for the Middle East and the
world what President Obama's bombing did for Libya.
It has to be stopped. This deal has to be stopped. It does not meet
any of the requirements that the President and all his minions said
were going to come out of a deal with Iran.
And, oh, yes, there were celebrations here in Washington because they
were able to convince Iran into taking back over $100 billion. And,
also, we were able to convince them to allow us to take them off the
arms embargo so they could go ahead and start buying weapons from
Russia, from China, wherever they wish.
Let's help the Russian economy. Let's help the Chinese economy. Let's
give hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest supporter of
terrorism in the world and allow them to pursue arms with that money.
Isn't there enough terrorism in the world today without this
administration being accomplices to death and destruction the world
over through the assistance, through this so-called deal that it has
cut with Iran?
An article from certainly not a great press friend of the United
States, but AFP--the Agence France-Presse has an article from Tehran
which says, ``Hard-Liners in Tehran, brought up on chants of `death to
America,' have repeatedly voiced opposition to the quest for a deal
with a power derided as the `great Satan' ever since the Islamic
revolution of 1979.
The article goes on further: ``Rather than representing submission to
the West, the agreement is likely to consolidate Khamenei's rule,
according to Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a veteran political analyst at
Tehran University.''
And make no mistake, this is Tehran that is in Iran, from a veteran
political analyst that serves at the pleasure--or keeps his life at the
pleasure of Khomeini.
The article says, ``And whatever the evident contradictions of a pact
with `the great Satan,' the core of Iran's nuclear program has been
preserved.''
Thank you, President Barack Hussein Obama.
Yes, I know there are people celebrating in Washington. Yes, we got a
great deal. We got them to take $100 billion off our hands. We got them
to agree to start being able for they themselves to buy arms.
We got them off the terrorist watch list so they can move more freely
as they want to create terrorism. It is a great day. Oh, it is time to
celebrate.
This article, in what may be one of the most understated comments
about the deal, says, ``It probably amounts to a marginal win over
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey.'' And that is from Mr. Bavand,
describing the nuclear deal as a step forward for a war-wracked Middle
East.
An article from Max Boot in commentarymagazine.com points out that,
for a more succinct account, go right to the statement issued by
Tehran's official Islamic news agency. And this comes from that.
``World powers have recognized Iran's peaceful nuclear program and
are to respect the nuclear rights of Iranian nation within
international conventions.''
The second says--and this is from Iran--``The Islamic Republic of
Iran is to be recognized as a nuclear technology power authorized to
have peaceful nuclear programs, such as complete nuclear fuel cycle and
enrichment to be identified by the United Nations.''
``All unfair sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, including
economic and financial sanctions on Iran, are to be lifted, as per the
agreement and through issuance of a new resolution by the United
Nations Security Council,'' most all of which hate Israel.
``All nuclear installations and sites are to continue their work,
contrary to the early demands of the other party''--that would be the
United States--``None of them will be dismantled.''
That is Iran's interpretation of the deal being celebrated down the
street here, down Pennsylvania Avenue. They are celebrating because
they say none of their nuclear facilities have to be dismantled.
It goes on: ``The policy on preventing enrichment uranium is now
failed, and Iran will go ahead with its enrichment program.''
Further from Iran, they declare that ``Iran's nuclear infrastructure
will remain intact; no centrifuges will be dismantled; and research and
development on key and advanced centrifuges . . .'' ``will continue.''
And that is rather amazing. We heard the President say that they were
going to have to dismantle like two-thirds of their centrifuges.
But it appears, from what we can find out about the deal so far,
that, actually, they may dismantle some of the
[[Page H5233]]
centrifuges, but only because we are going to help them install and
work with the most advanced centrifuges in the world, more advanced
than anything Iran would have now. So far as we know, this is a huge
boom to their nuclear efforts.
This article says, ``The agreement specifies that it would take no
fewer than 24 days to compel an inspection.'' It is talking about the
nuclear sites. ``That's plenty of time for the Iranians to `sanitize'
any suspect site so as to remove any evidence of nuclear activity; and
it's far removed from the kind of `24/7 access' that President Obama
said just today that inspectors would have.''
``The Iranians had insisted that the agreement stick only to the
nuclear issue--that's why, for example, the Iranians did not agree, as
part of this deal, to release the American hostages they are holding or
to end their support for terrorism or their commitment to Israel's
destruction. But it turns out the agreement isn't just limited to
nuclear issues. It includes a commitment to lift the conventional arms
embargo on Iran in no more than 5 years and the embargo on missile
sales to Iran in no more than 8 years and possibly sooner, if Iran is
said to be in compliance with the nuclear accord.''
And, gee, won't that be interesting. They may be able to have people
that hate Israel give them the go-ahead much earlier than 8 years.
This article points out, ``What this means is that Iran will soon
have more than $100 billion extra to spend not only on exporting the
Iranian revolution and dominating neighboring states, but that it will
also, before long, be free to purchase as many weapons--even ballistic
missiles--as it likes on the world market. No wonder Vladimir Putin
appears to be happy: This deal is likely to become a windfall for
Russian arms makers, although you can be sure that Iran will also
spread its largesse to manufacturers in France and, if possible, the
U.K. so as to give those countries an extra stake in not re-imposing
sanctions.''
And that is good news for Ukraine, good news for Georgia, because
this means that this deal, if it goes through--and the President is
already saying, ``We are going to lift these sanctions. We are going to
get them the $100 billion plus.'' Some say it is going to be $150
billion.
Can you imagine what Russia can do with money that Iran pays it? Why,
they could probably take over all of Ukraine with that kind of money.
And then the Russians, as they take over more and more of Ukraine,
can be putting big posters on their tanks saying ``Thank you, President
Obama. Without your deal with Iran, we would never have had the money
to take over Ukraine.''
And what about Egypt? This is devastating news that this deal is
coming to fruition for Egypt. When over 30 million Egyptians come to
the street--it would be like over 100 million Americans going to the
streets and demanding the ouster of the Muslim Brother president that
was seizing all power and demanding that he be gotten rid of. The
military did as the people of Egypt ordered. What an incredible
peaceful uprising.
{time} 1930
That was impeachment as peaceably as it could be done since the
Americans assisting Egypt did not even help them put in an impeachment
provision in their constitution.
Mr. Speaker, it is bad news obviously for Saudi Arabia. It is bad
news for Jordan. It is bad news for all countries in the Middle East.
It is bad news for Syria. It is bad news for Turkey.
Oh, there will be some in Turkey and some in Syria that will be just
shouting with joy, particularly President Assad. He may need to send
President Obama a thank you note for the money that comes flowing in to
help him in Syria perhaps; but there is going to be money spread all
around to weapons makers and to people who peddle war and destruction
because of what this President has done and agreed to without any
promise--not even a promise--of giving up terrorism--not even a
promise, not even a verbal promise, for Heaven's sake, that Iran will
not try to destroy Israel.
We have this article from AFP also back in March 2 of 2015, this
year. The article says: ``Obama told Reuters if `Iran is willing to
agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is,' ''
there will be a deal.
Well, that is not what President Obama agreed to. This article goes
on--and, again, this is March--``Netanyahu on Monday told a pro-Israel
conference that a deal with Iran would `threaten the survival of
Israel.'
``Obama said that sentiment is wrongheaded, noting Netanyahu's
previous opposition to an interim Iran deal as evidence Israel should
back the talks.
`` `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. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that
has come true.' ''
Well, Mr. Speaker, it turns out the President was the one who was
wrong, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is the one that was exactly right
that it was a bad deal, that this was a terrible deal. He was right.
Now, I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that Prime Minister Netanyahu was
extremely wrong about one aspect of the Iranian deal between it and
President Obama; I have to admit.
I think the world of Prime Minister Netanyahu; he is a great man, and
he has the potential of being one of Israel's truly great leaders, but
he was wrong when he said that this deal was going to result in Iran
getting $50 billion worth of relief.
He was way wrong because they are going to get maybe $150 billion of
relief, but certainly over $100 billion of relief. We have to chalk it
up as the one area that President Obama was right about Netanyahu being
wrong.
Netanyahu understated the amount of cash this administration was
willing to fork over to the terrorist state of Iran. It wasn't $50
billion; it was over $100 billion, possibly $150 billion. There it is
on the record; Netanyahu was wrong. He said $50 billion is what Iran
would get, and it was over $100 billion.
Mr. Speaker, let's look at this deal and what has been said in the
past about it. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman--Mr. Speaker, you
will remember that she is the one who was key in the negotiations with
North Korea where we gave them nuclear power plants and material and
all we got in return was a promise that, if we just gave them
everything they needed, all the technology to make nuclear bombs, they
would use it for nuclear power plants. Of course, we know they broke
their word.
When you are dealing with a scorpion and it stings you, you shouldn't
ask later: Why did you do that? You know why. The answer in the old
fable is: It is because I am a scorpion; it is what I do. That is what
the leader of North Korea is, and it is what he did.
If you look at the leaders of Iran, there is a similar fable about
the snake. Someone warms the snake up, and it ends up biting him. Why
did you do that? It is because I am a snake. Perhaps in the near
future, President Obama and Secretary Kerry will be heard to ask: Why
did you break all these terms?
The answer should be: It is because we are snakes; that is what we
do.
Mr. Speaker, Wendy Sherman said, on February 4 of 2014, nearly a year
and a half ago, about the Iranian deal:
We raised possible military dimensions. In fact, in the
Joint Plan of Action, we have required that Iran come clean
on its past actions as part of any comprehensive agreement.
Well, that didn't happen. Wendy Sherman was as wrong about that as
she was about North Korea not using the nuclear capacity we gave them
to make nuclear weapons.
Of course, December 7, 2013, President Obama himself said: ``It is my
strong belief that we can envision an end state that gives us an
assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it
is so constrained and the inspections so intrusive that they, as a
practical matter, do not have breakout capacity.''
Now, that is a great statement there because he is not saying that we
will get Iran to that point. If you look carefully, he says that we
will have ``an end state that gives us an assurance.''
Well, Iran is willing to give us assurance, but they are not even
willing to give us an assurance of what President Obama hoped for, for
goodness' sake.
Secretary Kerry said, on November 24, 2013: ``There is no right to
enrich.
[[Page H5234]]
We do not recognize a right to enrich. It is clear,'' in the NPT, ``in
the nonproliferation treaty, it's very, very clear that there is no
right to enrich.''
Well, now, we know that Secretary Kerry was very, very wrong about it
being very, very clear there was no right to enrich; not only is there
a right to enrich, we are going to help Iran enrich. Thank you,
President Obama.
Sanctions relief, here is a quote from John Kerry from March 3.
Secretary of State Kerry said: ``Iran is not open for business until
Iran is closed for nuclear bombs.''
Well, we know that is not going to be the case. They are open for
business, and they are still enriching.
Again, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said: ``This includes a
lot of dismantling of their infrastructure.''
Well, it turns out that is not the case, either.
Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, February 4 of 2014, said:
``It is true that in these first six months we've not shut down all of
their production of any ballistic missile.''
Well, it turns out they are not going to at all--how about that.
March 5, 2015, Secretary Kerry: ``It will reduce the pressure for a
regional nuclear arms race, and it will increase the strength of the
international nonproliferation regime. It will also vastly improve the
prospects for peace both here and elsewhere.''
Secretary Kerry was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now, they want the U.N. to pass the deal. Well, gosh, I am sure they
will get plenty of votes from people that want the money that the U.S.
is going to make sure Iran has to buy nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the Iran deal is a grave mistake,
and he is as right now as he was before. This deal has to be stopped
for the sake of mankind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________