[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.

                          ____________________