[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5398-H5400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2130
                             THE IRAN DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I both applaud and appreciate the comments 
by my colleague, a person I love being a colleague with, Ms. Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen. These are profound points, excellent points, she has been 
making about the so-called Iran deal.
  What is shocking to me--and I got this copy that a friend was using, 
but the pages aren't numbered. By the way, Mr. Speaker, when Secretary 
Kerry came to the Hill today--in having been through briefings by our 
Secretary previously--I knew that the best use of my time would be in 
going and reading the deal for myself, which is what I did.
  It was interesting. I know that we have been assured over and over 
publicly that this is such a great deal, that this is what is going to 
really save the world from the Iranians having a nuclear deal, but 
there are some very troubling things that I haven't heard anybody 
mention about this agreement.
  Actually, there is a report that there is an outside deal that has to 
be arranged by the IAEA with Iran in order

[[Page H5399]]

to have a complete deal, which is that the IAEA is going to have to 
work out terms--conditions--of its examination of some of the nuclear 
facilities in Iran. That is deeply troubling.
  Here is a story by Joel Gehrke from July 21, entitled ``House 
Republican: Obama Administration Won't Release Full Iran Deal to 
Congress.''
  It reads:
  ``Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Mike Pompeo, who serves on 
the House Intelligence Committee, learned of the arrangement while 
meeting with the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, last week. `That we are only 
now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept 
secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and 
entirely free from public scrutiny.' ''
  Meeting with the IAEA is something that I have done in the last year 
and a half, but because of the ban by our Speaker on my being able to 
travel because I was hoping to have a different Speaker, I am not able 
to visit anymore in a room with the IAEA in their office in Vienna. 
That was immensely helpful to do in the job.
  As one of the Speaker's folks mentioned, they see taxpayer-funded 
travel as a reward, and I haven't earned their giving away taxpayer-
funded travel. Apparently, that is something you earn by voting like 
you are told to. In any event, I am glad that Mike Pompeo and Senator 
Tom Cotton have been over there and have met with them.
  There is just so much about this deal that stinks to high heaven, 
especially when you see it today, in that, apparently, in the last year 
or so, there must have been approval for an exception to the sanctions 
on Iran to allow Iran to have 13 metric tons of pure gold shipped to it 
from South Africa.
  Then we find out today that, actually, the U.S. was releasing $4.2 
billion to Iran, apparently in return, paying them to sit down and 
negotiate further.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that our allies have got to be really 
miffed as they find out more and more about the way this administration 
operates.
  If you are our friend, we are going to cut deals with your enemy that 
create a real issue as to whether or not you may exist in the future. 
But if you are our enemy, we will pay you just to sit down and 
negotiate with us.
  We will allow you to get gold shipped to you from 13 metric tons. 
There is no telling how much grief those 13 metric tons of gold have 
cost the U.S. I wonder how many American lives have had their demise 
contributed to because of the gold.
  How many Jews or Christians around the world have lost their lives as 
a result of this administration's paying the world's leading sponsor of 
terror all of this money, apparently, just to sit down with them and 
releasing all of this money in the past just to get them to come to the 
table? We don't do that with our friends. We don't pay them to sit down 
with us.
  We have already seen this in the attempted dealings with the Taliban. 
Mr. Speaker, it has not been that many years ago. It has been since I 
have been in Congress that this administration was reaching out to the 
Taliban, which has killed so many Americans and continues to kill 
Americans.
  In fact, under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, we lost--I believe 
it was--about 560 precious military American lives in Afghanistan in 
that entire 7\1/2\ years--about 7\1/4\ years, actually.
  This President has only been in office 6\1/2\ years, and under his 
command--his rules of engagement that cripple our military's ability to 
defend themselves--under this administration and this Commander in 
Chief's rules, there have been over three times that many lost 
American, precious, military lives.
  With this President being in command of three times the number of 
lost American military lives in Afghanistan, this administration's 
approach couldn't learn anything from the Bush administration's 
mistakes and successes.
  Instead, it decided to reach out. There are all kinds of reports of 
their reaching out their offers. ``Look, Taliban. If you will just sit 
down--no preconditions. If you will just agree to sit down with us, we 
will be releasing murderers you want released from Guantanamo or 
anywhere else. Not only that, we will buy you luxurious offices in 
Qatar--or wherever you say--just to sit down with us.''
  Our enemies have really learned how to deal with this administration. 
Our friends have got to be scratching their heads, those who still have 
their heads. Therein lies another tragedy.
  In this agreement, until I can be sure that the parts I read have 
been released publicly--and that is why I was asking for this copy of 
the agreement. It is a different format from what I was reading earlier 
today.
  As a judge, as a chief justice, even as a lawyer who has taken on the 
world's largest oil company--I did years ago successfully--and as a 
lawyer who has taken on some pretty unbelievable efforts, words mean a 
lot when I am reading through things.

  There is one word that particularly catches my attention, and that is 
the little two-letter disjunctive word ``or.'' Until I can be sure that 
what I had read has been released--it should be. There is no reason 
that this agreement should not be public so everyone can read it.
  To those folks out there who are saying, ``Hey, it is a 10-year deal. 
It will keep Iran from having nuclear weapons for 10 years. Even though 
it may come back and have a nuclear weapon within a month, 2 months, 3 
months after the 10 years, at least it will keep them tied up for 10 
years,'' I would encourage anybody who has access to the actual 
agreement to look at any years mentioned--8, 10, whatever it is--and 
then see if there is that little two-letter disjunctive word ``or'' and 
then see if there is a provision for a shorter time than 10 years or a 
shorter time than 8 years to develop intercontinental ballistic 
missiles.
  These are things I have seen publicly, but I think it is critical. 
What kind of time or length of time of this deal are we looking at?
  If there is this disjunctive little word ``or'' anywhere after any 
time that this deal will last, we need to know how long that other 
provision might be that would be shorter than 10 years.
  If that provision, if such exists, puts the hands of how long this 
deal will last completely out of the United States' hands, completely 
out of the P5+1, then that alone makes this deal a ``no'' deal. It is 
outrageous that anything but a hard timeline could exist in such a 
deal.
  There is a story from July 16 by James Jay Carafano. The first 
paragraph reads:
  ``Once a major diplomatic agreement is inked, the world typically 
reacts by holding its breath, waiting to see if it will all turn out 
all right. Some deals, like the Munich Pact, crumble quickly. Others, 
like the Camp David Accords, hang in there; but rarely has there been a 
deal like the one reached in Vienna last night--a deal in which all the 
nations most closely affected by it, including Iran, pretty much start 
out knowing it won't end well.''
  Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, as absolutely 
atrocious as the Clinton-Albright-Wendy Sherman deal with North Korea 
was, at least South Korea and Japan were involved and present for the 
talks, because our allies Japan and South Korea were the ones most 
affected by any deal that the United States cut with North Korea.
  Now, it was an outrageous agreement. I mean, I was just a district 
judge at the time, but I knew, clearly, from history and from current 
events, that it was a deal that said, ``Here, North Korea. We will help 
you build nuclear reactors, which will give you nuclear material to 
make sure you have got what you need. All we ask in return, basically, 
is that you promise that you will never use any of this stuff to create 
nuclear weapons.''

                              {time}  2145

  Of course, North Korea jumped on that deal--different from here, 
though. The number one most affected country by this deal is our dear 
friend Israel.
  Well, this President and all his minions could not get Prime Minister 
Netanyahu defeated and out of office, as they tried to do. This 
administration has tried to punish Israel different ways, and those in 
the administration who really do want to punish Israel, that don't like 
Israel, they have got to be smiling over this deal because it is 
absolutely unconscionable what has been done in the deal as it affects 
the future of Israel. It is just incredible that we could allow this.
  Then Saudi Arabia, right there in the vicinity, they certainly 
understand

[[Page H5400]]

what a bad deal this is. As we understand it, they are already making 
clear they are going to have to have a nuclear weapon. Egypt is going 
to need a nuclear weapon.
  This deal makes clear that Iran is going to have nuclear weapons in 
at least 10 years; 10 years, 2 months, whatever anybody wants to say, 
or out of my concern, possibly much sooner than that legally under the 
deal, even if it were ratified by the Senate. This is of tremendous 
concern.
  This is what the entire world, except for the most evil perpetrators 
in it, has worried most about, a point in world history where there is 
massive proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  It won't do much good to return a Nobel Peace Prize after a President 
causes nuclear proliferation that leads ultimately to the loss of 
millions of lives and rampant destruction around the world and, 
certainly, in the Middle East.
  We have got all these folks worried about climate change, and here we 
are, on the brink of 10 years, at the most, before the most terroristic 
evil nation--well, the nation is not evil, their leaders are--the most 
evil leaders in the world have their hands on nuclear weapons that will 
kill millions of people.
  It won't do much good for all those who lose their lives in a 
horrible flash if the President sends back his Nobel Peace Prize as 
being the cause of that.
  That is why it is so important that we stop this deal. I don't have 
any belief at all that anybody in this administration wants the world 
to go up, after nuclear proliferation, in one big mushroom cloud.
  I don't believe that; I know that is not true, but that is what their 
actions--if not stopped by Senators and House Members, that is what is 
going to happen.
  This is not just me saying so. Dr. Carafano says: ``The whole 
neighborhood will race to go nuclear. The number one concern with the 
way this deal was structured was that it was bound to accelerate 
nuclear proliferation. Iran has violated its obligations under the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and repeatedly thumbed its nose at 
oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. Yet it 
winds up getting a great deal under the agreement--better, in fact, 
than the deal the United States gives its friends and allies, through 
the 123 civil nuclear agreements. If regional powers like Turkey, 
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia believe that the likelihood of Iran getting a 
weapon is undiminished and the penalty for becoming a nuclear breakout 
power is plummeting, then the deterrent for them to cross the nuclear 
threshold drops as well.
  ``Tehran gets to keep its vast nuclear infrastructure and its missile 
program.''
  It goes on to talk about that.
  ``Sanctions relief will make the region far less safe.''
  ``The deal is temporary, by design.''
  I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we hear from our friends in the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, our local chambers of commerce, at least, about how 
normally to calculate economic impact of $1 being spent somewhere, you 
have to multiply it times seven because that dollar gets spent again 
and spent again and spent again.
  I would submit that, with this deal with Iran, the most evil leaders 
in the world, the $100 billion to $150 billion that this administration 
makes sure they have can't just be limited by $100 billion to $150 
billion when it comes to the calculation of evil that will result from 
that money.
  We can be sure that, since Iran sponsors terrorism around the world, 
that it will spend a lot of that money creating terrorism with other 
terrorists and with other evil people; and those evil people will then 
be able to take the billions of dollars they get from Iran and spend 
that for their evil purposes with other evil people.
  You may be looking at, really, a trillion dollars by the time all of 
that money gets spent when you look at it as chambers of commerce 
normally do. The potential for evil, for the $100 billion to $150 
billion going to an unrepentant sponsor of world terrorism, is really 
dramatic.
  It is just incredible that this is happening on anybody's watch; 
Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. It is incredible.
  Here is an article by Sarah Wheaton, July 21st: ``In both a muscular 
speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Pittsburgh and a taping of 
`The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,' Obama cast critics of his diplomacy 
as the same kind of misguided warmongers who pushed for the invasion of 
Iraq during George W. Bush's Presidency.''
  I guess that includes Hillary Clinton; John Kerry, I think he may 
have been on board with that.
  The article says: `` `We're hearing the echoes of some of those same 
policies and mindset that failed us in the past,' Obama said in 
Pittsburgh. His loudest critics, he added, are `the same folks who were 
so quick to go to war in Iraq and said it would take a few months.' ''
  Well, it is interesting to me that our President reserves making his 
case for the Iran deal for a venue such as Comedy Central, and it 
really would be a comedic escapade if this weren't so serious and we 
weren't talking about the existence of Israel, the continued lives or 
stoppage of lives of Christians and Jews around the world.
  We know what the leaders of Iran think. They never, ever stop saying 
what they think. It is just incredible. They have never stopped 
demanding ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel.''
  I see this article by Raf Sanchez from July 21st: ``The U.S. said on 
Tuesday it was disturbed by an outburst of anti-American rhetoric from 
Iran's Supreme Leader in the wake of the nuclear deal, as fierce 
debates over the agreement began in both the Iranian Parliament and 
U.S. Congress.
  ``John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, said he was troubled by a 
fiery speech in which Ayatollah Khamenei promised to continue fomenting 
unrest across the Middle East and said Iran's `policy towards the 
arrogant U.S. will not change.'
  `` `If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling, 
and we'll have to wait and see.' ''
  No, we shouldn't have to wait and see. When Iran's evil leaders say 
they are going to keep fomenting trouble, they are going to keep 
killing Christians and Jews across the Middle East, they are going to 
keep killing moderate Muslims in the Middle East, we should not wait; 
we should take them seriously. They are saying it while the deal is 
still not affirmed and ratified here in the United States.
  You would have to be a blooming idiot to make a deal with people who 
are saying they are going to take the money they get from this deal and 
kill Americans, kill Christians, kill Jews, and give them the money 
anyway. There are going to be consequences for this kind of 
irresponsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage anyone who has access to an 
updated copy of the Iran deal, look to see for sure if it is limited to 
a 10-year deal or perhaps could somebody do an inspection and say, Oh, 
it is all good--maybe it is a 5-year deal instead of a 10-year deal.
  When the person making the agreement has no power after the deal is 
signed, sealed, and delivered over when that deal ends, it is not a 
deal that should be made. That alone ought to be enough to make anyone 
walk away from it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am immensely concerned for our friends around the 
world. I have mentioned numerous times--and I keep going back to the 
words of a west African named Ebeneezer, a senior citizen there in west 
Africa who explained how excited they were when we elected our first 
Black President, but they have seen America get weaker, and he begged 
me to tell people in Washington that, when we get weaker in America, 
they suffer more around the world and specifically in Africa. Those 
words still bother me.
  This deal with an evil group of leaders in Iran is going to spell 
death down the road for masses of people if we don't get it stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, that is my plea. Let's stop the deal for the good of the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________