[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5859-H5860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         A MUNICH-SIZED MISTAKE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in 48 hours, the House will vote on a 
resolution to stop the Iran nuclear treaty.
  Now, I know the President chooses not to call it a treaty, but it is 
a treaty in everything but name, with international ramifications as 
great as any treaty Congress has ever considered.
  Because treaties have a profound implication to the life of this 
Nation, the Constitution requires they be ratified by a two-thirds vote 
of the Senate. Yet, in this post-constitutional era of Obama's America, 
it now require two-thirds of both Houses to reject them.
  Every Republican in both Houses has taken a stand against this 
treaty. So rejection or ratification now rests solely on whether enough 
Democrats are willing to place country ahead of party on a matter of 
the gravest consequence to world peace.
  I don't think anyone can dispute the immediate effects of this 
treaty: $150 billion in frozen assets will be released to a regime 
whose leaders daily reiterate their intention to wage war on Israel and 
the United States. These funds will be available to finance Iran's 
military and terrorist activities and to fund its nuclear ambitions.
  Although the agreement purports to halt production of fissile 
material, it gives Iran the legal right to continue its research and 
development of advanced centrifuges, the only purpose of which is to 
produce nuclear weapons.
  It gives them legal access to traffic in conventional arms in just 5 
years and ICBM technology in 8 years, something that Obama's own 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said should be done ``under no 
circumstances'' just a week before the treaty was announced.
  Does anyone deny that the nation most immediately imperiled by a 
nuclear Iran--our ally, Israel--is united in its opposition to this 
treaty? Israeli political parties are among the most fractured and 
disputatious in the world. Yet, they stand united on this issue.
  Does anyone deny that the Iranian regime is notorious for not 
honoring its treaty obligations? Indeed, Iran signed a nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty and has violated it ever since, which is why we 
are now debating this treaty.
  Verification therefore must be the central focus of any treaty with 
this regime. Yet, under its very terms, spot inspections can be delayed 
for weeks or even months if the regime objects.
  More recently, we have learned that, under secret side agreements the 
administration had no intention of sharing, inspections of the most 
important nuclear sites are to be conducted by the Iranians themselves. 
This provision alone guarantees that history will ridicule this treaty 
as the pinnacle of naivety.
  So I ask my Democratic colleagues, why? Why would anyone who values 
peace support this treaty? The answer I hear is that it reduces the 
chance of war in the next few years or, in Neville Chamberlain's words, 
it guarantees ``peace in our time.''
  Does anyone really believe this? This treaty gives Israel the 
Hobson's choice of launching a preemptive strike or ramping up its own 
nuclear program.
  The Saudis and Egyptians have already made clear this agreement gives 
them no alternative other than to initiate their own nuclear programs. 
It catastrophically undermines the Iranian democratic opposition at 
just the time the regime was faltering from within.
  Ironically, Mr. Obama tacitly concedes the destabilizing effect of 
this treaty by following it up with pledges to vastly increase military 
aid to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. If he really believed this 
treaty stabilizes the region, why would it need a new infusion of arms?

                              {time}  1100

  I appeal to my Democratic colleagues to consider the ramifications of 
this vote. The constitutional concerns are huge. This sets a dangerous 
precedent that essentially rescinds the treaty clause of the 
Constitution, a precedent they might live to regret under Republican 
administrations.
  A far more immediate danger is the chain of events this treaty would 
set off in the Middle East and quickly spread throughout the world. 
This treaty bolsters the Iranian regime from within. It infuses it with 
$150 billion with which to finance its nuclear ambitions. It gives it 
the legal right and guaranteed timetable to pursue nuclear war and 
cannot be verified through inspections.
  Iran has made crystal clear its intent to destroy Israel and the 
United States, a threat reiterated yesterday in no uncertain terms by 
its Supreme Leader.
  Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time to avert a catastrophe.

[[Page H5860]]

  

                          ____________________