[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 18072-18075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               DON'T REPEAT NORTH KOREA MISTAKE WITH IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, well, we got a notice: All House Member 
briefing: Iran, Wednesday, December 4, 9 a.m. The briefing team, right 
at the top of the list, Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of 
Political Affairs.
  So that was thrilling. I recognize that name, Wendy Sherman, who is 
going to give the House a briefing in the morning at 9 a.m. on how good 
things have gone in the dealings with Iran.
  As The Wall Street Journal article from November 20 points out, the 
Clinton administration's policy coordinator for North America, Wendy 
Sherman, is now the Obama administration's lead negotiator for the Iran 
nuclear talks.
  In a 2001 New York Times op-ed, Ms. Sherman urged President Bush to 
cut a deal, writing that Kim Jong Il ``appears ready to make landmark 
commitments because to ensure the survival of his regime, he has to 
improve the country's disastrous economy by reducing the burden of a 
vast missile program and opening the doors to trade.''
  Well, Ms. Sherman was wrong about that in her op-ed she wrote in 
2001. Kim Jong Il needed to help his economy, she was right about that, 
but she thought it meant that he was ready to get rid of his ballistic 
missile program and open the doors more to trade. Well, certainly they 
were willing to open the doors to trade. But just as she had been wrong 
in 1994 when she helped the Clinton administration work out an amazing 
deal with North Korea, and to recap the highlights of that deal with 
North Korea, Korea was believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons so Ms. 
Sherman was the policy coordinator for North Korea involved in this 
process. She, Madeleine Albright and President Clinton thought, what a 
great thing, we will give you nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants, 
give you some fuel, and in return, you have to renounce nuclear weapons 
and you have to promise not to pursue nuclear weapons.
  Wow. Oh, there was one other thing. The Clinton administration, Wendy 
Sherman, Madeleine Albright agreed to a provision which would have 
prevented them and did prevent them from inspecting the North Korean 
nuclear facilities for at least 5 or so years, which ended up being 
enough time for them to pursue their nuclear weapons. I mean for 
President Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Wendy Sherman kind of remind 
me of the repossession guy that Jeff Foxworthy talked about coming to 
his house when he was poor telling him he hadn't made his payment in 
months and so he had to take his car, and Foxworthy begging him not to 
take the car, and he has to have it to make a living. He said the guy 
said I have to leave with the car or cash or a check, to which 
Foxworthy said he replied, ``You'll take a check. Well, why didn't you 
say you will take a check. Sure, I can write you a check.''
  Well, that is what the North Koreans did. Oh, you mean in return for 
new, sophisticated nuclear power plants and fuel, you will take just a 
promise from us that we won't pursue nuclear weapons? Well, why didn't 
you say that. Sure, we will promise anything you want in return for 
nuclear weapon fuel and nuclear power plants that we can use for our 
own benefit. Sure, we will make those promises. Any other promises you 
want?

[[Page 18073]]

  I mean, how gullible does an administration have to be to believe 
that a promise from a rogue regime is worth basing the future safety of 
your citizens upon? Well, we don't have an answer to how gullible you 
have to be because this administration is now doing the same thing. It 
wasn't enough that Wendy Sherman was wrong in 1994 and wrong in 2001 in 
her op-ed; now she is the lead negotiator with Iran, and she is going 
to brief Members of the House here tomorrow.
  How gullible are we? There is no requirement that we have to be as 
gullible as this administration. I mean, sure maybe you believe an 
administration when they say if you like your insurance, you can keep 
it. Maybe you believe that administration when they say if you like 
your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. Maybe the House is 
gullible enough, or maybe the majority at one time was gullible enough 
to believe that, and did. In fact, people in this room actually 
repeated those promises, making them themselves. But how many times do 
you have to be shown that people making the promises are wrong before 
you get skeptical?
  Now on top of all of the broken promises about ObamaCare, we have an 
administration promising us that we can trust Iran, that we have made a 
great deal. They have made us some promises, just like North Korea did, 
and we know we can trust them because the only thing at stake is the 
existence of the nation of Israel and the existence of the United 
States without nuclear weapons going off in it. That is all that is at 
stake. Or perhaps an EMP caused by a nuclear weapon that is shot off 
from an intercontinental ballistic missile. It doesn't even have to be 
that accurate. If it goes off near the middle of the United States, 
certain range of elevation, then it will fry most every computer chip, 
and we are going to be in trouble. Grocery stores cannot operate 
appropriately without their computer systems. Wal-Mart. There are all 
kinds of places that won't be able to operate appropriately. Most 
everybody's cars now rely on computer chips. Our military is very 
reliant on computer chips. Yet this administration says now Iran is 
somebody we can trust.
  I keep coming back to what some allied leaders said back in September 
in the Middle East: Do you guys not realize that you are now helping 
the people that attacked you, the organizations that attacked you on 9/
11? That make up the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood background; al Qaeda, 
Muslim Brotherhood background. I mean, what do you not realize that 
allows you to now help the people you are at war with or supposed to be 
at war with? I say the word ``war,'' and of course this administration 
has made clear, we are not at war with anybody. According to this 
administration, we are trying to counter violent extremism, but we 
don't talk about terrorism. We don't talk about radical Islam. We have 
stripped that from our training manuals because it may offend and does 
offend radical Islamists that want to destroy us and kill us. So we 
don't want to do anything that might offend the people who want to kill 
us. You know, there was a time in this country when if another group 
declared war on us, then we fought them. We weren't going to let them 
win that war against us.
  This administration thinks you can make a great deal with Iran just 
like the Clinton administration did with North Korea and stop their 
nuclear proliferation right in its tracks. I would humbly submit, Mr. 
Speaker, it will be just as effective, less so, than the deal with 
North Korea was.
  Iran has been crippled by sanctions, but sanctions were not going to 
stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They have consulted with, 
they have learned from North Korea how you game the system. All you 
have to do is enter into talks with a Democratic administration like 
the Clinton administration or the Obama administration, and they will 
cut you a deal. They will even help you get nuclear material. All you 
have to do is write them a check, and on that check say we promise not 
to pursue nuclear weapons. Heck, the United States under the Clinton 
administration, they have shown they will even agree not to inspect 
your nuclear facility, which will allow you to finish your nuclear 
weapons.
  Well, Israel understands what a tremendous mistake this is because 
they are too close. Their existence rides on not making a mistake of 
the calamitous nature that this will be, and this is.
  So it is amazing, though. You know, people stood up and made America 
all kinds of promises about ObamaCare, and it turns out, at the time 
promises were made about ObamaCare, they had already had the discussion 
and knew that people wouldn't be able to keep their insurance if they 
wanted it, and knew they wouldn't be able to keep their doctor if they 
wanted it. So what did they do? They said, we have a Presidential 
election coming up and it won't sound good to use words like ``if you 
like your doctor, there is a chance you might can keep your doctor.'' 
That won't sell good in the election. ``If you like your insurance, 
there is a chance you might can keep your insurance,'' that won't sell, 
so we have to go out and tell what is not true so we can win the next 
election.
  How about that Benghazi? Let's keep that under wraps. We know it was 
an attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated group. Of course, there might have 
been some concerns that they used the very weapons that this 
administration supplied to the al Qaeda-infused rebels that may have 
been turned on our State Department personnel, our Ambassador, and they 
didn't send anybody to help them. They did not send anybody to help 
them.

                              {time}  1700

  We had planes, we had personnel that could have gotten to Benghazi 
and at least saved the last two of the four, could have saved Dave 
Ubben's leg, could have saved a lot of damage, could have saved a lot 
of the classified material being out there for a month or so for 
anybody who wanted to get it. It could have saved all of that, but no 
one was sent.
  People want to believe promises that are made by their own 
government, especially when it pertains to something as important as 
their own health, their own health care, or the defense of their Nation 
when it is at risk. Well, it is at risk. There are people who are at 
war with us. They have been at war with us since 1979. We didn't really 
fully appreciate it until 2001 on 9/11.
  And now we have an administration that has completely failed to 
realize that the people who declared war on us in 1979, who want 
shari'a law to govern the world, who want a worldwide caliphate over 
which the 12th imam will rule the world--some of them believe Jesus 
will come and fight at his side--this administration does not 
understand they have never given up on their goals.
  Thank God that most Muslims do not believe the radical Islamist 
approach to Islam. I am grateful. But it is crazy not to realize that 
there are radical Islamists that want to destroy our way of life.
  As the Obama administration was bragging over their great deal with 
Iran, we got word yesterday that Iran announces--this is an article 
from the Washington Free Beacon--a second nuclear reactor. And the 
leader, Rouhani, says, ``Our enrichment will never stop.'' So much for 
this administration's misplaced belief in Iran honesty.
  These leaders are at war with us. They want to destroy us. They want 
to destroy Israel. How can we get someone in this administration to 
take notice?
  Mr. Speaker, I have the answer. It is when people in the United 
States Senate and enough people here in the House say, Mr. President, 
you can't do this kind of damage. We know it is innocent. We know you 
think this is the way to go. But we know you can't trust Iran, you 
can't trust the Ayatollah Khamenei, you could not trust the Ayatollah 
Khomeini, you could not trust Ahmadinejad. Just because they have got a 
different President, they have still got the different leader.
  By the way, we didn't used to call the Ayatollah Khomeini the 
``supreme leader,'' just like U.S. leaders didn't used to call Hitler 
``mein fuhrer.'' He

[[Page 18074]]

was not entitled to that title. He was an evil man. I personally don't 
think it is appropriate for any United States leader to call someone 
who hates Israel and hates America and wants them wiped off the map and 
thinks that the 12th imam is coming and will one day rule over the area 
in which Israel is, the area in which the United States is, that we 
should not be calling that man ``supreme leader.'' It is the same thing 
as calling him ``mein fuhrer.'' You don't do it. This administration 
has not learned that lesson.
  So Iran announced that they are still not going to comply with what 
the Obama administration says they have agreed to do, yet this 
administration is still sending the former Clinton North Korean policy 
director, a former Democrat who was advising President Bush in an op-ed 
to cut a deal with Kim Jong Il, that he really wants to make a deal, 
kind of like North Korea did in 1994. She was wrong in 1994. She was 
wrong in 2001. She is wrong now about Iran.
  We are told that those who refuse to learn from history are destined 
to repeat it. When there is enough arrogance that anyone, any leader 
thinks that they are smarter, wiser, and better than anyone who has 
gone before, therefore, they can make a better deal with corrupt and 
evil people like no one else has made, then their name goes down in 
history just as Neville Chamberlain's has. He waived his peace 
agreement, which he agreed to give away part of Europe to his fuhrer 
thinking it meant peace in his time. What it meant was his ignorance 
and naivete was going to cost millions of people their lives.
  History is there for people who are willing to study and learn from 
it. I shudder for the people in Israel. I shudder for people in the 
United States that think we are invulnerable. The only way the United 
States could possibly stay invulnerable for a while longer is if its 
leaders realized we are vulnerable and we have to stay prepared, we 
have to stay vigilant, and we have to stay on the lookout for people 
that want to destroy our country. Yet they would rather make a deal 
with the lying cutthroats who lead Iran than they would sit down and 
work out an agreement with Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  We were willing the night of the shutdown. We were willing the day 
before the shutdown. We compromised three different times, and Harry 
Reid refused to even allow negotiators to be appointed. We appointed 
ours. People say Republicans shut down the House, shut down the 
government. We didn't do that. Harry Reid did that. He refused to even 
negotiate. It was his way completely.
  He asked a question when the press was there. Not many of them 
reported on how ridiculous the question was. But he asked the question 
of, basically, what right do they, the House of Representatives, have 
to say what government programs get funded and which do not?
  Well, I asked that exact question to four constitutional experts that 
testified before our Judiciary Committee today. One clearly was a 
defender of the Obama administration, yet all four of the witnesses--
brilliant, constitutional scholars, even though we have our 
disagreements. These were brilliant people, and every one of them had 
the same answer for Harry Reid's question. The answer is the United 
States Constitution, article I, section 8. It gave Congress control of 
the purse strings, and it gave the House a little more control than the 
Senate. The Senate has got to go along with whatever legislation is 
going to become law.
  But he asked the question, and I put this question to our experts: 
Suppose you were in a town hall meeting with constituents back in a 
congressional district and an elementary schoolchild asked the 
question, What right does the House of Representatives have to decide 
which government programs get funded and which do not? They 
unhesitatingly said the answer is our Constitution, article I, section 
8. They all agreed. They all knew immediately.
  So I have asked that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee make 
that testimony available to our dear friend, the Senate majority leader 
down the hall, so he won't have to ask that question to reporters who 
are not familiar with the answer. We can get it to him straight from 
some of the greatest constitutional minds on both sides of any aisle, 
and he will understand it is the Constitution that gives us the right 
to have a say.
  For Harry Reid to shut down the government by saying you are either 
going to give us every dime that we demand or the government will be 
shut down is really outrageous. They shut the government down. We even 
gave them an out.
  There is a wise Chinese saying that says, it is good to give your 
adversary a graceful way to exit. We gave the Senate majority Democrats 
a graceful way to exit by saying, Look, you don't want to completely 
defund ObamaCare; we get it. We think that is the best idea for 
America. Here is a compromise. Let's just suspend the whole bill for a 
year.
  Harry Reid could have taken that and said, We don't want to do this, 
but the Republicans in the House are making us hold off on all of 
ObamaCare for a year. Gosh, golly gee, we didn't want to, but they are 
making us.
  That was a graceful way that they could have exited. But they were so 
determined to shut the government down that, when we came back with 
another compromise passed out of this body, we said, How about if we do 
this? The President acted unconstitutionally. That became very clear in 
our hearing. For the President to say he wasn't going to enforce the 
business mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Not only is it 
unconstitutional, the President is directly violating his oath of 
office. He is required to faithfully defend the laws, see that the laws 
are carried out, and he announced he wasn't going to do it for a year. 
He doesn't have that kind of luxury.
  Even in a spirit of extreme compromise, I didn't vote for it. I 
thought we shouldn't be compromising against ourselves. But a majority 
in here voted to send the bill, and we sent it down to Harry Reid and 
the Senate that said the President has decided to suspend the business 
mandate for a year. If businesses deserve a mandate for a year, let's 
do it for every individual in the country for a year. That gave Harry 
Reid another out. He was so determined to shut down the government, he 
wouldn't even bring that to a vote.
  Then our final ultimate compromise in compromising against ourselves, 
without any Senate offer of compromise whatsoever, was to say here are 
our negotiators we are appointing. We voted for it. We sent the list of 
negotiators; you appoint yours. We will probably have a deal by 8 a.m., 
and we will not even have to have a real shutdown. But Harry Reid was 
determined to have a shutdown, and so he got a shutdown. Now there is 
no graceful escape because we have got to repeal ObamaCare. That is 
very clear, and I hope that we do that.
  I see my friend from California. Actually, he is a very dear friend. 
We have been in some interesting situations worldwide as we stand up 
for our country and for the people of the United States of America, for 
truth, justice, and the American way. As my time is about to expire, 
let me say that I didn't vote for the patent bill in the Judiciary 
Committee. I have some real concerns about it, as I did the last one 
that I voted against.

                              {time}  1715

  I still believe in my heart we should not have changed 200 years of 
patent law from the first to invent being right, changing it to the 
first to file being right. I think the law was appropriate the way it 
was. We needed to make some reforms, but I think we made a glaring 
error.
  Many people came to this floor and said we have got to pass that bill 
to deal with the issue of patent trolls, and now we have another bill 
that we are told will likely come to the floor tomorrow that this time 
it will really deal with patent trolls. There are some things in there 
that I like, and I am glad we are trying to deal with them, to help 
people that need to be helped.
  You know, where a bank is utilizing a procedure that they paid for, 
they are

[[Page 18075]]

not infringing on anybody's patents intentionally, and so to hold up 
people, you know, a small community bank that doesn't have a million 
bucks to spend on patent litigation, when they are innocent 
stakeholders, it just seems grossly unfair.
  There are things we ought to do. But I am very concerned that we 
ought to be spending more time, let America help us get this bill 
right, and I am still hoping that we will wait, get more input so that 
we don't mess up the patent system any more than we already have.
  My time is expired, or is about to, so I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
improper personal references toward the President.

                          ____________________