Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciated so much hearing the fantastic presentation about George Washington. It was interesting in the last several months to hear a presentation by a biographer of Benjamin Franklin over at the Library of Congress. He was asked: Do you see anybody in America today, in politics, that reminds you of Benjamin Franklin? He said: Well, I see, basically, a lot of different people with different parts of Franklin. He was brilliant, genius, funny, and clever. But it is not like he was George Washington. There was only one of those. We heard from the director of the Society of the Cincinnati, which has been around since the Revolution and is dedicated to the study of the Revolution. It is particularly named for the Roman General Cincinnatus who had come from the farm, won a great campaign, and went back to the farm. George Washington, it is very clear, could have been emperor or czar, whatever title he wanted. There were at least a couple efforts to have a military coup when the government was falling apart. Washington replied to one effort. They told him he didn't even have to participate in the coup. They would even agree, when he didn't want to serve or passed away, that they would honor whomever he chose as his subordinate. Basically, his response was: If you have any regard for me or this Nation, you will never mention such a notion to anyone again. What an incredible man George Washington was. He was a man of honor and a man of integrity. His word was his bond. That is why, for example, when he found out about Benedict Arnold, a man who was really the hero of the Battle of Saratoga--it wasn't General Gates; it was really Benedict Arnold--he couldn't believe it. It just crushed him to his soul that this great leader, Benedict Arnold, had turned on him and was ready to surrender him to the enemy. He just couldn't believe, as such an incredible person of honor, that somebody he trusted would be such a traitor. We had a service in what was the largest Christian church in Washington for 60 or so years. That happened to be the old House Chamber down the hall. We had that last night led by Pastor Dan Cummins; his wife, JoAnne; and an incredible singer, Steve Amerson. I told people about the story of Isaac Potts. The big Potts family had land in Pennsylvania where Washington wintered his Army at Valley Forge. That was mainly on Potts land. Isaac Potts himself was a Quaker. He didn't believe Christians should ever fight. He was out in the woods. A painting that depicted that scene was painted by Friberg. I am advised that there had been more prints made of that painting than any other American painting in history. It was Washington down on one knee beside his big, gray horse. He was praying to God. He had made mistakes as Commander of the United States, the Revolution. Potts heard him pray. He prayed out loud. In the painting he is seen with eyes closed basically looking down. My understanding is normally he looked up and spoke out in prayer. Alexander Hamilton found him on his knees praying in his tent many times early in the morning when he had to interrupt him for something important. But there he was, out in the snow. Potts listened to him. When Washington got on his big, gray horse and rode back into Valley Forge, Potts hurried home. First, he told his wife and told others. This was something that was passed from Potts and his wife. They told it, and they retold it. It had an incredible impact on this strong, Christian Quaker, because he was totally against the Revolution. He thought it was a disastrous mistake. He felt like no one who was a Christian could participate in a revolution, in any kind of military operation. But there was fake news back in those days, too. There was a biographer in the early 1800s who was trying to disprove that George Washington was a man of faith, a Christian. Peter Lillback in his big, wonderful book regarding George Washington takes on all of that fake news back in the day. That includes the early biographer's account that everyone had heard the story about Isaac Potts. But he said that, in essence, he had talked to witnesses or people who thought it actually may not have ever happened. Kind of like news today, you don't talk to the people who were actual witnesses. You talk to people who don't know firsthand anything. All they know is hearsay, and they just happen to support your particular position. By the way, ``George Washington's Sacred Fire'' is the name of Peter Lillback's book. That night, Potts came back. We know what was said because it was repeated over and over again by Isaac Potts and by his wife. His granddaughter reduced it to writing. He said that Washington prayed out loud, and in his prayer, and this is quoting, ``He utterly disclaimed all ability of his own for this arduous conflict.'' We are talking about George Washington, 6 foot 4, even though Chernow's book said he was a little shorter than 6 foot 2. That was one of the numerous mistakes in Chernow's book. There is no question at all. It is indisputable that when Washington in 1799 was flat on a slab, he was 6 foot 3\1/2\. But, in any event, this big, athletic, courageous man of faith, according to Potts, ``wept at the thought of that irretrievable ruin which his mistakes might bring on his country.'' Potts said: ``And with the patriot's pathos spreading the interests of unborn millions before the eye of Eternal Mercy, he implored the aid of that arm which guides the starry host.'' Now, that is an incredible human being. His biographers, as the director of the Society of the Cincinnati had pointed out, say that there has never been anybody like him. When I was on islands south of India some years back on a trip where we had gone to check on our Special Forces, I had a leader there tell me: We are a new democracy, and we are always hearing about a potential military coup to overthrow our elected government. He paused. He looked at me, and he said: We never had a George Washington to set the proper example here, so we are always worried about a coup. He was an incredible man. Potts said: ``I have seen this day what I shall never forget. Till now, I have thought that a Christian and a soldier were characters incompatible; but if George Washington be not a man of God, I am mistaken, and still more shall I be disappointed if God do not through him perform some great thing for this country.'' So Isaac Potts was talking about a man known since 1755 in the French and Indian War for his relentless courage, his leadership, and his faith. As he said of a battle of the French and Indian War: That night when I took off my coat, I had bullet holes through and through my coat, but I had not a scratch on me. I took off my hat, and it had bullet holes through it. But he shook out his hair. Fragments flew everywhere. He said: Truly, I was protected by divine providence. And he truly was. Indians referred to him from that battle as the man God would not let die. He was such a man of honor and integrity that set this country on a path to freedom and into being a light on the hilltop. As a former President of the Czech Republic told me last night here, he said: America has always been seen, even when we disagreed with it, as that light on the hilltop. It was a beacon. It was showing the way for truth. He said: You don't have that light on the hill here anymore. We can get it back. But Washington, of course, in his ``Farewell Address'' warned about the dangers of political parties. He encouraged us not to use them and not to have them. But we have. As I think about things that I was told by Africans in West Africa, what the former President of the Czech Republic said last night, and so many comments in so many parts of the world about even when they disagreed with this, they knew America wanted to do what was right. They wanted to create fairness in the world. Yet, they provided hope for people around the world, like Natan Sharansky talked about in the Soviet Gulag when he heard the courageous comments of President Reagan. But when political parties, political operatives have more of the characteristics of the former hero of the Battle of Saratoga when he became a traitor, more desirous of their own political gain, their own personal gain, their own political power, than just doing what is right, this country as we have known it as a light on the hill, as so many countries around the world have known us for so long, it won't be there. I deeply regret when I hear how some of our children have been educated, and you talk to some young people who think that socialism is a better way to go. They have never been taught that socialism, though it sounds lovely, has never worked. The only way you can have a socialist country is if the government has all the power; the individual has no rights against the government; and the government takes all, provides all, has complete discretion in what it thinks is fair and what is not fair. Individual rights, as we have been afforded in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, have to go, in order to have a socialist country. It is heartbreaking to hear even people on this House floor talk about how important it is to move on to being a progressive--meaning a socialist, communist country--which basically is a denial of the rights and the limited power in the Constitution. It is actually a breach of our oath to our Constitution to be pushing such an idea as socialism, communism, or progressivism, because you can't have the rights under our Bill of Rights and have socialism, progressivism, communism. Back around 1960, 1961, Khrushchev appointed a committee to come up with a plan of how the Soviet Union would conveniently move to that nirvana type of state where there was no more government and everyone shared and shared alike. But he eventually realized you can never have socialism or communism without a totalitarian government that does not afford its citizens rights that Americans have had in our history. Victor Davis Hanson has a great article from September 25, entitled: ``We Are Living Orwell's 1984.'' It is well written, well reasoned. I said some months back--and was actually accurately quoted--when I said the only thing Orwell appears to have gotten wrong was the date. It wasn't 1984. Instead of the eye in our homes watching for the government, they do it through our phones; they do it through our computers. They can do it through listening devices. Of course, what did we do on the House floor yesterday? We voted to given more power to the Federal Government to get our bank records. Without the need of honoring the Fourth Amendment, honoring the doctrine, the requirement of probable cause, without a warrant, the government can get your bank records. It won't be too difficult to do, as if we needed to add more power to the Patriot Act at a time when we have seen how weaponized the Department of Justice, the FBI, and, to a lesser extent, some of our intel has been weaponized. They need more power to just disregard warrants? Really? Hanson says: ``Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda. ``George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel `Nineteen Eighty-Four' is no longer fiction. We are living it right now. ``Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its `resistance' is undermining an elected President. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the proper President would be elected--the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology. Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy- or girlfriend, or coworkers. ``But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. ``In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross-examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology--the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality--warps everything from the use of language to private life. ``Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations in 2013. They also canonized the so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck President . . . in an election year. ``Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task, given that he had a long record of judicial opinions and writings--and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was impeccable, his family admirable. ``Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street theater interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by `I am Spartacus' Democratic Senators. ``So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And so we got a bombshell.'' He goes on to talk about what has happened to Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He, in part, basically has indicated today, still showing class and respect, that he doesn't doubt the allegations by Ms. Ford, but it certainly was not him. But if you look at her testimony, she has no hesitation in pulling out what she claims was an incident 35 years ago, maybe it was 34, maybe it was 36. Maybe it was at a home, maybe it wasn't. Yet, she regales us with statements like she will never forget these details. Basically, they have haunted her whole life, even though we had been led to believe this was some type of repressed memory that didn't come out until she needed marital counseling and she was trying to save her marriage. But there was a time in America when someone who was shown to be a class person, a true, iconic judge, a Justice, would have hesitation by anyone wanting to destroy or assassinate their character. In America, if you are going to destroy the reputation of someone who spent a life building an excellent reputation as demonstrated by all those who knew him well, then you would be reluctant to come forward with a very hazy memory that had all kinds of holes in it. You would be reluctant to call names and name names that you haven't named for 36 years. There was a time when character mattered so much. For someone who felt an injustice, a terrible thing, had been done to them, they would care so deeply and have such sympathy for others, wanting to avoid the kind of heartache they say they had experienced, that they would never want to falsely accuse anyone with a very faulty memory of something decades before. That was back, though, at a time when America was that light on the hill that other national statesmen from other countries had seen the United States as being. That was a time when character mattered. That was a time when people felt that our Founders had the right idea. We are not going to be like England and say you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. We were not going to take up such Orwellian standards. Under the Founders' principles, they felt it would be better to let somebody guilty go free than to imprison an innocent person. But things have changed. I think the light on the hill is still there. It is flickering. It may go out soon. But God has given us a chance to rekindle the fire. It won't be rekindled, and it will be snuffed out for good if people in this building continue to put partisan politics ahead of truth, honor, justice, and decency. So what happens from here is up to us. Those of us who are elected to serve in this government, we can follow the track that has been laid in recent days, or we can say we are going to get back to where character matters, people are innocent until proven guilty, and we don't assassinate characters simply because we disagree with them politically, so any allegation we make, as Ted Kennedy once did of Robert Bork, as Harry Reid did of Mitt Romney--it is okay to lie about people if you are able to prevent them from serving honorably in government. We are at a crossroads, and I hope and pray--as Robert Frost was able to say--we can say someday, ``. . . and I took the road less traveled by. And that has made all the difference.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers will continue for the folks who are in harm's way with the hurricane coming ashore. I am grateful for all of those who are serving, State, Federal, and local officials, trying to keep people safe. They will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. I am very grateful that President Trump hasn't waited. They mobilized. They have got Federal folks on the ground ready to go. I am also glad it got downgraded to some extent, but it is still going to be a rough go for folks, their homes, and their goods. So we will continue to remember them. I am grateful for those first responders out there ready to serve. We just remembered 9/11 this week. Those of us who were old enough to know what happened that day will never forget what happened. We will never forget where we were. I will never forget the next day, September 12. In my hometown of Tyler, just like in hundreds of thousands of towns and cities around the country, people came together and we prayed together. We sang hymns together. We held hands and sang together. It was a powerful day. And I will always remember there were people from all different races, ages, both genders, people of all walks of life, but we gathered there in solidarity. What I noticed that day was that there were no hyphenated Americans. We were just Americans. That is what everybody said, and that is what everybody was. It was an incredible day that an act of sheer hatred, evil, wanting to destroy freedom and the freest country with the best founding document that would allow freedom, they wanted it all destroyed. But there was a lot of love that next day. It is unfortunate that, 17 years later, we don't see that kind of harmony. It used to be that, in this body, we would disagree, but, as the House rules require, we wouldn't call into question any other elected official's motivation, intentions. We would say we all want is what is best for the country. We all want to keep our oath to the Constitution. But it appears that some don't want to follow those rules anymore. In fact, some of the very people who have been in this room, in the Senate, here in Washington, in front of the press around the country, people who have demanded that the Federal Government get involved and stop bullying at all levels, including threatening, harassing little children in elementary school because the Federal Government felt like it had to intervene and prevent bullies even at such an early age, yet some of those same people who have been calling for Federal intervention to stop bullying have become the biggest bullies in the United States of America. It is unbelievable how people would be encouraged by elected officials to bully, harass people with whom they disagree. If you can find them in public anywhere, intimidate, scream at them, run them out. Don't let them eat. Don't let them do anything. Don't let them shop. Bully them until you drive them out and you intimidate them so much that they are afraid to express their political opinion or to continue to work in a Republican administration or as a Republican in the House. It is just unbelievable. It has, clearly, incited people to go out and commit bullying and sometimes physical assaults. But you also look at some of the other things that have gone on: people who are completely disloyal to the President for whom they work will go to the extent of committing crimes because they don't like the President, even to the extent of, as a former judge, what I would call committing a fraud upon the FISA court. That is the way it appeared to me. The FISA judges granted four different warrants to surveil people in the Trump campaign and administration, one of whom, Rod Rosenstein, I have asked him if he even read the applications and affidavits. He never would answer the question, which, as we know from Watergate days, that is a nondenial denial. Clearly, when they would not admit that Rosenstein had read the application, he said: I didn't know how things work. Well, I know how they are supposed to work. If you come before a judge and you sign a document in an effort to get that judge to encroach on the constitutional rights of American citizens, you better know what you are doing. Rosenstein defrauded the court. But the reason they possibly did not defraud the court is if the court was engaged in fraud itself. The only reason I would raise that is because the FISA judges who were granting warrants based on false information, incomplete information, misleading information, it is possibly because they were okay with helping to use the color of the law to violate American citizens' rights. Maybe there is a 1983 civil rights action there against judges and those who participated. Who knows. I can't help but wonder about the integrity of judges who are not upset that lawyers came in from the Justice Department and manipulated them into signing a warrant four times when it should never have been signed once. Then we find out this guy, Halper, who is supposed to have identified Mike Flynn and the relationship with Russians, it turns out he had gotten contracts from the Defense Department--I think one was over $600,000, another over $400,000--and it was flagged by a very dedicated, devoted employee of the Defense Department whose job it was to analyze contracts to make sure they were legitimate and people were doing what they were supposed to. His name is Adam Lovinger. He saw those contracts and thought: This is very strange, two contracts worth over a million dollars to one person and there doesn't appear to be anything that he is getting. Well, he was being paid by the Federal Government to set up somebody in the Trump campaign as someone who had been dealing with Russians, who had been paying Russians to come speak at his conferences or seminars, who had an ongoing relationship with Russians, so he would later say: Gee, this guy from the Trump campaign was getting too cozy with the Russians, so I quit. You mean the guys that you had this ongoing relationship with and paid them to come and speak at your conferences, you were concerned about someone from the Trump administration or who worked with Trump in the campaign actually speaking to the people you have been hiring for a number of years? It is just fraudulent what they were doing. Incredible. And I had hoped, when Christopher Wray took over at the FBI--well, I don't really know him--but maybe he'll help clean up the disaster that was created by the weaponization of the Department of Justice, and particularly the FBI, by Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, so many of those--Bruce Ohr--who were working at DOJ or FBI. But we got a solid piece of evidence that Christopher Wray is not the answer; he is part of the problem. And that came as was reported in this story Wednesday, August 29, 2018. As the headline from Newsmax says: ``FBI: No Evidence Clinton Server Hacked Despite Trump Tweet.'' Well, Christopher Wray had to approve that, and either he is completely, objectively incompetent or he intended to slap the President with a fraud by omission and also to slap--figuratively speaking--our Intel community. It wasn't the FBI that found that Hillary Clinton's server had been hacked and that over 30,000 of her emails--all but 4, and the 4 really didn't amount to anything--all went to a foreign country's intelligence apparatus. They had hacked it, put instructions on there. So then, we know that because the Intel community has made--they knew with 100 percent certainty that that had happened. They found it. They found the anomaly. They found the embedded instruction that was placed when her server was hacked. And I know there have been allegations that perhaps Hillary Clinton's classified information that went through the unclassified private server may have gotten some of our undercover people killed in China. I don't know if that is what got them killed or not, but it certainly wouldn't have helped. Nonetheless, the Intel community inspector general, who back then was Chuck McCullough, and Investigator Frank Rucker are the ones who found that. And I haven't talked to Mr. Coats, but this was a slap at the Intel community, basically saying, Hey, we at the FBI didn't find any evidence her private server was hacked, so anybody who says they did is just totally wrong because, if the FBI doesn't find it, nobody in the Intel community of the United States is competent enough to find such a hacking. Well, Chris Wray and whoever fed him this statement to put out publicly were wrong. Our Intel community was good enough. They did find that her private server was hacked. And the emails did not go to Russia or any representatives or agency affiliated with Russia. Richard Pollock wrote that he had confirmed that it went to China. I didn't say that when I questioned Mr. Strzok, but that has been reported. If Mr. Wray is going to continue in his efforts to slap-- fraudulently, really--at the President and our Intel community, he really ought to just voluntarily step down. The FBI has had so many thousands and thousands of honest, ethical, upright FBI agents, because I have known many. And they need somebody who will help the FBI get its reputation back. When the current FBI director engages in this kind of fraud by omission, then he is not the answer; he is trying to salvage a great reputation that has been destroyed during the Obama administration, and he is not going to get it back by misrepresentations, by omissions. Hopefully he'll do the right thing and let us get somebody to replace him soon who will clean things up. In the meantime, that is a little scary. Now, I also had noted an article I had never noticed before and a friend pointed it out. I had never heard of this. I had to go back and look. A New York publication by Chris Smith, October 20 of 2003. The byline under it says: ``Mr. Comey goes to Washington.'' Byline says: ``Just as his terrorism and corporate-corruption cases here are heating up''--apparently in New York--``United States Attorney James Comey is heading south to become John Ashcroft's deputy. What's a nice, nonpartisan prosecutor going to do in a Justice Department like that?'' Well, it doesn't sound like they were big fans of John Ashcroft, who is really a fine, dedicated, upstanding individual. He must have been feeling a little bit giddy. He is going to be the deputy, Department of Justice. And so he said far more than was good for his reputation. It says, in the fourth paragraph: ``Comey has been savaged by William Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, anyway? This sets Comey howling again.'' Then the quote from Comey. He says: ``I must be doing something right. In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.'' The article says: He voted for Carter in 1980, but in 1984, Comey said: ``I voted for Reagan.'' These are Comey's words: ``I'd moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I'm not even sure,'' Comey says, ``how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point I'll have to figure it out.'' It says in the article: ``On the surface it's an odd pairing: Comey-- who cites liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a formative influence,'' which is a little disturbing, ``and who can sing along with Good Charlotte pop-punk hits--and Ashcroft.'' But anyway, that was interesting. I did not know that Comey had admitted to being a commie, but Comey the commie is no longer in charge of the FBI. And it still boggles the mind that Rod Rosenstein would do a memorandum telling the President: You need to fire Comey. He hasn't been intellectually honest. You need to fire him. Causes are all here. So the President relies on Rosenstein and fires Comey; and then, what, the next day Rosenstein turns around and says: Oh, well, there is cause to appoint a special counsel to investigate the President for supposedly obstruction of justice for firing Comey, because the President followed Rosenstein's recommendation. The mere fact that Rosenstein would appoint a special counsel to investigate the President for doing what Rosenstein said should have been enough to get him fired back then. What kind of manipulative little demon would say, ``Fire Comey,'' and then the advice is followed and then he appoints a prosecutor to try to disrupt him and remove him from office. I mean, it is like some kind of game: Oh, I know. I will set up the President. I will tell him to fire Comey, and then we can use that to investigate him for the rest of his time as President. Well, hopefully--and I have been hoping for a long time that Rosenstein's days are numbered. Of course, he was the U.S. attorney who was in charge of the investigation investigating Russia and their illegal efforts to obtain American uranium. He would also be the same person, along with FBI Director Mueller and a guy named Weissmann, who is currently working for Mueller, who made sure that their undercover guy who was gathering information to show how illegally Russia was acting, make sure he signs a nondisclosure agreement. They threaten him, we are told, that he either sign the nondisclosure or they would prosecute him. So he signs it. Because they did not want anybody talking about how illegally Russia was acting because, if they had, then the committee that had to approve foreign investments in the United States, CFIUS, they could not have voted to allow Russia to get a hold of 20 or so percent of American uranium. And if they were not allowed to get hold of that much uranium, then, of course, there would not have been the $145 million or so that went into the Clinton Foundation. Then we get this reporter from FOX News: ``John Kerry slammed for `shameful' shadow diplomacy after admitting to meetings with Iran.'' Now, I think there is a word for it, but when someone goes and tries to undermine the United States President's administration from protecting the country, America, from the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, I don't know what you would call that, but it seems like, if you have a President, in President Trump, trying to protect America from terrorist attacks that would be funded by the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, Iran, and you have somebody else from America go over and try to save the deal that was going to help Iran be more of a threat to America--gee, that seems like people used to get prosecuted about things like that. Seemed like there was somebody named Rosenstein or Rosenberg back there that was not a help to the United States. I think back then they were hanging traitors. But, in any event, interesting. Also yesterday, committee chair Richard Burr from North Carolina, who has bent over backwards, done everything he can to get Justice and Intelligence to produce any kind of evidence whatsoever showing Trump or his administration colluded with the Russians, he comes out yesterday and says the panel has found ``no hard evidence of collusion'' between the Trump campaign and Russia. So it is just amazing. It sounds like we still need a housecleaning at the FBI at the very top. And this out today from the New York Post that Strzok and Page texts are a disaster and embarrassment to the FBI, DOJ. And it has this tweet from the President: ``More text messages between former FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are a disaster and embarrassment to the FBI and DOJ. ``This should never have happened, but we are learning more and more by the hour. `Others were leaking like mad' in order to get the President.'' ``In the lengthy exchange, the two ex-lovers talk about a leak operation for `political' purposes. `` `Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the Times doing a story about the RNC hacks,' Page wrote to Strzok, who replied, `And more than they already did? I told you Quinn told me they pulling out all the stops on some story . . . ' `` `Quinn' could be referring to Richard Quinn, chief of the Media and Investigative Publicity Section in the FBI's Office of Public Affairs. . . . ``Strzok then texted Page, `Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they're kicking into overdrive.' ``It's unclear,'' the story says, ``whom he was referring to as `sisters,' but retired FBI Special Agent John Iannarelli told Fox it could be another government agency. ``Earlier this week, a report from Rep. Mark Meadows . . . a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said a new Strzok-Page text from April 2017 showed them discussing a `media leak strategy'.'' So this is serious stuff. And, apparently, we don't have somebody at the top of the FBI who will get this cleaned up. There are plenty of FBI agents across the country that could get things cleaned up. We know there is at least one here in Washington, D.C., that is good at coverups, but most of the rank-and-file FBI agents are classy, honorable, decent, upright investigators who honor their oath every day, and, who, I keep hearing from different times, different places, are really upset with the damage that the people like Comey, Strzok, Page, Ohr, the damage they have done to their reputation for what used to be a sterling FBI. So it is time to clean house. Rosenstein has got to go. Chris Wray needs to be replaced by somebody that is not going to try to keep slapping the President when he is wrong about the FBI. Hopefully, we are going to see that come in the next few weeks. We will see. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Mimi Walters, for her special order. It is a reminder again that Vietnam has not lived up to the agreement they made in Paris to end the Vietnam war. They promised they would turn over remains. They promised they would give lists of our POWs and MIAs. They lied. They didn't do that. They still have that information. In fact, there was one year I agreed with the national Chamber of Commerce's position on most everything, but I disagreed on a trade agreement with Vietnam because I could not vote to give some special deal to people who will not honor their agreements that lie about Americans dead and who were prisoners of war and missing in action and remains of which they know and have never disclosed. This is one more reminder that one thing we can do in this House is show courage and say we are not dealing with countries, no special deals at all, with countries that harm Americans. We need to protect our own. I am so glad that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are calling attention to that fact, led by Congresswoman Walters. It is important to remember. I hope and pray that we will do the right thing here in the House. I know the President has a heart for getting Americans back when they have been improperly detained, or, in some cases, when they have been properly detained, but especially if they are being mistreated. Vietnam needs to wake up. And this House, the Senate, and the President need to make abundantly clear to Vietnam that, economically, we are going to come after you. You better let our people go. I also want to address a matter tonight. Having been a former judge, when I hear courageous judges stand up for the Constitution, or I read opinions wherein courageous, intelligent judges have taken a stand for the Constitution, it warms my heart. It inspires and encourages me. I have heard many friends in the media who have given accolades to a Virginia Federal judge named T.S. Ellis--not T.S. Eliot, but T.S. Ellis--who is the judge who is handling the case involving Paul Manafort. This is from a May 4 article by Jeff Mordock. It says: ``A Virginia Federal judge Friday blasted prosecutors from the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, demanding to know how decade-old bank and tax fraud allegations against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort''--I think he was chair for about 100 days--``could relate to Russian election interference,'' which, of course, is 2016. ``'You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud,' District Judge T.S. Ellis said during a morning hearing. Judge Ellis said prosecutors were interested in pressuring Mr. Manafort because he could provide information that would lead to President Donald Trump's `prosecution or impeachment.' ``At times, Judge Ellis appeared frustrated and even lost his temper with attorneys from Mr. Mueller's team. He grilled them on how allegations against Mr. Manafort for activities''--the copy I have ends there, but it says: ``'How does bank fraud in 2005 or 2006 have anything to do with coordination with the Russian Government?' Judge Ellis said. `What is really going on, it seems to me, is that this indictment is to put pressure on Mr. Manafort, but in and of itself has nothing to do with your appointment.''' ``Judge Ellis appeared to agree with the defense, but did not issue an immediate decision. He repeatedly barraged prosecutors about their authority to pursue decade-old charges against Mr. Manafort. At one point, Judge Ellis asked how the Manafort case differed from the FBI raid on President Trump's attorney Michael Cohen. The Cohen matter was referred by Mueller's team to prosecutors with the Southern District of New York for investigation and possible prosecution. In contrast, the Manafort case is being handled directly by Mr. Mueller's officer. ``He then appeared to guess the prosecutor's answer, saying the Cohen investigation did not `further our core effort to get Trump.' ``Later, Judge Ellis summarized prosecutor Michael Dreeben's argument as, `We said what this investigation was about, but we are not bound by it, and we were lying.' He then looked at Mr. Dreeben and said, `C'mon man,' referencing a catchphrase from ESPN's NFL pregame show.'' Further down: ``At issue in the memo is the definition of `arise.' The order gives the special counsel the authority to investigate any matters that `may arise directly from the investigation.' But prosecutors admitted Friday that the Manafort probe had been ongoing by the Department of Justice before Mr. Mueller was appointed special counsel. Mr. Dreeben said the charges against Mr. Manafort came because they had to `follow the money' to discover Mr. Manafort's financial records and ties to Russia through his lobbying work in the Ukraine. The comments provoked a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis. `It didn't lead to that,' he said of the Manafort charges and Russia probe. `It was given to you by the Department of Justice.''' Well, that sounds like a courageous judge, Judge T.S. Ellis. It sounds like a judge who calls them as he sees them. But, as the saying goes, where the rubber meets the road, his courage, his constitutional conviction, took a back seat to convenience. So he got accolades for calling out the Mueller investigation for exactly what it is. It is unconstitutional. Mueller has taken an investigation. He was not appointed by the President. He was not appointed by the Attorney General. He was picked by the same guy who was involved in the Russia investigation of Russia's effort to get uranium. He hired another lawyer named Weissmann who was involved in that investigation. They have all kinds of ties together. They have all kinds of reasons to cover for each other. But the fact that Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General, the fact that he wrote a memo saying fire Comey and the President acts on that memo and fires Comey based on Rosenstein's recommendation, or with his recommendation, and then Rosenstein uses the President's action in accordance with Rosenstein's memo to say that probably was obstructing justice, we need a special counsel. Are you kidding me? There has been a failure of justice and of the justice system. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis saw that, and he commented on it. When he had the chance to use the Constitution and say enough already, justice has run amok, and Paul Manafort, probably guilty of some of the things charged here, if not all of them, but you are not the one authorized to prosecute. The DOJ already had this investigation. It did not arise because of the special counsel. But the special counsel took it over, showing, again, his lack of integrity, as well as that of Mr. Weissmann. They had limitless, basically, authority given to them, which is unconstitutional. And Judge Ellis, in his opinion, where he ran away from his courageous words in May, said, in part, in his opinion, ``The intended purpose''--and he does a good account of the 1978 law creating special counsels. He said, ``The intended purpose of the 1978 act was to create a mechanism for the investigation and prosecution of high-ranking government officials. ``In 1988, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1978 act despite substantial separation of powers challenges,'' which, by the way, just because one Supreme Court says one thing, they are not 100 percent right all the time. That is why they reverse themselves frequently. But, as he pointed out, ``Congress reauthorized the 1978 act for the final time in 1994. It is important to note that despite the fact that Morrison''--the case that took this up--``was decided 7-1, Justice Scalia's dissent presented a compelling and powerful argument against the constitutionality of the 1978 act. Beginning with an eloquent description of the Founders' motivations in enshrining separation of powers principles in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's dissent went on to describe the ways in which the 1978 act infringed upon executive power.'' And this is from that dissent from Justice Scalia, a great man, a funny guy, a great sense of humor, but brilliant intellect, and I miss him very much. Justice Scalia said the independent counsel's investigation was commenced, not necessarily because the President or his authorized subordinates believe it is in the interest of the United States, in the sense that it warrants the diversion of resources from other efforts and is worth the cost in money and in possible damage to other governmental interests, and not even, leaving aside those normally considered factors, because the President or his authorized subordinates necessarily believe that an investigation is likely to unearth a violation worth prosecuting, but only because the Attorney General cannot affirm, as Congress demands, that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted. The decisions regarding the scope of that further investigation, its duration, and, finally, whether or not prosecution should ensue are, likewise, beyond the control of the President and his subordinates. But he goes on, quoting Justice Scalia: ``If to describe this case is not to decide it, the concept of a government of separate and coordinate powers no longer has meaning'' because ``it is ultimately irrelevant how much the statute reduces Presidential control.'' Of course, any impingement on Presidential control over the executive branch was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia also noted significant appointments clause problems with the `78 act, arguing the independent counsel was not an inferior officer because neither the President nor the Attorney General could remove the independent counsel. Ultimately, however, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the other Justices involved in the case were not of the same mind as Justice Scalia. The Court ruled seven to one that the `78 act passed constitutional muster, even though I would submit, parenthetically, it really didn't, but including the appointments clause. In 1999, through a bipartisan consensus, Congress agreed to allow the `94 Reauthorization Act to expire. Lawmakers at that time concluded the `94 Reauthorization was seriously flawed in several important respects, as experience had shown. Both Republicans and Democrats had come to the conclusion that, in practice, the 1994 Reauthorization Act and its predecessors had become more often a political weapon to be unleashed in the ongoing--indeed, escalating--culture wars, than a tool for ferreting out and prosecuting crimes ostensibly committed by high-ranking government officials. Later, in `99, the DOJ, acting pursuant to distinct statutory authority, promulgated regulations ``to replace the procedures set out in the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.'' Thus, to provide a special counsel with a large budget and tell him or her to find crimes allows a special counsel to pursue his or her targets without the usual time and budget constraints facing ordinary prosecutors, encouraging substantial elements of the public to conclude that the special counsel is being deployed as a political weapon. Furthermore, although the regulations required the Attorney General to provide a special counsel with a factual statement of the matters to be investigated, notably missing from the regulation is any requirement the Attorney General specify any particular crime or statutes that are believed to have been violated. He goes on in his opinion, I think, 31 pages, but he also comments, given the investigation's focus--he is talking about Mueller's--on President Trump's campaign, even a blind person can see that the true target of the special counsel investigation was President Trump, not the defendant. Further, he says the wisdom of allowing all links between individuals associated with President Trump's campaign and the Russian Government to be subject to investigation, irrespective of how stale those connections might be, is seriously in doubt. Nevertheless, he says that the grant of investigatory authority is written broadly and does capture the connections at issue in this case, which Judge Ellison already talked about. It was too broad. When you look at the people Mueller has hired, not content to have hired what, 17 lawyers--two of them left recently, as I understand it-- he went looking for somebody else who hated Trump as much as he did and Weissmann did and was successful. Apparently, the two who left didn't hate the President as much as Mueller wanted them to, which is one of the flaws in having someone so unaccountable--unaccountable because they answer to a man who is in--well, it is an old word where I come from--cahoots with Mueller, Weissmann, and the original Russia investigation that let Russia end up with 20-plus percent of our uranium, knowing they were acquiring it illegally. The Obama council on foreign investments in the U.S. voted to let them go, well, sure, because Mueller, Rosenstein, and Weissmann made sure that their guy behind the scenes wasn't talking. They kept the information quiet about Russia's illegal actions, and, gee, that ended up leading to $145 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. A lot of money changed hands. Pay to play, some people call it. We know for certain that Hillary Clinton's private server was hacked, and the fact that the current FBI Director, Director Wray, would allow a statement to go out last week fraudulently deceptive says the FBI has not cleaned itself up yet. Yes, there have been some people fired, some people demoted, and some people moved over, but it is still fraudulently deceptive and dishonoring the hard, honest work of thousands and thousands of FBI agents across this country. The intel community Inspector General and his investigators learned that Hillary Clinton's private server was, in fact, 100 percent certainty, hacked. It was reported by Richard Pollock. I know who hacked, I know where the information went, and I can't dispute what Richard Pollock wrote last week. He said that Chinese intel were getting every one of Hillary Clinton's messages, including some of our most sensitive classified information. Now, I didn't remember the story from November 6 of 2016, but I saw it recently, and it pointed out that Hillary Clinton was not only exposing our Nation's secrets and those who worked secretly for our Federal Government around the world; she was exposing people to extreme danger and potential loss of life through her unsecured, illegal, and, it turns out, criminal use of that server, not to mention the obstruction of justice when she got a subpoena and had the information sought destroyed. But the good thing for her was that her friends controlled the Justice Department. They hated Donald Trump, and they were going to do everything they could to help her get elected. That is why I knew Peter Strzok was lying when I asked him about the investigator of the intel community, IG Frank Rucker, coming to him and Dean Chapelle and telling them: We now know for certain China has hacked all of Hillary Clinton's emails coming in and going out and gave them specifics. We know Peter Strzok. We know from his texts from all he was doing, he was doing everything he could to protect Hillary Clinton from criminal prosecution and to help her defeat whoever the Republican would be, and especially Donald Trump. So it was certainly a lie when he says: Yeah, I remember Frank Rucker coming over and briefing; I don't remember what he briefed about. He does remember what he briefed about because, when he heard those searing words that Hillary Clinton's server has been, for certain, hacked, he knew there was a problem, and he covered it up. It takes courage to clean up a dirty justice system, especially when the dirt is at the very top. I was brokenhearted to read the words in Judge Ellis' opinion, a man who is clearly very intelligent, stays on top of the law, saw wrongdoing, saw impropriety, and I would compare him--I am tempted to compare him, but I won't compare him to Pontius Pilate because then some liberal would say: That means Gohmert is saying Manafort is Jesus, and I certainly am never going to say that. I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. He is my savior, and I can promise you, Paul Manafort is no Jesus. But the action of a judge saying ``I see a problem with your prosecution here'' and then refusing to use the power within his control to right the wrongdoing of a justice system, and in this case the unconstitutionality, defies the judge's own words when he says: Let us hope the people in charge of this prosecution, including the special counsel and the Assistant Attorney General, are such people. Because just before, he had said: The case is a reminder, ultimately, that our system of checks and balances and limitations on each branch's powers, although exquisitely designed, ultimately works only if people of virtue, sensitivity, courage, not affected by the winds of public opinion, choose to work within the confines of the law. Then he says: Let us hope the people in charge of the prosecution, including the special counsel and the Assistant Attorney General, are such people. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are not. The judge says: Although this case shall continue. That is heartbreaking. The former judge and Chief Justice, you want people who are in judicial positions to have the courage to do the right thing. These people in charge of a runaway prosecution are attempting to commit a coup d'etat. They are engaged in a civil war to take down a President, the origins of which operation were fraudulent and were paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. What has happened to the Department of Justice at the top and the FBI at the top is heartbreaking to people who have spent their lives dedicated to truth, justice, and our American constitution. It turns out Judge Ellis--brilliant, knowing--intentionally walked away from his responsibility and did not show himself to be a person of virtue, sensitivity, and courage not affected by the winds of public opinion. That is a tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to celebrate with my fellow east Texans today the success of the University of Texas at Tyler Patriots on capturing the 2018 NCAA Division III National Baseball Championship, the first championship title in program history. Although the Patriots team was unranked and had no idea if it would even participate in the NCAA postseason, the undeniable bond between these teammates resulted in an unprecedented comeback after receiving an at-large bid to participate in the NCAA Baseball Championships in Appleton, Wisconsin. The Patriots swept the best of three series against Texas Lutheran University with scores of 8-1 and 9-6 to claim the national title. It is with great pride that all east Texans extend our heartfelt congratulations to the national champion Patriots: Josh Bums, Jared Pauley, Blake Wilson, Alex Bishop, Benjamin Romines, Henry Sanchez, Jordan Antley, Zachary Pavelock, Zane Wilkinson, Brandon Saddler, Evan Kissinger, Tanner Roach, Landon Shofner, Bowie Farris, Simon Sedillo, Blake Maddox, Kolton Forsythe, Christopher Stodolka, Alexander Masotto, Ryan Cheatham, Sam Sitton, Nate Imig, Austin Schneider, Turner Givens, Graham Welch, and Dayton Loyd. Praise is also extended to reserve Patriots: Cole Clinton, Adam Nelson, Adam Biesiadny, Justin Olivarez, Braden McMahan, Colston Lloyd, Tyler Hollingsworth, Christian Reeves, Ethan Cherry, Max Page, Raby Hampton, Caden Ledbetter, Tyler Johnson, Jeremy Moore, Sam Plotkowski, Patrick Rogers, Joey Gennusa, Brady UsherWood, Cameron Jacobs, and Blake Ross. Credit is owed not only to the talented athletes, but to the dedicated faculty and staff of the University of Texas at Tyler, including: Brent Porche, Head Coach; Erik Grafton, Assistant Coach/ Recruiting Coordinator; Wade Pope, Assistant Coach; Cade Bowen, Pitching Coach; Kody Gautreaux, Assistant Coach; Sam Lane, Assistant Coach; Dalton Smith, Assistant Coach; Connor Green, Strength & Conditioning Coach; Andrew Cage, Athletic Trainer; and Dr. Howard Patterson, Director of Athletics. Enough cannot be said regarding the support the Patriots received from the entire Tyler community. The love and support from people all around the area surely served as an inspiring force behind this incredible run. It is also amazingly fitting that the last season Robert and Mary Irwin, the benefactors for whom the team's home field is named, got to experience together before Robert's passing was the team's first national championship. With the support of coaches, teachers, administrators and their entire east Texas community, these young men bear witness that anything is achievable through hard work and determination. These are guiding principles that lead to success not only on the field, but will undoubtedly resonate through every endeavor these valiant championship players undertake throughout their lives.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for bringing this amendment. It is an important amendment to people that matter very much. John Dingell is a man of integrity. I feel I know his heart. He has a huge heart, and we disagreed on many issues, but I know him as a man of integrity. He was told he had to push through the cap and trade that would have gotten into costing people for this so-called cost of carbon, and he said it is not only a tax, it is a great big tax, and he lost his chairmanship. But what John Dingell knows, what I know is when you start creating taxes on fuel, the people that get hammered the worst are the Nation's poorest among us. That is who it gets passed to. That is who gets crushed. Let's don't do this to the hardworking, poorest among us. Let's vote for the Mullin amendment.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to be here. It is an honor to speak in this historic room where Franklin D. Roosevelt stood right there, though back then it was a white marble podium at which he stood, and asked for a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. He went on to join forces with a despicable man named Stalin, who killed millions upon millions of people, and he didn't hide it very well. For those who knew how destructive Stalin had been, how truly evil he was, it was quite a blow for people to see Franklin Roosevelt as President of the United States, where we believe in freedom, sit and smile and pal around with one of the worst mass murderers in the history of the world named Stalin, starving millions upon millions in Ukraine. I mean, for heaven's sake, in World War II, they didn't relieve Poland of oppression from Nazi Germany. They took over the oppression of Poland from Nazi Germany. There were some, one remarkable General named Patton, who understood how dangerous the communist dictator was. But so many have been miseducated over the years, the last 40 years. I saw the beginnings of it in the 1970s when I was in school, how wonderful socialism was, how wonderful communism was. But that was just a very small minority, because most Americans understood--they had been properly educated growing up--how great our freedom is, how unusual it is, and that it doesn't last forever, that it takes constant defense. Again, the comment by Benjamin Franklin, when asked: What you have given us? He said: ``A republic, madam, if you can keep it,'' because it doesn't endure forever. As I have met with people around the world, from Togo, Nigeria, all across the Middle East and Asia, even the little Maldives islands, remote islands in the Philippines, all the way across to America, around the world, it is amazing how many people see America as their only hope for having peace in this life. Franklin Roosevelt felt like the threat of Nazi Germany justified his actions in joining forces with an evil, terrorist dictator, a mass murderer like Stalin. But he also joined forces with Winston Churchill, who also could see the rising threat of communism through Russia. But now, not so many see the threat anymore. Yes, the President is over there in Helsinki today, talking to Vladimir Putin. In my conversation with him about over a year and a half ago, he certainly understood the threat that Russia is to us. But so is misinformation about what is real, what is true. And I was listening to some of my colleagues before me. I have been listening to people on the news talking about Judge Kavanaugh. Frankly, he was not my first choice out of those who the President could have chosen. To say slavery would be coming back if he goes on the Supreme Court, I heard that. Actually, if he were to go to the Supreme Court, it appears pretty clear he would try to help the Court be slaves to the Constitution instead of their own shadows of penumbras that things need to be in the Constitution. Until it is amended, we have to go by what is there. I have heard ongoing, constant claims that voters and votes will be denied, and I would have to agree that they will for all of those who attempt to vote illegally. That is what voter ID is about. My understanding was, after voter ID went into place, Alabama, Georgia, where I understood that statistics were kept, well, the numbers of voters went up dramatically for minorities. It didn't hurt minority voting. But what it certainly did do is ensure better integrity in the outcome of votes. I recall hearing one night David Brinkley talking, I believe, to Tom Brokaw, and he was encouraged to tell about a story he heard Lyndon Johnson tell. He said, you know, back then, before Watergate, reporters were close, big buddies with the President, and he would come down sometimes and sit in the press room, plop his boots up on a desk, scratching his belly, and having a beer, and told a story, in essence, of when he ran for Congress. He was out in the cemetery with his campaign manager before the election, late at night. They were writing down the names on the tombstones of people who would be voting in his election. They came to one that was just such a mess, moss and all kinds of crud on the tombstone. The campaign manager said, come on, Lyndon, let's just move to the next one. He grabbed his campaign manager and said, no, sir. This man has every bit as much a right to vote as anybody else in this cemetery. Well, everybody laughed. Except if you read about what happened in Duval County during his election, you would begin to think that perhaps was a firsthand, true story. Whether humorous or not, there are so many examples of fraudulent voting. I know people keep saying, oh, gee, there is no such thing. But that is garbage. There is plenty of fraud in votes in America. Of course, as long as you can prevent people from having IDs like you have to have to get into the Department of Justice when Eric Holder was the Attorney General, when Loretta Lynch was Attorney General-- currently, you couldn't get into the Democratic National Convention without a proper government ID. Anyway, photo IDs are pretty routine. You have to have them to get cigarettes, alcohol. You have to have them to do much of anything, to cash a check. Because of rulings by the Supreme Court, you have to make an accommodation for those who couldn't afford to pay for a photo ID. Then they can get them for free. So it just seems like a lot of scare tactics being used. Donald Trump was not my first choice in the election, but one of the things I have noticed, if he loses on something, he is going to come back and try to make the people who caused the unnecessary and inappropriate loss wish they hadn't forced that loss, like in this situation, perhaps. If the scare tactics about slavery coming back--and I know we will be hearing a lot of the Bork lines. We are already hearing some of the Bork lines that were lies about Judge Bork. Some of those, since they worked to lie about Judge Bork, they may work to lie about Kavanaugh, so we will probably be hearing some of those resurrected. But I can't help but wonder if all these lies said about Kavanaugh were successful as they were about Bork, wow, I just wonder about the next person that President Trump might appoint. I can hear people walking out of this Chamber someday, saying maybe it seemed pretty clear we should have let Kavanaugh go through, because he really wasn't as bad as we said he was. But that will be an interesting time down the road. I didn't plan to talk about Judge Kavanaugh, but he seems like a very decent man. Wow, the attacks on a decent family man, Catholic, caring man, it is just amazing how far things have come in America. But I think it is important, with all the screams about Russia, to understand Russia and the former Soviet Union were, indeed, a grave threat to the United States. McCarthy was partially right. He went much too far, and he got very abusive, but there was a threat. He just went too far, became too abusive, and we don't need that. Let me parenthetically insert that there is nothing abusive about questioning a serial liar about how he became so good at serial lying. Infidelity is not particularly an issue, not relevant, really. It is relevant to security clearances, certainly, because that can make somebody vulnerable to being turned by foreign intelligence. But for purposes of our hearings, like before the Judiciary Committee, credibility is always relevant. When a person has been a serial liar, that is relevant in whatever context he became a serial liar. There is an article by Steven Allen dated June 23, 2018. ``Political leaders and journalists are deeply concerned about Russian meddling in U.S. elections. Took `em long enough. The Russians have been meddling in U.S. elections for at least 70 years. ``In 1948, the Progressive Party''--there are some I know who are thinking the Democratic Party should change their name to Progressive Party, and there are those advocating such things. They like to informally call themselves the progressives. But, ``In 1948, the Progressive Party, front for the Soviet- controlled Communist Party, ran former Vice President Henry Wallace as its Presidential candidate. Wallace arguably threw the election to President Truman by attacking him, undercutting Republicans' claims that Truman was `soft' on the Russians.'' This is a quote from October 21, 1956: ``President Eisenhower today accused Soviet Premier Nikolai A. Bulganin of meddling in the American election campaign,'' the United Press reported. Again, that is October 21, 1956. ``Bulganin had suggested that Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson was more likely to get an agreement halting H-bomb tests. That, Eisenhower said, constituted `interference by a foreign nation in our internal affairs . . . in the midst of a national election campaign.' ``Historian Bruce Dearstyne reported that the Russian Ambassador in 1960 invited Stevenson''--that is Adlai Stevenson ``to the Embassy, `plied' him with `drinks, caviar, and fruit,' and offered to back him if he would run for President again. Stevenson rejected the offer.'' That was the Russian Ambassador in 1960, clearly attempting to interfere. ``Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Premier in 1960, bragged in his memoirs that, `By waiting to release the U-2 pilot Gary Powers until after the American election, we kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.''' So you got Nikita Khrushchev bragging that he got John F. Kennedy elected. I am not saying that. I am just reading what is historically available. ``In 1968, under orders from Moscow, the Soviet U.S. Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin offered to secretly fund Hubert Humphrey's Presidential campaign. The offer was made during a breakfast at Humphrey's home. Dobrynin wrote in his memoirs that Humphrey declined the offer, saying, `It was more than enough for him to have Moscow's good wishes, which he highly appreciated.''' That was the 1960s Democratic Party hero Hubert Humphrey. ``In 1976, Senator Henry `Scoop' Jackson, a strong anti-Communist, ran for President. The Russians sent forged FBI letters to journalists claiming that Jackson was a closeted homosexual.'' Of course, today, that would probably get him elected, but in 1976, not so helpful. Also in 1976, the Russians had a spy among top Democratic Party activists, who participated in a 3-hour strategy session with Governor Jerry Brown of California and presidential candidate Jimmy Carter. In 1984, The Heritage Foundation issued a report: ``How Moscow Meddles in the West's Elections.'' ``'Last year the Soviets tried to influence elections in West Germany and Britain,' Heritage reported. `And this year, it is America's turn. For months, Moscow's statements and actions have been aimed at defeating Ronald Reagan.' Methods included manipulation of the peace movement, threatening statements, and `direct appeals' to voters including `mass demonstrations.' Russian meddling was so frequent that the West German chancellor commented, `One was used to this sort of thing.' ``As far as I can tell, the report exposing Russian meddling received no news coverage. ``Political scientists Lawrence Caldwell and Robert Levgold pointed out that the Russians had begun to focus on such tactics as looking for `exploitable differences in the opposing camp' and appealing to the people `over the heads of their government.' ``U.S. media during this time gave lots of exposure to Americans who bypassed the government to communicate directly with the Russians. For example, a 10-year-old girl from Maine, who wrote a pro-peace letter to Russian leader Yuri Andropov, was given her own Disney Channel program about politics, `Samantha Smith Goes to Washington.' ``Among those seeking to work with the Russians was U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, brother of martyred President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. According to a KGB memo,''--of course, this has been news years ago-- ``Kennedy passed along a plan for countering President Reagan by creating pro-Russia news coverage and bringing Soviet officials to the United States to `appeal directly to the American people.' '' KGB Chief Viktor Chebrikov wrote, ``'The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.' ``In a 2015 article, Politifact'' which I can't give a lot of credence to, ``quoted Ken Adelman, Reagan's deputy U.N. ambassador, explaining that the Reagan Administration ignored the Kennedy overture because `We knew Senators were doing this sort of thing all the time.' ``Russian meddling declined after the Cold War, then resumed. `` `Occupy Wall Street' protests,''--and this is important news--`` `Occupy Wall Street' protests, beginning in 2011, were heavily supported by the Russians, as noted in a report by U.S. intelligence agencies: `RT's, Russia Today, Editor in Chief . . . characterized RT's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement as `information warfare' that is aimed at promoting popular dissatisfaction with the U.S. government. RT created a Facebook app to connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via social media,' and `RT featured its own hosts in Occupy rallies.' '' Obviously in 2011 and 2012--this isn't in the article--but obviously the Russians were playing heavily in that election, and we had a President named Obama that could have done something to stop the Russians from trying to throw the election to the Obama campaign by harming the Republicans and helping the Occupy Wall Street movement, but the Obama administration did nothing of the sort. Back to the article, it says, ``At least since 2011, the Russians have funneled money to groups in the United States and Europe opposed to fracking, which threatens Russia's dominance in oil and gas.'' And in fairness with regard to the Russian funding efforts to stop the fracking that has made the United States the biggest oil producer, those efforts weren't entirely Russian. Yes, our ability to produce more oil has directly harmed Russia, but it has also hurt the Middle East. And you can find that there were programs and videos funded by people in the Middle East to scare Americans to put them against fracking so that Russia and the Middle East could go back to being where most of the oil was coming from. Anyway, this article says, ``To do this,'' talking about opposing fracking, the Russians ``use a network of front organizations that include corporations, law firms, and nonprofit groups, with some of the money getting into the United States through Bermuda. ``Facing criticism from Republicans over his soft-on-Putin policies, President Obama sought during his 2012 reelection campaign, to avoid confrontation with the Russians.'' Of course, inserted parenthetically here, when he knew the Russians were helping his campaign and hurting Mitt Romney's campaign, then, of course, maybe that played into his decision not to try to stop the Russians meddling in the U.S. election. ``The Russians cooperated. In March 2012, Obama was heard on an open microphone telling Putin sidekick Dmitry Medvedev that he would `have more flexibility' after the election but `it's important for him to give me space.' Medvedev replied: `I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.''' So maybe that had something to do with the Obama administration not wanting to confront Russia about their meddling, because they were meddling on behalf of Obama. In any event, the article says, ``Time and time again, Russia meddled. It was, `the experts' said, something we were used to, something that happened all the time, no big deal. Then, one day, Democrats need an excuse for losing an election. And everything changed.'' So an interesting article there by Steven J. Allen, June 23. Mr. Speaker, it is rather tragic that we had a hearing on Friday: I didn't violate the rules of the House; many of my Democratic colleagues did. You are not supposed to interrupt, rudely interrupt another Member's time, constantly yelling, He needs to take his meds. That is a violation of the rule. I didn't call anybody on the rule violations. But it is certainly not a violation of the House rules--and I hope my colleagues will understand--when a witness is sitting there lying through his teeth, it is permissible to call him exactly what he is: a liar; in Strzok's case, a serial liar. I saw it during his closed-door testimony. Some of us talked about this guy, he looked so good, you know, he looked like he could pass any polygraph test. And then I find out, well, actually, he had a couple of deceptions indicated along the way, but apparently he had people inside the FBI helping keep him in his top position as one of the top leaders. So apparently he wasn't quite as good at lying as I thought he was. But we have got to get back to being seekers of truth and not deniers of the opportunity to find it. I mean, our whole civilization stands on the brink of an end when young people today in such big numbers think these activities of socialism, progressivism, communism, that those are good, healthy things. There is only one way you can have socialism or communism: you have got to have dictatorial powers in the hands of either a dictator or a committee and there has got to be very little freedom. The government will let you have freedom, and they will take it away, with every right to do that. This is such an anomaly we have here in the United States. People around the world, and I am not talking about the talking heads in the media and Europe, the EU, Britain, some of the other places, I am talking about people that live in these countries day to day all over the world, so many see us as their chance for some peace in this life. Quoting before, but a man named Ebenezer in Togo, Africa, said: You know, our group here, we are Christians. We know where we go when we die, but our only chance of having peace in this life is if America is strong. Tell leaders in Washington, stop allowing America to get weaker and weaker. Trump wants to see this country get strong. Some of them said how, as a Christian, could you support a guy like Trump, as he had been involved in infidelity in the past. I have people sling that my way. But the Bible addresses such a thing. You know, it talks about: When I was a child, I spoke as a child--that was the Apostle Paul--but when I became an adult, I put aside childish things. And when Donald J. Trump was a Democrat and hung around Bill Clinton, he talked like Bill Clinton, he acted like Bill Clinton. So I forgive him. I would like to do anything we can in this body to help make America stronger so those people, those souls crying out around the world for a strong America so they have a chance at peace will indeed have a chance at peace. We have been given a gift. That is something scripture also addresses: ``To whom much is given, of him much will be required.'' We have got to do better than this, but there is nothing ever wrong with facing a liar and calling him a liar. And the only thing worse than a serial liar at a hearing in the U.S. Capitol is when the serial liar that has damaged the country, hopefully not irreparably, but damaged it badly, tries to make himself a victim. We have had enough of that. Let's get back to truth. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day here on Capitol Hill. Madam Speaker, the hearing was still going on when I was just in the Cloakroom, where we had an FBI agent, one of the top supervisors, he had been in charge of foreign counterintelligence as well, and then after his outrageous bias and comments through text messages came to light, Robert Mueller relieved him from the Trump investigation and left the others who were just as biased. But it was an incredible day. For somebody who has not just shown bias, but outrageous animus, disgust, disdain, and deploring people who voted for Trump by their smell, he tried to clean it up a little bit in his testimony today. Madam Speaker, I thought it might be helpful to some of our Members who know there is some rule here of the House that somehow you are not supposed to besmirch other Members. I am not sure how far it goes, but if they will check the rule, it is for those who are elected, be it House Member, Senate, Vice President, President, we are required to show decency and not call into question the intentions of such an elected person. When a witness comes before a hearing who is testifying 180 degrees opposite of what he put in writing thousands of times, for most of us, for a majority here in the House, it has no credibility. It makes the witness even look worse. To come in after we have seen so many of the texts he sent, we have got a good sense of where this man's heart, soul, and mind have been. It appeared abundantly clear that he had gotten very, very good at lying. It doesn't violate any House rule to say that. Now, when we were in our hearing, and one of my Democratic friends across the aisle yelled that I was off my meds, see, now, that was a violation of the rule. I thought about calling it out, having her words taken down, but we didn't need any further delays. But I thought it might be informative to my friends across the aisle who don't understand the rules of the House, but when somebody is lying through their teeth, sitting there smugly and smirking, and, frankly, when it hit me, that is probably the same smug little smirk you had on your face when you told your wife, no telling how many times, there is nothing going on between me and Lisa Page. He got really good at lying and showing no emotion whatsoever. So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important. But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice, and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not good for the state of this Union. It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every--actually, it was over 30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified--beyond classified--top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server. Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them--no explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good intelligence people--when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia. We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation. Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and prejudice would not have it affect their investigation. Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me, but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on either side. It wouldn't matter. Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the people--some of them--that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff. What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no evidence that they were hacked. All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out--over 30,000, except for 4--over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did nothing about it. When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind Mr. Strzok mouthed, ``Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about. But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions. But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The witness' credibility is always material and relevant. When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page. The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down. Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even things that have nothing to do--they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out. We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen. Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule- breaker she was as she tried to claim I was breaking the rules, which I was not. But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000, except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia. You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case. Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously--as I said at the hearing: So you give us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this evidence showed any affect on the outcome. Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100 percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation. Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank, pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't have to have evidence that the bank robber said, ``Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No. When the results--and there are a lot of results--all of them are consistent with the bias and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of the fact finder. Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress--the guy is good. He is really good. As I told him--I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did, and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the outcome. Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick up the investigation against Trump. As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without resorting to people who have provided information about what went on. We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found those emails there. Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary. They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this information. So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said and done. So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton? There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous people--and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding, honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never do that. So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great FBI agents around the country. No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not. And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in there. What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years, Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that the young man--I believe his name was Oscar Flores--who worked there, they may have tried to get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off. The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working there for her. She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that she broke the law in that case. I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke. Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump. When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say: ``Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened. So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them. Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days. He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there. Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was disclosed. I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by those with far more selfish motives. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting story in Politico this week titled: ``The Secret Story of How America Lost the Drug War With the Taliban.'' It was written by Josh Meyer. It says: ``As Afghanistan edged ever closer to becoming a narco-state five years ago, a team of veteran U.S. officials in Kabul presented the Obama administration with a detailed plan to use U.S. courts to prosecute the Taliban commanders and allied drug lords who supplied more than 90 percent of the world's heroin . . .''. Mr. Speaker, that is incredible. I have been hearing from DEA agents, local police, deputies, so many law enforcement people, about how incredibly abundant heroin is in America. How we had so many people that would get hooked on opioids, and then they would ultimately find heroin was cheaper and more plentiful. It destroyed a lot of lives, and it continues to destroy lives in America. To have this report come out that the Obama administration could have done something in a timely manner to have saved tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives from being lost or being wasted in this opioid epidemic of addiction, it is really staggering to think that our United States Government, the Obama administration, with all of its tools, had the chance to do something that would prevent the massive personal destructions that we have witnessed, it runs over into the unconscionable area. This article says: ``The plan, according to its authors, was both a way of halting the ruinous spread of narcotics around the world and a new--and urgent--approach to confronting ongoing frustrations with the Taliban, whose drug profits were financing the growing insurgency and killing American troops. But the Obama administration's deputy chief of mission in Kabul, citing political concerns, ordered the plan to be shelved, according to a Politico investigation.'' Now, I have not always been the biggest Politico fan, but this is extraordinary. ``Now, its authors--Drug Enforcement Administration agents and Justice Department legal advisers at the time--are expressing anger over the decision, and hope that the Trump administration, which has followed a path similar to former President Barack Obama's in Afghanistan, will eventually adopt the plan as part of its evolving strategy. `` `This was the most effective and sustainable tool we had for disrupting and dismantling Afghan drug trafficking organizations and separating them from the Taliban,' said Michael Marsac, the main architect of the plan as the DEA's regional director for Southwest Asia at the time. `But it lies dormant, buried in an obscure file room, all but forgotten.' ``A senior Afghan security official, M. Ashraf Haidari, also expressed anger at the Obama administration when told about how the U.S. effort to indict Taliban narcotics kingpins was stopped dead in its tracks 16 months after it began. `` `It brought us almost to the breaking point, put our elections into a time of crisis, and then our economy almost collapsed,' Haidari said of the drug money funding the Taliban. `If that operation had continued, we wouldn't have had this massive increase in production and cultivation as we do now.' '' This is a photograph showing scoring a poppy to extract raw opium in April of 2004. ``Afghan drug lords have pledged financial support to the Taliban in exchange for protection of their vast swaths of poppy and cannabis fields, drug processing labs, and storage facilities. ``Poppy cultivation, heroin production, terrorist attacks and territory controlled by the Taliban are now at or near record highs. President Ashraf Ghani''--who I have met. He seems like a very decent gentleman--``said recently that Afghanistan's military--and the government itself--would be in danger of imminent collapse, perhaps within days, if U.S. assistance stops.'' When we heard the Obama administration condemning the opioid addiction epidemic, we didn't know that that administration had a chance to end 90 percent of the heroin coming into this country. Apparently, so much of that flows across our southern border. And I realize that the leaders in the U.S. Senate and the leaders in the United States House did not support the pillars of Donald Trump's platform that got him elected President of the United States. Every bill that we have brought out of the House or that has come out of the Senate, even a couple of times there has been a little bit of money for a border wall, it is not as serious as it should be that this Congress should be doing something about the travesty on our southern border. As long as it remains so open, the drug cartels will continue to make tens, hundreds of billions of dollars. I read that just the drug money across our southern border last year was around $80 billion, and I have also understood that the projections are that the drug cartels may be making more from human trafficking across our southern border than they are even from their drug money. That money is being used to keep our Mexico friend and neighbor oppressed and in bondage. The best thing that we could do, if we really and truly cared about the people of Mexico, about the people of Guadalajara, El Salvador, of so many countries in Central America, and even South America, that are caught up in human trafficking, drug trafficking, and sex trafficking that is going on and coming across the U.S. border is stop it. We stop the flow of the billions that are being spent, or made, by the drug cartels, then they don't have the money for the corruption that resides in so much of Mexico and south of Mexico. That is what a good neighbor should do. That is what this House should do. That is what the Senate should do. Tell our rich lobbyist friends that we are going to save American lives, and we are going to make Mexico one of the 10 top economies in the world by gutting their corruption, because we are going to enforce a secure border to our south, and they need to get ready and used to it. But we are going to have to have leadership in both the House and the Senate that will step up to the task. Enough lives have been lost, enough girls have been subjected to sex trafficking, enough lives have been wasted in drug addiction, enough lives have been lost in trying to get here, evilly lured here by the attraction of what might come. Fathers that would even provide birth control to daughters, knowing they are likely to be raped on the way to the United States. What kind of people are we that we would lure people into that kind of situation? Well, we are doing it. And I hear it over and over from those people that guard our border and from the people that are not insane, they are not crazy, they are not stupid, they are just ignorant about the role of ICE in America. ICE does not protect our borders. That is the Border Patrol. We also have that supplemented by others that are assisting the Border Patrol. ICE is really the one that sometimes has been referred to by--that part of Homeland Security, has been labeled by drug cartels, according to people on the border, as the drug cartel's logistics. Because they get people illegally across our border, and then Homeland Security, with the help of ICE--there are children involved that involves Health and Human Services, HHS--they ship them around the country to whatever address the drug cartels give the individuals and tell them that this is where you are going, and you can finish paying off your fee to us by working for us at the address where we send you, either in sex trafficking, drug trafficking, or whatever. Yes, so we are taking United States Government money; we are prying it out of the hardworking hands of Americans; and we are using it to help the drug cartels build up their employee base all over America. It is time that people in the Republican Party woke up and realized the amount of human suffering that our failure to secure our southern border is causing. President Trump is doing what he can, but he could do a whole lot more if we gave him the tools to do it. How heartless can we be not to secure our southern border and allow the deaths, the rapes, the drug abuse that is overwhelming our country. We have got to stop it. The Obama administration had a chance to cut it off at its root source. They killed the program. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea--I know our friend Mike Pompeo is busy right at this moment, but there are others in the State Department, there are people in Homeland Security, Secretary Nielsen, others. We can do something about it. We have got to do something about it. It is what decent, caring people would do. And those, including any judge who says you have got to give these children back to people who may not be their parents, people who have convictions for human trafficking and sex trafficking or child molestation, ought to come up on charges themselves. Fortunately, one judge backed off of the deadline that had been set for getting certain children back to their parents, because Homeland Security and HHS is doing everything they can as quickly as they can to make sure if they give children to adults, they are not sex traffickers and they are not drug traffickers, there is a family relationship. And it appears a great deal of work has been done along those lines. So there are at least five or six children who have not been turned over to people who were not their family or people who had drug or child molestation offenses. But this is serious stuff. It is what we do. It is why our Nation, so many of us, became outraged when we found out that young, beautiful little girls competing as Olympians for the United States in the world were sexually molested by an adult monster. And then we have the wannabes, adult men who set records and won wrestling matches. They could take down the strongest and best in the country, take them down if they didn't like what they were doing. They could take them down if they got in a ring and the match started. They could take them down. And two guys like that come forward, say: Yeah. Okay. So I was an adult. So I could have been out in Afghanistan shooting and killing people. I was no match for some wimpy doctor who made come-on comments. Somebody like that would be allowed to besmirch the name of Jim Jordan. It is disgusting. And any group that would glom on to something like that, it is disgusting. Assassinating an honorable character used to be a virtually unpardonable sin in America. But what happens when you quit teaching about right and wrong, you quit teaching about the Ten Commandments, you quit teaching that we are all accountable for our own actions, and you start teaching, instead, that everything is relative? There is no right. There is no wrong. There is only convenient and politically expedient. When political expedience becomes more important in America, like it has for some, and right and wrong goes out the window, we have no business maintaining the same form of governance. It is time to get back to teaching right and wrong, because there are such. C. S. Lewis said he used to enjoy making fun of Christians when he was an atheist by saying: How can you say there is a just God in the world when there is so much injustice in the world? And no matter what they would come back with as a response, these Christians, Lewis would say: Yes, yes, that is all well and good, but wouldn't it be easier just to admit there can't be a just God in the universe when there is so much injustice? And then one day he finally realized: If there is not some absolute source of right and wrong in the world, justice and injustice, then how could he ever know there is so much injustice in the world? It would be like a man blind from birth being unable to know what light is. But there is an absolute source of justice in the world, and that is why, in 1787, in Philadelphia, when our Nation's leaders struggled to come up with a new constitution, that Ben Franklin, who so many teachers across the country wrongly say was a deist, as some do about Washington, said: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible an empire could rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writing, that unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Franklin said: I firmly believe this: I also believe without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in our political building no better than the builders of Babel. We will be confounded by our local partial interests and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages. He went on to move that they start having prayer to start each of their days at Independence Hall working on the Constitution, just like they did throughout the Revolution. But if you go back and look at the debate, you find the reason that was voted down. They didn't have anybody who everybody else would agree would do a fair prayer for all the different Christian denominations. So during the Revolution, they hired a chaplain who always did what all the Christian denominations believed was a fair prayer, but as they explained in debate: We are not getting paid. We don't have a treasury. We can't hire a chaplain. We can't do that right now. And so next they moved to Randolph of Virginia, his motion: Okay. Here we are at the end of June. I move that we recess--this is not his exact words, but in essence: Let's recess, reconvene on our Nation's birthday, Independence Day, at one of the local churches. Let's worship God together. And after we as a group here have worshiped God together, then let's come back and try this again. We are not making progress. That passed. They went to the Reformed Calvinistic Church in Philadelphia. And it must have gone well. You can find prayers that the presiding pastor, the Reverend William Rogers, prayed. He brought that group together through prayer by the grace of God, and they came back and gave us the greatest founding document in the history of the world. We have got to get back to where we teach right and wrong. That is why John Adams in 1797, as President of the United States, said: This Constitution was meant for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. And he was right. And when you fail to instill those moral understandings that brought C. S. Lewis around from being an atheist to being one of the most effective and greatest apologists for Christianity in its history, we have got to get back to that or the Constitution cannot work, and you will have administrations that commit heinous, reproachable acts as leaders of the Nation. We ask that God bless America, but there are certain things a nation of people are supposed to do to be blessed people and merit the blessings of Heaven, as our Founders often referred to them. Let's stand up for what is right. Let's stop the political vindictiveness, and the Nation will be better and be more likely to be blessed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the very things that my colleagues across the aisle are arguing could have been argued back in Watergate days and they would have kept Richard Nixon in office. Some of us on this side of the aisle don't care about party as much as we do about justice and the truth. And what we have found is that leading intelligence people and Justice people were lying. Clapper has been found to have been a liar, perjured himself; so has Brennan. And then we get more information that has been objected to, redacted, and we find out, whoa. These guys said this was for national security, and it turns out, when we get the information, actually, it was because it was embarrassing to the people objecting. Oversight is absolutely critical, and the last administration didn't have enough oversight, and, in fact, they obstructed. They were able to drag things out, so we never got to the bottom of things like Fast and Furious, when one of our own precious American agents was killed. There were no answers, and they are trying it again. But now we have this obligation to make sure that these documents that have been hidden are brought forward. And, yes, we have Mr. Rosenstein, who actually was involved in an investigation of Russia trying to get, illegally, U.S. uranium, and he worked with a guy named Mueller, who hired a guy named Weissmann to help in that investigation. And they have hidden what went on there and even forced a witness to sign a nondisclosure agreement--unheard of in that situation. It is imperative that we bring these things out. We have too many people in the Justice Department--I watched one of them named Strzok yesterday, and I can't go into what he said, but I was going: Wow. We know that is a lie, what he just said. He is so good. And then I realized he must have said, straight-faced, to his wife 100 times about: Oh, no, there is nothing going on with me and Ms. Page. There are too many people in the Justice Department who have gotten too good at lying. We need these documents to see what is the truth.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting week. We were told when we were starting the week that we were going to be taking up a couple of immigration bills. Before we could even get that started, we were met with a firestorm of absolute outrage about children being separated from their parents. Well, anybody who is a parent doesn't want that to happen, even though, as a felony judge in Texas, I know. I watched it happened constantly. It happens every day in our country. It is heartbreaking, but it happens every day all over the country when any person in the United States commits a crime and is taken to jail. I watched it happen over and over in my courtroom. Your heart breaks for their children. You can't let the children go to jail with the parent. Sometimes there is somebody else to take care of them. Sometimes it is Child Protective Services. But it is still heartbreaking. That is what we have seen on the border. We have a President and Attorney General trying to follow their oath and enforce the law. But it is heartbreaking when you see some of these pictures like the first one here. When I saw that, my heart broke for this beautiful little boy in a blue shirt--actually, I think this is a separate picture, and these are two others--initially, just seeing this, where it looks like he is in a cage. You feel bad that Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and President Trump are the ones in office when this is going on. But then we find out actually he is a child of one of the protesters that is protesting the Trump administration. He is not really incarcerated. This was completely trumped up, so to speak, by the media and by the groups that are trying to do everything they can since the stories about Russia collusion turned out to have more to do with the Clinton campaign colluding with the Russians than Trump. Well, this has to be another source of attack. Again, it is just heart-wrenching to see a child like that, until you find out he is not really in a cage. He is not somebody that the Trump administration was restraining. In fact, here is the same little boy skipping around over here on the other side of the fence with the protesters. So it turns out he is not. But then we look at some of these other pictures here. We will do this in rapid order, because we are running out of time. Here you have all of these people, many of them children, in this facility and a chain link fence everywhere. It is treating them like animals, basically. They are all under these shiny blankets. It is tragic. But then we found out, actually, that was while President Obama was in office and then conditions improved dramatically. This is another tragic picture. Tragic. It does look like they are caged animals. Again, they were appearing to be caged animals during the Obama administration. President Obama was responsible for that. You see this tragic sign ``Juvenile Holding Cell,'' where the Trump administration is treating these little juveniles this way. They are locked up in this little room. It is strictly for juveniles being held away from others. Then we find out, no, that was the Obama administration, too. But all of these pictures were originally touted as being part of Trump's war on children. Here is a female juvenile holding cell. That is proof positive that President Trump was isolating these female juveniles away. Then we find out, no, that is part of the Obama administration. It is proof positive the Obama administration was separating children from their parents, even though there are some lamebrain newspapers in Texas that try to tell me I didn't see what I personally saw. I have been there. I have seen what they did. I have been there all hours of the day and night. All these lumps are precious little children, and it is heartbreaking to think that any parent could send these children--90 percent of them--unaccompanied through deserts and put them in the custody of gangs. The former gangs are the ones the drug cartels use normally as coyotes to bring these precious people across. Tragic circumstances. Horrendous circumstances. Yet that was all going on, all of this tragic stuff was happening, without one single word from Hollywood about the tragedy that President Obama was causing. A couple of more quick pictures here. Again, these were portrayed initially as being proof of the horrors of the Trump administration. It turns out these were all under the Obama administration. All these little silver lumps, it turns out that most of them are children. All of them are people under there. Tragic circumstances, but it is what President Obama was doing, his administration was doing, not the Trump administration. So all these people who were throwing dirt balls at the Trump administration, where they actually stuck was on the Obama administration. It always helps if you don't just fly off like so many have. It is not really mainstream media; it is the alt-left media. Once they were the mainstream media, now they are the alt-left media. But they are covering for the Obama administration, trying to make the Trump administration look horrendous, when what the Trump administration has done has been far more caring and supportive of the children than the facilities that I saw during the Obama administration. They have a lot better facilities they are using now. The ones I am particularly familiar with are down in south Texas. That is where I spent so much time during the Obama administration. Since President Trump has been in office, I am telling you the facilities are a lot better, and they are doing a better job of caring for people. I heard somebody this morning say: Wow, there are so many people who are just getting outraged about children being ripped from their mothers' arms. I believe Mr. King had mentioned that nothing does that like abortion. Then somebody reminded me this morning that when children were being ripped from their mothers in a process called abortion, it appears that the Democrats felt like it was okay. At least they didn't say anything about it, not that I heard, when those little children's body parts were being sold off after being ripped from their moms in abortions. So politics makes for strange situations, to have people who are not outraged by a precious little child being ripped from the mother's womb and killed and have the parts sold off--not bothered by that. But then when 90 percent of the children coming into this country are said to be coming unaccompanied and many of those that come--we have 12,000 who are being held right now. Some of them tenderly held; some of them not so tenderly. But when you have nearly 40 percent who are male, teenaged, and potentially part of gangs or subject to being recruited into gangs, it is not the precious little child that is often being portrayed by the alt left media. We need to have commonsense. I know in Washington, it is just sense. Back in east Texas it is commonsense. Here, it is sense. In the few minutes I have left, we have been taking up bills on border issues. I thought it was extremely unfortunate that our leadership would not allow us to have an amendment to the Goodlatte bill. It has so many good things in it. It has an amnesty for DACA. At the end, that was my problem. So many good things--I really think if our Republican leadership had wanted it to pass, they could have put on there a fix where children were not separated from their parents, and that would have helped get enough votes to go from 193 to get votes to pass it. But it just felt like our own leadership didn't want it to pass. They weren't going to allow something like that that would add votes, because many of them were out there saying: No, no. The compromise bill will get a lot more votes than the Goodlatte bill. It simply wasn't true. They were misreading our conference. I recall our Speaker, right after President Trump was elected, saying that he was hearing voices none of the rest of us heard. Well, some of us were saying those same things that President Trump was saying before the election, and we need them to be heard. But, apparently, they are still not being heard. But a good comparison was done by NumbersUSA on the issue of amnesty. Under the Goodlatte bill, it says 690,000 existing DACA recipients with Federal ID cards can apply for contingent nonimmigrant status, which may be renewed every 3 years indefinitely. It makes ineligible those aliens with two or more misdemeanors or a felony. It makes ineligible those aliens charged with a misdemeanor or felony while the charge or charges are still pending. But there is amnesty at the end of the Goodlatte bill. Under the compromise bill, as the Speaker was calling it, 1.8 million to 2.4 million illegal aliens who may have been eligible for DACA may apply for contingent nonimmigrant status, which may be renewed every 6 years indefinitely. It goes on to describe that the applications could actually reach 5 million or more. It is the largest amnesty ever provided. It is bigger than any amnesty that was ever given during President Obama's two terms. With regard to a special path to citizenship, the Goodlatte bill did not offer any, but there was one under the so-called compromise bill. It created a merit-based green card category for a path to citizenship and then had tens of thousands of green cards that would be available under the compromise bill that we are supposed to vote on early next week. With regard to the visa lottery, both of them reallocate those. With regard to chain migration--this was a good thing under the Goodlatte- McCaul bill--it ends chain migration completely. However, under the so- called compromise bill, it doesn't end chain migration. That is why some say it put us on the road to ending chain migration, because it doesn't. It doesn't. Parents who acted illegally to bring their children into this country illegally would be rewarded by being allowed to get legal. As far as enforcement, NumbersUSA has a good comparison there. It would be tragic if our leadership brings up the so-called compromise bill. The Goodlatte bill was a good one. It cut out amnesty. It ought to pass. We can secure the border. We can save this Republic and God will bless us and enable us to help these countries that are in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my Republican friends for pointing out the advantages of natural gas. I might add that we had, in the last Congress, a hearing about what was the world's largest solar plant. This wasn't a plant that had solar panels. It had thousands of mirrors pointing to three different towers that would superheat the water, which would turn to steam and would drive turbines to produce electricity. I have one article here. This was from February 2014. It talked about the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of Federal land; that is Mojave Desert area near the California-Nevada border. It had opened, and it was glorified. There was $1.6 billion in Federal loans, $600-some-odd million in grants to help them make their payments. Years later they paid 7 million--well, 2 years ago, they had paid back, I think they said, $7 million of the $2.2 billion. Anyway, this article was about the world's largest solar plant scorching birds in the Nevada desert. From testimony we heard, apparently this solar plant, as birds would fly through the superheated sunlight, it would cause them to explode in flames, which is why the locals called them flamers. Originally, they were not expecting to have to spend a lot of money cleaning mirrors with water. They thought it would just be dust. They didn't anticipate all the flaming bird debris--some of them endangered species, I am quite sure. In a period of February through June, there were 290 of those flamers that exploded in flames and scattered their bird debris. Anyway, that was the solar side of it. Since they had a contract to provide all this electricity and they had used up their $2.2 billion, what do you do when you don't have $2.2 billion and the ability to burn up endangered species and you don't have that kind of government grant? Well, you take just a little bit of money and you do what they did: you use natural gas--very environmentally friendly. You can create a natural gas electrical plant very, very cheaply and make up for what the fire, the flaming birds, and all the other things did to slow down this great solar-powered plant. So there is a lot to be said for natural gas. We did have a hearing yesterday, and one of the things I did not get to point out that I had highlighted but just didn't have enough time to ask the inspector general about, since his conclusion was, even though there were hundreds of pages that clearly reflected not just bias, but angry, hateful animus against Donald Trump, Republicans--but certainly Donald Trump--the IG, it seemed very clear to me, with hundreds of pages documenting the overwhelming bias among those who were supposed to be fair and impartial, figuratively depicting justice being blind, well, it was as if IG Horowitz decided: Well, we have got all this overwhelming bias, so that will make the Republicans happy. But I have got so many Democratic friends, I don't want to get them permanently upset with me, so I will just conclude that there is no evidence that bias affected the investigation at all. Yet, in his own report, IG Horowitz said, and this is in the executive summary, page 9: ``Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok's August 8 text message ('we'll stop' Candidate Trump from being elected) was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a Presidential candidate's electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear''--the Hillary Clinton--``related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.'' Boy, is that an understatement. Here it is established beyond any reasonable doubt Strzok not only hated Trump, was trying to impress his mistress, but clearly, things he did showed their bias; and it is IG Horowitz's own words that it was Strzok's decision, heading up this investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. Here they had tens or hundreds of thousands of emails that were found on the Anthony Weiner laptop, and it was Strzok's decision. He had the authority to decide, and he did decide: We are not going to really investigate that. We are not going to make that a priority. We are going to push that aside and, instead, go after this so-called Russia investigation involving Trump. That, even standing alone, is overwhelming evidence of bias that affected the investigation. I know Mr. Horowitz apparently was just trying to keep from making all of his Democratic friends mad, so he threw them this little gift: Clearly, there was all kinds of bias, but I will say in my conclusions that I couldn't find that bias affected the investigation where clearly it did. He said it in his own words it was Strzok's decision, and he decided not to follow up on that. In fact, with all of my friends across the aisle who continue to repeat the mantra that Comey's October press conference cost Hillary Clinton the election, despite the evidence that she was not a good candidate, she didn't do what was needed to honestly and openly win an election, when it came to these emails that needed to be investigated, it sounds a whole lot more like what happened was that even Comey calling that October press conference was a cover for Hillary Clinton, because the alternative--kept hearing from sources, I believe, that there were FBI agents who had found all these emails of Hillary Clinton's that were supposed to be gone. They didn't have them. They were destroyed. They were unavailable because she had obstructed justice. She had obstructed justice by destroying evidence. They thought all these emails were gone, and all of a sudden FBI agents are in possession of these massive number of Clinton emails. And so Comey sat on them. If Comey had not called that press conference, then it appears what was likely going to happen, you were either going to have FBI agents who learned from Comey how you go about leaking--and we saw the information from IG Horowitz that apparently there were agents at the top who were quite good at leaking information, even getting tickets and different things in return for their leaking, that those agents would have leaked that information. And when it came out that they knew they had found all these missing Clinton emails and Comey was sitting on it, he was obstructing justice, then that would have doomed the Clinton campaign. She would have lost by a whole lot bigger once it came out that Comey was blocking, obstructing, not allowing them to investigate these newfound--well, they had been found for a month. They were sitting on them. We found out at the hearing yesterday that, actually, Rosenstein made the decision not to allow Congress to have those for the last month. Who knows how long he may have known about them. He really does need to be fired. He needs to go. Clearly, he has obstructed Congress' investigation. The question is how much obstruction of justice did Rosenstein do back in 2016. We don't know. But we do know there was obstruction. Apparently, according to Horowitz, it was Strzok who had the authority to decide are we going to dig into these newly found or month-long found emails from Hillary Clinton or are we just going to set those aside because they might hurt Hillary Clinton's election and, instead, go after this Russia investigation--totally bogus--based on purchases by the Clinton campaign. And Strzok--his decision--he decided, I am not going to pursue this evidence that actually blows Hillary Clinton's claims out of the water. Instead, we are going to pursue Trump. That is one overwhelming piece of evidence where the bias affected the investigation. It could have blown the campaign out of the water where it wouldn't have even been close. But rather than Comey allowing it to leak out, there were also rumors--and, like I say, I had good sources and others had good sources and indications that we might even have one or more FBI agents resign over Comey and Strzok obstructing the Clinton email being investigated. If FBI agents had either resigned and had a press conference and disclosed how Strzok and Comey were obstructing justice and preventing the investigation into Hillary's emails that had been in their possession for a month, that would have devastated the Clinton campaign far worse. So Comey, not wanting to hurt the Clinton campaign, preferring to hurt Trump, called a press conference. As I said in some interview back in October when I was asked about whether or not this was a serious investigation, I said: Well, if he comes back in 2 or 3 days and says there is nothing there, then we will know for certain that this was simply an effort to protect Hillary Clinton, because, clearly, they could not properly investigate all of those emails in such a short period of 2 or 3 days. Sure enough, just a couple of days later, Comey comes out of a press conference: Gee, we have investigated this massive number of emails, and Hillary Clinton is clean. So, rather than destroying her campaign, Comey's action, it appears-- more likely, actually--saved her campaign and allowed it to be closer. So that is just a little bit of information that I didn't get to yesterday. Now, it is absolutely incredible what has gone on, not on our southern border--that is amazing enough--but all of the mayhem that has been raised by the media. All of the outrage that has been expressed by Democrats is really extraordinary when we look at the facts about what has been going on since 1997--not new laws, not terribly new laws that this administration is working with. Unlike the Obama administration, this administration has not seen fit to just speak new laws into existence. Like with DACA, President Obama, like any good totalitarian monarch, spoke that he wanted this law. He didn't even sign the new royal edict; he just spoke it into law. Then Jeh Johnson, head of Homeland Security, drafted some memos to create it. Now, it overruled existing law, overruled law that had been passed by bipartisan efforts here in the House and Senate, signed by people like Bill Clinton and others. But, anyway, he spoke it into law. Here we have an administration that really does want to follow the law. I had been down on the border all hours of the night and day as well. But during the Obama Presidency, I had been down on our border. I had seen children separated from the adults they were with talking to Border Patrol agents. We have heard from ICE. Of course, what is being thrown figuratively and literally at ICE agents is really outrageous. What is being hurled in the way of both words and actions toward people simply following the law that even Democrats helped create is really outrageous. There is an article here by Michelle Mark dated June 19 from Business Insider: ``Several former Obama administration officials took to social media and news outlets last month to explain a gallery of years-old photos that showed immigrant children sleeping in shoddy conditions at a government-run holding facility in Arizona. ``The images, which the Associated Press first published in 2014, resurfaced recently for reasons that remain unclear, and quickly prompted viral outrage on Twitter. One particularly disturbing image showed two children sleeping on mattresses on the floor inside what appeared to be a cage.'' That was the Obama administration, the very thing that people are going nuts about, screaming and hollering. ``A number of prominent liberals--and even a former Obama administration official--shared the photos, mistakenly believing they depicted the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents.'' Obviously, these former Obama officials did not realize that this was what they did to children. And then to be holier-than-thou with an administration that simply is enforcing the law the Obama administration often violated when they were guilty of actually following the law themselves? They could have made better conditions. I am happy to report that the conditions I see under the Trump administration down on our southern border are much better than they were under the Obama administration. The facilities for children are much, much better. I mean, there were some really terrible situations that the Obama administration created down on our border during President Obama's terms, especially the second term. It was a bit shocking what was happening to children then. It has been amazing. There was one child holding on to a fence, and that was used to show how terrible it was for this sweet little child. It turns out that was part of an immigration protest. This kid wasn't in any kind of cage. In fact, the other pictures that have now been discovered show that it was apparently some adult figure who was part of the protest and dragged the kid there, but it certainly was not someone caged by the Trump administration. But this goes on to say: ``Jon Favreau, who worked as a speechwriter for former President Barack Obama, tweeted, `This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible.' ``Favreau said he later deleted the tweet after social media users pointed out that the photos were taken during the Obama administration. But by that point, critics had already rushed to accuse him of concealing Obama's own harsh immigration tactics while condemning Trump's. ``Favreau said in a series of tweets that he made a `mistake' by not checking the date of the photos before sharing them on Twitter. He explained that the photos were taken in 2014, when the Obama administration faced `an influx of unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border, fleeing violence from Central America.' '' Well, I can tell you, there were many of these people I saw all hours of the night that weren't fleeing violence, but they had heard they had opportunities. I have been there when small children were being passed among--well, the Border Patrol is at one end of the group of people that had come in illegally asking questions, and they are shuffling around trying to decide who is going to claim this child. And then, on some occasions, they say: Oh, no, no, no, not with me, not with them. No, they are by themselves. Well, I watched you just walk up here taking care of this child. No, they were unaccompanied. It is also interesting, with all of the outrage about the 12,000 children that were being so well taken care of, 10,000 of the 12,000 came unaccompanied, was the claim, and 40 percent of those coming are teenage males of gang age. We know, it turns out, many of them are gang members. We know, just recently, there was an MS-13 member claiming a child. It may have been his child. But that child did not need to be with a MS-13 gang member. We know, during the Obama administration, during the George W. Bush administration, and during the Clinton administration, it was not uncommon to separate children from a parent if they believed the parent might not be in the best interest of the child, may be a threat to the child. Again, for heaven's sake, these children, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, were placed by their parents in a position to cross deadly territory, be subjected to sex trafficking themselves, be subjected to becoming drug traffickers. If those things happen in this country, I have seen it as a judge when there were hearings--I didn't do juvenile law, but I saw it. I had seen hearings. You have parents, if they let their child here in Texas, in America, do the things that parents from other countries allowed their children to go through, there is a good chance, at least in Texas, Child Protective Services would have grabbed that child and said: This is an unfit parent to let them go across a desert, to let them be in the hands of gang members, or to let them be subjected to sex trafficking and drug trafficking. I have also been there when the Border Patrol has asked--it wasn't on their list--but frequently they would ask: How much do you pay to the gang or the drug cartel to bring you in? $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000. Where did you get that kind of money? You didn't have that kind of money. Often, the final answer, after, $1,000 or $1,500 here, or $2,000 there, or somebody from America sent this: Well, where did you get the rest? Often the final answer was: They are going to let me work that off when I get to where we are going. Well, how do you work it off? It is either drug trafficking or sex trafficking is the way that normally got worked off. Any parent that would subject their children to that--like I say, 10,000 out of 12,000 were unaccompanied who are down there right now when they are trying to figure out what is to be done. The outrage ought to be with parents that would allow that to happen, and the outrage ought to be with a political party or with any political people that would hang out a shiny object of a great life here--free benefits, welfare--if you will just come across a desert, risk sex trafficking, risk drug trafficking, come on. Now, the border has to be secure. That is the humane thing to do. If we stop the $80 billion or so in drugs that came across our border, estimated last year by some, then the corruption in Mexico and Central America dries up to next to nothing. Those people would end up with a better economy, a better life, and better jobs. That is what we would do if we were a true caring, loving neighbor. We would make sure that our wall made a good neighbor stop the drug trafficking. And these poor people who made to be drug mules, made to be drug traffickers, they are poisoning Americans. I mean, it is a matter of national security. Donald Trump is exactly right to be so concerned and to want a zero- tolerance policy, and so is Jeff Sessions. We can deal with this issue, but it is a very small percentage that are actual parents that are being separated from children. And there were parents being separated from children in the prior administration, even though the Dallas Morning News obviously either doesn't want to admit it or wants to remain in total blissful ignorance. So these things have happened, and the Trump administration is trying to fix them and do things correctly. Now, it turns out that when our Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen was at a Mexican restaurant Tuesday night, she had people screaming at her trying to ruin her dinner and accusing her of doing what others in the Obama administration had done. It turns out one of those was an employee at the Department of Justice. Some would say, but, again, political beliefs shouldn't adversely affect a job with the government. Well, it should when that job is enforcing the law. When you work for the Department of Justice and you are going to scream at people because they are following the law, then you should not be at the Department of Justice. This person that was screaming and becoming a nuisance and creating problems and screaming out in ignorance should not be working at the Department of Justice, just as anybody who is biased for Hillary Clinton or against Hillary Clinton should not have been investigating Hillary Clinton. Anybody biased for or against Donald Trump should not have been investigating Donald Trump. It does matter. I guarantee you Democratic criminal defense attorneys, even though there was some expressed feigned outrage, if they had a client who had run for office that was on trial for a criminal charge, that criminal defense attorney would want to know which jurors supported their client and which were totally opposed to their client in the last election. They would want to know that. Maybe you do that in chambers, maybe you do that at the bench, but I have a feeling--I have heard those claims from defense attorneys about the right to know about things. Sometimes it is very personal information, but if it tells a defense attorney about someone's bias or prejudice within a potential juror, that defense attorney really does have a right to know in order to protect their client and to ensure that justice is done by fair and impartial arbiters. But we have got people at the Justice Department still that are not fair, they are not impartial. There is a new record here, according to Paul Bedard's article yesterday from the Washington Examiner, ``New Record, 99 Percent of Seized Border Kids From Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.'' Obama prosecuted nearly half a million illegal aliens. He did. I think in those situations, they were trying to follow the law. The only reason I bring that up is the feigned outrage. For some people, it is not feigned; they are really outraged, because they really don't realize what has gone on before. Some of us have seen it. Now, a 100 percent no-tolerance policy, that is much stricter than the Obama administration. But President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on video talking about how they were going to do those type of things to discourage people from coming in illegally. And now they really are feigning outrage, and it needs to stop. Let's work together for a solution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear my friend Congressman Lewis. He does a great job explaining such matters. We had an interesting combined hearing today in the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We heard from the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Mr. Horowitz. It was interesting testimony. But having reviewed the record, it is interesting, because he quoted prosecutor one, prosecutor two, agent one, agent two, agent three, these different people, different prosecutors, different agents that he was relying on; their comments, their opinions, their suggestions; the SSA, Supervisory Special Agent, recommendation and comments on things that should have been and should have not been; and things that were proper and improper. But we had no information who these people were. The whole reason for the inspector general investigation was because of the massive amount of clear bias that had been unearthed within the Department of Justice, including the FBI that is, of course, under the Department of Justice. So we are being asked to accept all this information from the inspector general when so much of it depends on the opinions and the comments and the assessments of people whose identity we didn't even know. So not only did we not know their identity, we don't know if they have texts and emails that are just as condemning of Donald Trump and laudatory of Hillary Rodham Clinton. We don't know what their positions are. And we found out from the inspector general that he didn't make any inquiry. He didn't check on them. But I know from my days trying cases as a prosecutor, or as a felony judge in Texas, the lawyers, when they are picking a jury, as to who will sit in judgment on their case, they have a right to know the biases and prejudices, or potential biases and prejudices, of anyone who may be sitting in judgment on their case. So that is why voir dire, as we say in Texas, is allowed, questions of the potential jurors. Normally, how one votes is completely inappropriate to ask about. That is a secret ballot for a good reason. However, if one of the people on the ballot is the defendant in the case, is a civilian party in a civil case, then the attorneys are going to want to find out: Were you for or against this person? Did you have a bumper sticker for this person or against this person? Did you have a sign in your yard? Did you go around doing block walks trying to push for this candidate? And as a judge, I know defendants' attorneys. If it were a defendant who had been a candidate, they would be pushing to ask those questions, to find out those questions, and it could lead to challenges for cause in Texas courts--I think in Federal courts as well. Even if it didn't, I have heard defense attorneys argue many times: We cannot adequately exercise our preemptory strikes if we don't know about potential biases. So we need to know: Did they support this candidate? Were they against this candidate? I know initially the response of one of my Democratic friends was: Gee, we never ask about how somebody voted. No, we don't. It is not appropriate--unless someone who is on the ballot is being judged in that court. The same should be true for a grand jury. The same should be true for anybody who is going to pass judgment, and that should also include the people who are charged with bringing forth justice, not the concept of ``just us'' we have experienced during the recent two terms, but the concept of true justice. Proverbs talks about the blessed nature of a government that doesn't judge because somebody is rich, doesn't judge because somebody is poor, doesn't give more favor to somebody who is rich, and isn't biased for somebody because they are poor, but does make just decisions based on the case, not on someone's social standing, be it rich or poor. Some are tempted to be biased for the poor, some biased for the rich. But real justice is just following the law regardless of someone's background. So it is a bit of an anathema, it seems, that you have got an inspector general report based on people who may have worse biases than the people whom they are judging. We don't even know. So I was a little surprised by that. We had a record of over 500 pages that was just full of some of the worst illustrations of biases ever imaginable. It was interesting. I didn't realize, but apparently back, I believe it was in 2012, there was a case that was lost that the Justice Department was prosecuting during the Eric Holder days. I had never seen this information until today and didn't see it until after the hearing, but apparently it was even one case where the jurors found somebody not guilty because information came in about the same kind of texting and emails that we were seeing regarding the hatred by some in the Justice Department and the FBI against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton. There was a time when the Federal Department of Justice and the FBI were considered the best law enforcement, the best at providing justice anywhere in the world. That time is not now. In fact, we know that under Eric Holder and Attorney General Lynch, the U.S. Department of Justice went after police departments, local law enforcement, and using the power and almost unlimited money of the Department of Justice, they could overwhelm and force a local law enforcement office into agreeing to a consent decree where the U.S. Department of Justice got to basically supervise whatever they did. Based on the kind of prejudice, bias, and outrageous actions within the United States Department of Justice and the FBI, it looks like some of those police departments that ended up agreeing to consent judgments might be better off suing the U.S. Department of Justice, exposing how biased and prejudiced they were during the period during which the Department of Justice came after them and was trying to supervise them, show how biased and prejudiced they were. So maybe the local police department should end up getting to tell the Department of Justice when they are acting appropriately and when they are not. For heaven's sake, it is just incredible how such a great justice organization has been not just compromised, but devastated like a cancerous prejudice and bias, incapable of rendering fair, blind decisions without regard for any bias in favor of or against a litigant. What a change. What a difference. President Obama is right. He did fundamentally transform America. I really would never have thought we would see the Justice Department after those 8 years end up like it is. It didn't come out in the hearing, but I was given to understand that after the shock subsided somewhat of Donald Trump winning November 2016 that there was a massive effort just at a rapid pace to try to move people who had been politically appointed by the Obama administration in the Department of Justice and the Department of State, but especially DOJ, Homeland Security, political appointees, trying to get them into civil service jobs so that the Trump administration would not be easily able to get rid of them as every other administration does. When a new administration comes in, the political appointees tender their resignations. Most are accepted, some are not. But instead of doing something like that, what we were hearing was that the Obama administration was trying to put them into cubbyhole civil service jobs, so that basically they could still utilize the prejudices and biases that were built up during the Obama administration. It is just such a dangerous time. As I was sitting there for the hearing, it dawned on me that the kind of bias, just rabid prejudice and hatred not only for a candidate, but the disgust that was on parade in the texts, the email messages, just extraordinary, but that that kind of bias and prejudice may very well be the second biggest threat to Federal justice in America. It is a cancerous bias. It is probably a cancerous bias in stage IV where it just is eating its way through, creating big holes where there was once a solid Justice Department. What occurred to me was that that may be the second biggest threat to Federal justice in America, that cancerous bias. But perhaps the biggest threat to Federal justice in America is that I think for the first time in American history, you have one of two major political parties has about half of the country's support without anybody being horribly offended that this kind of bias and prejudice was driving a Justice Department. I keep going back to when President George W. Bush was in the White House, and when we found out about the abuses of the National Security Letters, FBI agents just sending them out willy-nilly, just sending them out on fishing expeditions. That was not authorized. That was not lawful. Somebody needed to pay a price. In retrospect, it is directly, as Robert Mueller said, that was his responsibility, his fault. Yes, it was. He should have been fired. He should never have been allowed to get close to anything attempting to pervert justice in America. Unfortunately, he wormed his way in through his joined-at-the-hip buddy, Comey, leaking information in order to get a second counsel, that second counsel being his joined-at-the-hip buddy, Mr. Mueller. He should never have allowed that to happen. If it was a fair and just Justice Department, Rosenstein would have recused himself, Mueller would have recused himself and said: I am not the proper person to do this special counsel job because of my strong friendship, maybe even mentorship--whatever you want to call it--with James Comey; and also the fact that I was FBI Director working with the U.S. Attorney named Rosenstein, and my go-to guy, Weissmann, and we were the ones who were investigating Russia's illegal efforts to obtain United States uranium. Of course, they helped quash information about that so that the Commission on Foreign Investment in the United States could approve the sale, that would open the way for beneficiaries of that sale to donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as paying off Bill Clinton to make speeches for a short amount of time. There is just so much that stinks to high heaven here in Washington. We don't even know anything about the biases and prejudices of those people on whom Mr. Horowitz was relying to reach his conclusions. But it is worth looking at some of the things that were recommended. For example, you had a man named Pagliano--and this is according to the Horowitz report--Pagliano was a critical witness because he set up the server that Clinton used during her tenure. In other words, he set up the unsecured server which we now know was hacked. And I think my friend Andrew McCarthy makes a great point in an article today when he points out the mere setting up of that unsecured server out from under the government watch for the purpose, according to James Carville--he may have been trying to make a joke, but it actually was an indication of the mindset of the Clintons, when he said: Hillary didn't want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails. She didn't want proper oversight, so she intentionally and knowingly had a server set up that was not secure, was out from under government protection and control, also knowing she might be able to get away with not turning in emails because they were not under government control. How there could be 500-plus pages of bias shown in this report, and then a conclusion that there is no evidence of any bias in the investigation? My gosh, that is a lay-down, slam-dunk prosecution right there. You could have indicted Mr. Pagliano, who was certainly far more responsible for potential crime than Mr. Manafort is, clearly. In the Horowitz report he says: The supervising special agent told us that the FBI did not consider Pagliano a subject or someone they would prosecute in connection with the midyear--talking about the Hillary Clinton investigation. The FBI believed his testimony was very important and providing immunity was an effective way to secure his testimony. So this guy sets up the unsecured server, and it carried we now know for certain classified information. We knew there was going to be a good chance he would have had to have known that. But if that supervising special agent and the Horowitz team had not been so favorably inclined not to find any wrongdoing, then certainly they would have recognized that this is a guy who could and should have been indicted. Of course, I don't advocate that people be unfairly treated as Paul Manafort was, where you go busting down his door in the early morning hours when you know he is not a threat; there is no reason to bust down a door in those early morning hours, no reason to ransack a house, other than trying to intimidate. But nobody tried to do anything, not even indicting or bringing him before a grand jury to potentially pursue him, because the prosecutors, many of them have told me: Man, this is a real easy one, much easier than organized crime. All you have to do is go after Pagliano, go after a couple of these other people, and once they see they are looking at years in prison, yes, they will tell you exactly what Hillary Clinton told them and others told them. And then you go to the next one and make the case that that testimony gives you. None of that was done. It was all done in a way to protect Hillary Clinton, no question. That report talks about Combetta. It says Paul Combetta is the one that later wiped emails from that private server in March of 2015. The report says that the investigation's team members told the inspector general Combetta was an important witness for several reasons, including his involvement with the culling process and the deletion of emails and his interactions with several people who worked for Clinton. Several of the midyear--they call them midyear; it is the Clinton team members--stated that, after conducting two voluntary interviews of Combetta, they believe Combetta had not been forthcoming about, among other things, his role in deleting emails from the PRN server following the issues of a congressional preservation order. The witness further stated that Combetta's truthful testimony was essential for assessing criminal intent for Clinton and other individuals because he would be able to tell them whether Clinton's attorneys, Mills, Samuelson, or Kendall, had instructed him to delete the emails. So this is the way you work up through a prosecution. They didn't indict Combetta. This says the supervising special agent told us he believed Combetta should have been charged with false statements for lying multiple times. Well, if that had happened, then you go to him and you say: This is how many years you are looking at. I have seen incredibly professional FBI agents in the field do just that: Here is what you are looking at. You are going to talk to your lawyer. You are going to decide what to do. We want you to see the evidence we have. Then they would lay out the evidence: Here is evidence that might help. You might think it is exculpatory, but we here is the evidence that we have that we believe will overwhelm that. It is incriminating. We are not wanting you to make a statement now. You talk to your lawyer. See if you would like to assist us. Then when you realize that, wow, their evidence is overwhelming, I am dead meat, I am going to prison, then let's see what kind of deal we can make. Then you make a proffer: Here is what my client will say if you will give us this plea agreement or this agreement, maybe an immunity agreement, you work that out. That is how you go about proving a case. None of that was done. The FBI and the Department of Justice attorneys, people who absolutely loved and worshiped Hillary Clinton and absolutely despised and hated Donald Trump didn't do any of that. They protected the people who would have been critical witnesses. We get around to Mr. John Bentel. He worked at the State Department for 39 years. Here is what the IG report said: Both agents who interviewed Bentel told us that he was uncooperative and the interview was unproductive. However, they attributed these problems to nervousness and fear of being found culpable. Agent three--whoever that was, with whatever biases he had--told us that he did not believe that immunity was necessary and it did not help the investigation because Bentel was not forthcoming during his interview. That makes no sense. That is the kind of guy where you go ahead and you have got enough evidence, you indict him, and then he gets a little more cooperative through his lawyer. The guy helped commit crimes, apparently. Then you see about getting more cooperation when he is looking at being convicted and doing a long time in prison. But he did not have any of that done. There was not even a threat of prosecution. He wasn't prosecuted because bias affected the outcome of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. If he had been prosecuted, he would likely have been quite cooperative as a witness in establishing what really happened. But he knew he was guilty. He had a guilty conscience, which is obvious from what these people said in their statements. So what about Cheryl Mills? She was treated as if she were an attorney for Hillary Clinton. She was allowed to sit in on the interview of Hillary Clinton that was not recorded, and, basically, she was assured in advance that she would be given a pass. But Cheryl Mills is one who actually went through the Clinton emails. Because of her position, she was in a position to make sure they did not turn over any emails that would have incriminated Cheryl and Hillary Clinton. And instead of doing anything that would have brought that to light, they give her an immunity deal. They let her consult. There is a massive question here of conspiring to obstruct justice, yet they gave them a pass. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Horowitz really did appear as if he were trying to do something so that he could kind of say he was placating two different sides. On the one hand, over 500 pages absolutely documenting the horrendous bias and prejudice that permeated an actually cancerous kind of bias that was eating through the Department of Justice and FBI, then turns around and gave Democrats what they would hope to have: Oh, no, there was no evidence that bias affected the investigation. Well, how about the fact that there is no attorney-client privilege if an attorney and a client are conspiring to obstruct justice or are absolutely obstructing justice? In such a case, you don't give immunity to the attorney, the counselor, potential codefendant, and say: Here, you go through the evidence and you tell us what you are going to let us have, and then you destroy anything at all that you think might not be helpful to you and Mrs. Clinton and give us what you think will be safe to give us. It is absolutely incredible. The very fact that that was done, that she was allowed to sit in on the interview, she was allowed to go through and screen the emails for her and her client that could have shown any possible crimes there is an outrage. We need a second special counsel, and we need it now. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on what my good friend from Iowa (Mr. King) was saying, there is an article here from this week--Hans A. von Spakovsky says: ``Alabama is arguing that by including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, it deprives the State of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The key to Alabama's case is the definition of `persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. This is not an issue the court has addressed before.'' That is interesting. ``Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau. If the State wins, it could have major political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political representation in Congress.'' And I might insert parenthetically here, I heard my friend, the delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was talking about hoping to have a vote, whether it was making D.C. a State or whatnot. But in the little research that I ended up doing after I got here is I have seen the license plate, ``Taxation without representation.'' I thought: Well, you know, of course, that was something that was said during the Revolution, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' Ben Franklin said, if we don't get to elect even one of the members of parliament that put taxes on us, then they should not be able to put taxes on us. So I am familiar with that situation, but I didn't know, until after I had been here awhile, I find out that territories, like--or any U.S. property that is not part of a State, they do not have a U.S. representative because the Constitution is very clear, very succinct, it says that the representative shall come from the several States. In the late 1970s, all of the proponents of giving Washington, D.C. a representative, a U.S. representative, they understood there is only one way to do that, and that is to have a constitutional amendment to amend where it says the representative shall come from the several States and include, and the District of Columbia, something like that. Well, they passed it with a significant percentage in the House and the Senate that allowed it to go forward as a constitutional amendment, but they never got--in the late 1970s, they never got the requisite number of States because I guess, from the State standpoint, they are thinking: Well, if we ratify this as a constitutional amendment, it slightly, but still does, dilute a little bit of our power in the House of Representatives. So it didn't get the requisite number of States. But, again, after I was here, I was talking to a friend from Puerto Rico, and I said: I know there have been votes in the past about whether Puerto Ricans want to be a State or not. Why has that not passed previously? This is several years ago. And he said: Well, there are people that kind of like the current situation in Puerto Rico. It is the same as in Guam or the Mariana Islands or the U.S. Virgin Islands--all the areas that are not States, they are territories--because in those, as in Puerto Rico, because they do not elect a full voting representative into the U.S. House or Senate, then the Founders, up through the current time, have said it is not fair. Just like Ben Franklin said, it is not fair to make them pay Federal income tax, Federal tax, if they don't elect a full voting representative. So there is no U.S. territory, no non-State U.S. property that has to pay Federal income tax if they are not a State that elects a representative, except for the District of Columbia. And once I realized that, I went: Well, it may not seem to people to be a Republican issue, but that really is not fair for the District of Columbia, because the people in the District of Columbia pay Federal income tax. So if we are really going to be consistent, we are really going to be fair to the people of the District of Columbia, there is only one thing to do: Either make them a State, which a form of that was tried in the 1970s and it didn't work, or the other--actually there are three things. The other is to make the law as it is for every other non- State, that the residents of that non-State do not pay Federal income tax. So I filed that bill in a number of the Congresses, including this one. It was very basic, you know--residents of Washington, District of Columbia, will not pay Federal income tax, just like all the other territories. And I have been intrigued that I have not gotten support from Democrats, including the delegate from the District of Columbia. I understand, you know, folks like my colleague want to have a full voting U.S. representative. Fine. But why not let your constituents at least be treated like every other resident U.S. citizen of a non-State. Don't make them pay income tax until you get what you want. Maybe some day you'll get it, but until you do, why don't you join forces with me and just say: We want to pass this law; we are going to be fair to the residents of Washington, D.C. just like we are to all the other non- States that are U.S. territories; we are going to say you don't pay Federal income tax. But I have been amazed that I am still not getting support from the other side of the aisle, just to be fair, until they--I am not in favor of making the District of Columbia a State. I like what the Founders did, with that one exception, they should not have to pay tax since they don't elect a full voting representative. So, anyway, I am hoping that at some point at least one or more of my Democratic friends will join forces with me and maybe we can push that issue to the floor so we can treat the residents of the District of Columbia fairly. But until the person representing the people here in the District of Columbia disagree, then it is doubtful the Speaker would ever bring my bill to the floor so we could treat them fairly. Now, there is one other way that that could be handled, and I did file this bill some Congresses back, but it had even less support, so I didn't bother to file it again. So one way to be fair to the residents of the District of Columbia would be to say: No Federal income tax, since you don't elect a full voting representative. The other would be to do what was done in the late 1840s when there were major complaints from residents of the District of Columbia. They were part of the 10-mile-by-10-mile square District of Columbia, but were on the western side of the Potomac River. They were protesting. They were upset. Look, you are not using any of our land as Federal land, so why don't you just cede the land west of the Potomac back to Virginia and then we can participate in the election of not only representatives, but also two Senators? We will get to participate in that since you are not using the land. Well, of course, nowadays, the Federal Government is using a lot of that land. You have not only Reagan National Airport, you have Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, and so many other things across the river. But back in the late 1840s, that was ceded back to Virginia. That is why when people look at a map of the District of Columbia, it is no longer a 10-mile-by-10-mile square. It is uneven on the west side because it follows the Potomac, going back to that ceding of land back to Virginia. So I have filed a bill before, and I am not planning on filing it again because it just didn't get any real support at all. But we drew a line with a metes and bounds description around all of the nonresident Federal buildings in the District of Columbia. We keep those as Federal enclaves, and then cede all of the other land east of the Potomac back to Maryland. I remember my friend from the District of Columbia, across the aisle, asking me one time on this floor, when I was talking about this bill: But what if Maryland didn't want to take this land back? And I looked at my friend, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, and I said--I am sure that our friend here, Mr. Hoyer, would say--any State would be thoroughly pleased to have you and your constituents as residents of their State. I didn't get an ``amen'' or ``sure, of course'' from Mr. Hoyer, but I am sure, deep in his heart, he felt that way. But, like I said, I never got any real support for that. So I am hoping, at some point, my friend from the District of Columbia will join me and say: Okay, at least until--and even if it doesn't happen--at least until it did happen, the residents of the District of Columbia should be treated fairly, like we do those from any other non-State, and don't pay income tax. I appreciate bringing those issues back up again. It is an easy solution. And I just feel like if we had a bipartisan effort to pass that, then we could get that done on behalf of the residents of Washington, District of Columbia. But, anyway, back to this article from the Heritage Foundation, June 5, talking about the lawsuit about counting illegal immigrants in the Census. It says: ``Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of counting illegal immigrants in the Census gives States that protect them (California, for example) seats and votes they are not entitled to have. ``The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that Representatives in the House `shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers' ''--just like I was talking about--``with the `Numbers' determined by `counting the whole number of persons in each State.' ``After every Census, House seats are reapportioned according to the population of each State. Electoral College votes are reapportioned according to the number of each State's congressional Representatives. ``Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow States to gain a political advantage over other States by flouting Federal immigration law. ``The number of Representatives in the House--435--has been fixed by the law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment is `a zero sum proposition: Each State's gain is another State's loss.' ``Alabama argues that by including illegal immigrants in apportionment, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are unfairly distributed. ``Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and Texas each gained one seat and one vote. ``As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit: `four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.' ``Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. It says this `will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation. ``This also violates the `one person, one vote' equal representation standard of the 14th Amendment. According to Alabama, `the gains from including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who live in State with large numbers of illegal aliens.' ``Why? Because it means that `in a State in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who live in States where a larger share of the population is made up of American citizens.' '' Which is an interesting argument. ``This results in `representational inequality' by devaluing the vote of Alabama's legal residents. This redistribution of political power `disincentivizes States with large illegal alien populations from cooperating with Federal immigration authorities (lest they lose political power that comes with additional Representatives and votes in the Electoral College),' Alabama argues. ``Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the Census `punishes States who do cooperate with Federal immigration authorities in the identification and removal' of illegal aliens, Alabama's lawsuit states. ``Alabama's final complaint is monetary. Including illegal immigrants in the Census, it says, will likely cause it to lose its fair share of the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the Federal Government in grants and other funds. ``The key to Alabama's case is the definition of `persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues the term `persons' was understood at the `time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified' to mean the `inhabitants' of a State. ``Furthermore, `in the public law of the founding era, the term `inhabitant' did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitance was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside,' Alabama argues. ``In other words, `persons' does not include individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, without the permission of the Federal Government. ``The `Residence' rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 Census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated to the State where their `usual residence' is located, regardless of whether they are legally present.'' There is some hypocrisy, I have noticed, among some of our friends here. On the one hand, they are constantly saying: We have to bring these illegal aliens, undocumented people, whatever they want to call them, we have to bring them out of the shadows. And I remember, on one occasion, we had a bunch of folks claiming to be illegal aliens in the gallery right here. They were shouting and proud to be illegal aliens at some point. I looked up, looked around the gallery at all of these people making noise, have T-shirts, and I thought: It doesn't look like they are in the shadows to me. I mean, it looks like there is plenty of light up there. They keep using the term that they are ``in the shadows,'' yet Alabama has this lawsuit and they are saying: We need to know who is in the country illegally and who is not so we can get a fair count. And people that have been saying, on the one hand: We want everybody that is coming into the country illegally to come out of the shadows; when it comes to apportionment, they are saying: No, no, no, no, we want them counted, but you can't ask them whether they are here illegally or not. So we want their status to stay in the shadows. We want to keep their status secret. Sanctuary cities are basically doing the same thing. They might as well put the Statue of Liberty out in San Francisco harbor saying: Give us your tired, your poor, your felons, your people that like to shoot other people and rob them, because that is basically what San Francisco has been saying: We don't care if you are a felon, we don't care if you kill people, you rape women, or raped anybody, we want you here, and we won't tell on you, so you come right in here. I am going to file a bill. I have been working on it too long. I haven't gotten the cooperation I thought I should from some folks. But, anyway, basically, I think it ought be a civil right living in a city in the United States that is violated when a city says: We are going to welcome, encourage, really try to recruit people to be in our city who are felons, who are here illegally and felons. And when that kind of action under State law robs people of their lives or their sexual purity or any other thing, there ought to be a cause of action against that city or that State that is saying: We encourage people that are here illegally and who are committing felonies, we want you here. That really ought to be a right of the others who are U.S. citizens that is being violated by the sanctuary city or the sanctuary State. So if a State or city wants to keep encouraging felons to live within their bounds and it costs people their lives or their property, there ought to be a civil rights lawsuit lodged against that State or city government, or county government for that matter. So we will get it done and we will get it filed. That way it is fair. So, say, if San Francisco, for example, wants to keep encouraging people, like the guy that shot Kate Steinle, to come into the city, and that way others may be similarly situated, as was Kate Steinle, and get shot and killed as they beg their daddy to help them, I mean, I just can't imagine anything much worse than that as a father. The father should not have his lawsuit thrown out of court, as happened in the Steinle case. We ought to give the means to the aggrieved party to say to San Francisco, or say to the city or State when they are acting as a sanctuary city or State: Do you know what, you can do that if you want, but you are going to monetarily pay to the people who are harmed under your State or city color of law. It just seems fair. So, hopefully, we will get something done on that and let the lawsuits commence against the sanctuary cities. As a former lawyer who tried a lot of cases, I have seen the good that can come. Sometimes there are places where the litigation system is abused, often a topic on FOX News, but there are some laws we don't really have to pass if you have a good court system that aggrieved parties can come in and they can sue and collect. And just the threat of that suit and collection voids the needs for us to come in here or run in and pass a law every time there is some illegality or impropriety or some damage done to other parties. Let the courts mete it out. When somebody is penalized financially in a sufficient amount, then it will change their conduct. I think you would see sanctuary cities change once their taxpayers realize they are going to keep paying out multimillion dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars constantly in court costs and damages assessed. I bet you would see a whole lot of folks say: Do you know what? Maybe it is time that we quit having a sanctuary in our city for people who came in illegally and who also commit violent felonies or property theft or whatever it is. Let's protect people and give them that right through litigation. Now, this article from Bob Price says: ``Border Patrol Agents Arrest Sex Offenders, Gang Members in South Texas.'' It points out that: ``Border patrol agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley Sector stopped sex offenders and gang members from making their way to their U.S. destinations over the weekend. During a 4-day period, agents arrested four child molesters and three gang members after they illegally crossed the border. The arrests include fugitives who fled the country to avoid prosecution and previously deported criminal aliens. ``Rio Grande City Station agents arrested a man who illegally crossed the border near Roma, Texas, on Sunday. During processing, agents learned the Salvadoran national was convicted in Angleton, Texas, in February 2015 for a 2014 charge of sexual assault of a child. The Salvadoran national received a 5-year prison sentence and was deported after being released early by prison officials.'' And then obviously coming back, some other child was probably saved from another sexual assault, because I know from my experience as a prosecutor and a felony judge, when somebody is that kind of evil that they would commit that kind of assault on a child, it just seems to be the kind of evil that they keep coming back to. So it is something that needs to stop. Thank God we have Border Patrol officers who are protecting us. I would just encourage our own Republican leadership, what got President Trump elected was he was promising that we would build a wall. He was promising an end to the unconstitutional DACA that Obama did. He was promising no amnesties. So I think in the time we have left in this year, wouldn't it be a good idea if we as Republicans in the House quit worrying about a discharge petition and started being concerned about keeping our promises to the American people? Let's get the wall built where it is needed, but for heaven's sake, get the border secure. Secure the border so people coming in are coming in lawfully. We should not have to process anybody who comes in anywhere except through an authorized entry point into our country. If you try to come in another way, the Federal officers ought to do like the State of Texas officers do, and that is stand in the way: You are not coming into our country. You are not putting a foot on American soil until you come in legally. But the Federal officers haven't been doing that, and we need to make that happen as well. That is what we do. Once we have secured the borders, then we can work something out about who is here and who stays, who goes. But until then, the border patrolmen again reaffirmed for me this last week, every time we mention DACA, amnesty, any kind of legalization, any kind of stay, any kind of path to this, that, or the other, there is another surge of people illegally coming into the country. Let's stop the surges. Let's do whatever it takes to secure the border. Let's forget about discharge petitions. Concentrate on that secured border. That will keep our oath. That will keep our promise. That defends the Constitution, and it also actually helps people get reelected, because we kept our promises. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the use of funds to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or guidance related to the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon metric was a tool, and is a tool, used to bolster many Obama-era regulations. They supposedly targeted vague, ambiguous, and unverifiable costs. In an article this week, The Wall Street Journal points out that by introducing ``social costs'' and ``social benefits,'' the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma, EPA optimists even including their guesses about how domestic relationships could have a global impact. Meanwhile, the Agency ignored the best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions. This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise. Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised these social costs of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21, completely unverifiable. Now, the regulatory specifics will be hashed out in coming months, but there is really potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy. If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound, scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this is ultimately a tax on the Nation's poor. The rich, they can handle these added, superfluous costs that come out of the nebulous areas of bureaucrats' minds, but the real ultimate cost is actually to the Nation's poor. I can't help but go back to a woman, an elderly lady that lived outside of Carthage, Texas, that said: ``You know, I keep having these costs go up and up and up. I am afraid I am going to end up in my home going back to a wood-burning stove because of the Federal Government.'' And I said: ``I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your wood-burning stove you used when you were growing up that your mama used probably wouldn't be allowed today.'' Anyway, there is no reason to have this kind of cost, and I would urge a passing of this amendment. Let's quit adding nebulous, unverifiable costs. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I really have such great respect for my friend across the aisle, and I do truly mean that. But when I hear talk about what Republicans did to our Nation's poor and our seniors, I keep coming back to the ObamaCare vote, without a single one of the Republicans voting for that bill. Democrats have to take full credit. They passed it without a single Republican vote and cut $716 billion out of the healthcare of seniors. Now, President Obama told them: Seniors, you don't have to worry. It will only come out of the pockets of the rich, greedy doctors. Well, what our folks have found out is that is not the case at all. It has affected the elderly completely. It has been a real problem for them, because what they have seen is that, actually, if their healthcare provider doesn't get paid, they don't get their healthcare. So I would just like to say again, I need to urge people to vote for this amendment. Making our Nation's poor pay for ambiguous, unverified costs and saying we are somehow making the world better while they are making the poor poorer is absolutely unsubstantiatable, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, so we hear today from the Mueller investigation, as he was appointed by a man named Rosenstein that we now know was completely disqualified from being able to select or name a special counsel for a number of reasons. For one thing, he would be a witness, because one of the issues was did President Trump obstruct justice when he fired Comey. And the President relied totally, or largely, on the memo that was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. He would be a material witness. You can't be involved in an investigation if you are a material witness. Rosenstein, as it would happen, also had worked with a guy named Mueller and Weissman when they were working on an investigation into Russia's illegal efforts to get U.S. uranium. And, in fact, they kind of had to jointly and severally put the quash on information about that investigation, because if they didn't, then the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., CFIUS, including Hillary Clinton, would not have been able to vote to allow the sale of uranium that would end up in Russia's hands. And if that sale hadn't gone through, there is no question all those stockholders that benefited would not have been so anxious to put $145 million in the Clinton Foundation and probably Russia wouldn't have been as quick to pay $500,000 for a speech from former President Clinton. But there are all kinds of implications there. Of course, we know from previous special counsels from the Department of Justice, all of them, until Rosenstein and Mueller, made a thorough effort to select lawyers and investigating officers who appeared to have no political bias going in. What did Mueller do? He specifically went for the people that loved Hillary Clinton and hated Donald Trump, went out of his way to do that. Some have complained, well, Weissmann has a history of putting innocent people out of work, destroying lives, not only making them unemployed, but making them unemployable and, as the Supreme Court has said, all for things that were not even crimes. That doesn't seem to deter him, just as it has never deterred Robert Mueller from destroying people's lives, people of integrity, honest, upstanding people, whether it was Ted Stevens--heck, Colin Powell, one of the previous Cabinet members, decorated military man, had nothing but just accolades to say about Ted Stevens and what an honorable, honest, upright man he was. And the Mueller FBI framed him. They hid information that not only would have raised a reasonable doubt that showed unequivocally he was not guilty of having a gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars of addition to his cabin because not only did he pay for it, he paid about 20 percent more than the value because, as he had said before: I have to go above and beyond just to keep people at bay who might want to come after me. I have got to keep my nose so clean. Yet I guess it could be argued, well, maybe Mueller didn't know that the FBI framed Ted Stevens and convicted him immediately before his election. Well, there is no question he would have known about it as the FBI agent who was singled out by another FBI agent as having engaged in the malicious prosecution, the hiding of evidence, the failure to produce evidence that they had that was exculpatory. Well, we know that the FBI agent that signed the whistleblowing affidavit, he was driven out of the FBI; and the one that there is evidence under oath that she framed Ted Stevens, she continued to work in the Mueller FBI, which is kind of like Mueller when he was in Boston. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that Mueller knew that his FBI agents in Boston were framing Whitey Bulger's competition, but he certainly had to have known that those four people were innocent when he kept putting pressure on the parole board not to release those innocent people, which I guess is another reason it cost taxpayers $100 million to the two individuals and then the two families of the two people who died in prison. Or Curt Weldon, that was the Mueller FBI. I kept wondering my freshman term, Curt would come to this microphone right here--and maybe that should be a warning to me: if you make Mueller mad, he destroys your life. But somebody's got to stand up to a mean-spirited bully like Robert Mueller. If everybody is afraid of a guy like that, then, I mean, we are Third World governments. But I kept thinking, you know, Curt Weldon keeps saying the FBI had information before 9/11, they could have done things to stop it, and he kept raising serious questions. I thought Mueller has surely got to answer these. And, yes, I know he had only come to the FBI right before 9/11, so chances are he was not implicated because of his recent arrival as FBI Director before 9/11. But surely he has got to respond somehow. These are serious allegations Curt Weldon was making. Well, he ultimately did respond. The FBI did a raid on Curt Weldon's adult daughter's lawyer office before, I think it was around 6 a.m., and, amazingly, the only people who knew were FBI; and yet all of the media was there to witness the raid, on television, newsprint, radio. They all showed up. And they are not the only ones to whom it was leaked, because protestors showed up immediately at Curt Weldon's office accusing him of crimes, caught red-handed, stuff like that. That was 2 weeks before his election that he narrowly lost. Apparently, that is how Mueller responds. You know, with all the complaints about bullies these days, you would think that adults in Congress would say: Do you know what? We don't want adult bullies either. We don't want to give adults the power, unlimited, unbridled power, to just go after anybody they want any time they want. Manafort doesn't seem like somebody I'd ever want to hang out with, but, for heaven's sake, to knock down his door in the wee hours, drag him out of bed at gunpoint, when you just want to do a search--in fact, it would have been better, from a law enforcement standpoint, if they had done the raid when no one was home. But it wasn't about finding something; it was about raw, sheer intimidation. So what do we hear in the way of raw, sheer intimidation from the Mueller cartel? Well, now we are told that a message that Manafort sent to a partner, somebody he did business with, that that was a crime. It is all about threatening people. It is all about bullying and scaring people. And what authority is it that Mueller has? Well, that's interesting, because he doesn't want to produce that document. Congress has asked for it. We have absolute authority, and if we were doing our job, we would stop the Mueller investigation, pass an immediate law that not one penny could be spent without committing a crime on any investigation Mueller is undertaking until he shows us what authority he has. You can't just give somebody unbridled authority, and then he doesn't even have to report to anybody unless it is the person who was disqualified that appointed him to be special counsel when he, himself, should have been disqualified. If he had had any decency or ethics about him he would have said: ``Do you know what? This is going to involve Russia. I was involved in the Russia investigation. I was FBI Director and, actually, there are some touchy issues there I was involved in, and I could be a witness because, you know, actually, the truth is we closed up information so that the sale could g through that Russia would get our uranium, and then Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation get $145 million. So, yeah, I was really involved in that.'' The last people who ought to be involved in an investigation now as special counsel about Russia would be Robert Mueller, Weissmann, and Rosenstein, but there they are, back together, investigating, while the statute of limitations is running out on any potential crime they may have committed that should be investigated by a second special counsel. I have been saying this for a year now: We need a second special counsel. This is serious stuff, and people across the country, even some Democratic friends of mine, are realizing: Wait a minute. Trump's not getting the same treatment that Hillary Clinton got. It is pretty clear there are two different standards of justice. Some people who care about justice--and, yeah, they are politically involved, but they care about righteousness and justice--don't want to see us go into being a Third World banana republic, which it appears to much of the world we have moved into becoming. This latest allegation Mueller throws out about tampering with a witness, well, you know, under section 1512: If you kill or attempt to kill somebody, it might be a witness--nope, that doesn't apply. Or if you use physical force or threat of physical force--no, that didn't apply. Cause or induce a person to withhold testimony--no, didn't do any of that. Didn't hinder, delay, prevent communication--nope. Let's see. Well, did he knowingly use intimidation, threats, or corruptly persuade? No. No, that really didn't apply. All right. How about whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates? No, he didn't do any of that. So how about obstructs or influences or impedes any official proceeding? No, really didn't do that, didn't attempt to do so. Or intentionally harasses another person, thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades anyone from attending or testifying--nope, that didn't happen. Reporting to law enforcement--nope, that didn't happen. He didn't even turn the message over to the FBI. Arresting or seeking to arrest--nope. Now, Mueller may be involved in these, but it doesn't sound like Manafort is. Causing a criminal prosecution--no, none of those apply. Oh, well, maybe. Oh, that is an affirmative defense. You know, there is something Mueller's good at: scare people, throw out highbrow allegations just trying to intimidate. It is like the Federal judge said, Mueller's folks don't care, and Mueller doesn't care about Manafort, anything that happened 20 years ago. We have seen it throughout Mueller's history. He finds somebody, whether it is Steven Hatfill, Ted Stevens, Curt Weldon, you know, people who got put in jail for crimes Whitey Bulger was involved in, though he was their FBI informant. I mean, he finds people he dislikes, and then he goes about trying to find a crime that he can pin on them. And even if they are not really guilty, he is fine with keeping people in prison for crimes they didn't commit if he thinks they are not good people, he doesn't like them. That is how he could tell President Bush that he was 100 percent certain Dr. Steven Hatfill was the guy that was the anthrax killer. He didn't like him. No evidence-- none, zero--yet they destroyed the guy's life. So it cost taxpayers--Mueller's actions, other people's actions in Boston--$100 million for the way he destroyed Steven Hatfill's life, another $6 million or so payout. You know, he leaves a terrible wake of devastation, lives wrecked, and he doesn't care. The one thing he is consistent in saying is: I don't owe anybody an apology for anything I have done. Yeah, it is the way bullies are. Well, we have got another problem here in the House. We had an IT worker named Imran Awan, who worked for between 40 and 50 of my Democratic colleagues. Now, he sent, apparently, over $100,000 back to Pakistan where he still has family, and he got that from a loan here in the U.S., and he is charged with making a false statement to get the loan. Yet that is a fraction of what we find from just the reporting of Luke Rosiak, the Daily Caller, this article from October 3, 2017. Unfortunately, the only thing they have indicted Mr. Awan for is basically making a false statement to get a loan, things related to that. But there are dozens and dozens of felonies in which he is implicated from his work here on Capitol Hill. This article says: ``A now-indicted IT aide to various House Democrats was sending money and gifts to government officials in Pakistan and received protection from the Pakistani police, multiple relatives claim. ``A Democratic aide also said Imran Awan personally bragged to him that he could have people tortured in Pakistan. Awan's lawyer acknowledged that he was sending money to a member of the Faisalabad police department, but said there was a good explanation. ``The relatives said Awan and his brothers were also sending IT equipment, such as iPhones, to the country during the same period in which fraudulent purchase orders''--and by the way, from what we have seen, there were clearly dozens of fraudulent purchase orders. Say, for example, an iPad cost $799 and Awan puts down it is $499 as a cost, maybe $300 for an insurance policy or something, but $499, that means it is under the $500 limit for things that do not have to be kept in inventory. So, as long as Awan kept prices on these invoices below $500, he didn't have to have a listing of all of the equipment. So he could keep buying iPads, iPhones, and all of these kinds of things for different Members of Congress' offices, and there is no record kept of where those items are. They don't record the serial numbers or anything, as long as it is $499. The trouble for Mr. Awan is, every time he put $499 on one invoice for something that costs $799, it is a Federal felony, and he is implicated in dozens of these. The evidence abounds. Yet some of us had an informal hearing and heard testimony about this matter, and he was bragging to people about all of the iPhones and iPads he was sending to Pakistan to the police there, to intelligence friends there, these kinds of things. And because he listed them at $499, they are not on an inventory so they don't have to be written off when they disappear. That is pretty handy. But the FBI has had opportunities to have those invoices presented to them. And each time they have instructed: Don't bring any of those documents. We don't want to see any of that. We just want to talk to you. And as I understand, even this week, they continued to report--the FBI investigating--that, yeah, we still found no evidence of anything other than this false statement on a loan. Why? Because they have instructed: We don't want to see the documents that prove those cases. They are readily available for anybody, any Federal officer who wants to see them, but they don't want to see them. So they can keep reporting to the new U.S. attorney that there is no evidence. No, there is just nothing there. They can tell the Attorney General, yeah, we have looked into it, and there is nothing there. And yet we hear from the reporter, he continues to talk to the witnesses--Luke Rosiak--and it was 80 percent of the witnesses that have personal information about the crimes the Awan cartel--crime family, whatever you want to call it--have committed, was 80 percent; now between 70 and 80 percent of those witnesses have never been interviewed by the FBI. That way they can still report to the new U.S. attorney, to the Attorney General; we looked into it. There is nothing there. There is no evidence. Yeah, because you don't want to look at it. It abounds. And then when we hear that Mr. Awan is spreading the word among his friends from Pakistan that: I have just got to get this deal done and work out a plea where I don't get jail time, and I am already assured I will be able to work back on the Hill. I was staggered to find out when we took testimony that actually about 3 to 9 months of every year for the last 13 or 14 years that Mr. Awan has been doing work as a computer technician for 40 to 50 Democrats here on the Hill, that he had never had a background check, but 3 to 9 months out of each year he was in Pakistan, and he was using the Pakistani internet to work on three or four dozen Members of Congress' computer systems. We also learned that, at one point, they put over 40 Members of Congress' data on one server so that anybody that Awan wanted to could access the server and get information on all of these other people. And what happened? Well, that server with that serial number has disappeared, but the FBI has no interest whatsoever--at least so far-- in investigating what happened to the server on which Awan put 40-plus Members of Congress' data. One, we do know some of the files that existed. We don't know what were in the files, but Awan had actually organized files that had Members of Congress' emails in them. Well, gee, why would Awan want to take Members of Congress' emails and put them in one file? That sure would make it easy if you were going to transfer somebody's emails to somebody else. You just put them all in a file. Put them on one server that lots of people have access to. It is phenomenal the kind of breach that has occurred on the Hill. There are two kinds of justices, and it breaks my heart. There is the Hillary Clinton kind of investigation, and there is the Donald Trump investigation. This is really tragic. So taxpayers are paying for Imran Awan's lawyer because he says he is destitute. Yet he sent $100,000 or more over to Pakistan in one transaction, and we know that he has property listed in his bankruptcy. We know that he was in business, took a loan from a guy from Pakistan who has known ties to Hezbollah, and they owed him money. We can't seem to get the FBI interested in that. There are too many holdovers, apparently, from Mueller's day, and Comey's day. We need to know what was compromised. And I don't care who the person works for, congressional computers should not be serviced from Pakistan. From information and belief, folks that should know, they tell me Pakistan would be one of the last places you would want somebody getting into congressional computer systems. He said: Well, what difference does it make? It is just emails and calendars. Well, there are people that would pay a lot of money to have all of the emails from a Member of Congress. We just need the FBI more interested. Again, I understand, the last guy that started making charges talking about FBI's lack of duty, he ended up being defeated by the FBI raid on his office and his daughter's office 2 weeks before the election. I understand, but somebody has got to stand up and say: Right is right. Wrong is wrong. There are so many FBI agents that have given their lives, day after day, not making the kind of money they could elsewhere, but enforcing the law. And to have people like Mueller and Comey come along and put a blot on the reputation they poured their honest lives into is a travesty. And the only way we remove the blots is to call out those and make them responsible for the damage that they have done. And it is not happening. Anyway, I realize I am running out of time. Luke Rosiak has great information here. He has done so much more investigation than the FBI has. I know there are a lot of FBI agents that I know personally that could take this case. I mean, just not listing a piece of property in your forms here that you have to file, the financial disclosure, could be a crime if you do it intentionally. Sometimes you forget, but for heaven's sake, he didn't forget when he filed bankruptcy. He has got property. He has got all kinds of things that he has never listed, and those are the kinds of things that are important when people are servicing congressional computers. People need to know. We need people that will be honest enough not to lie to the U.S. attorney and not to lie to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General--I don't guess it matters to them--but for other people who are honest and trying to follow and enforce the law and the Constitution as their oath requires. We need a second special counsel. We need to investigate Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, and Weissmann. And we need somebody assigned to the Awan case that will protect Congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family for the future. Now, today, there was a continuance filed moving Awan's hearing from this Thursday to July 3. It sounds like they are trying to do just what Awan has been bragging, that he is going to get a deal. It is not going to say anything about all of the breaches of security, all of the felonies committed in the forms that he filed, none of that. And so he is telling people--at least he has assured people--he can come right back and start servicing dozens of Members' computers on the Hill again. For heaven's sake, we need somebody in the FBI to step up and do their job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Dr. Burgess, for all the hours of work. It is not just a lot of fun up there on the Rules Committee, but I appreciate the work on behalf of our Conference. Mr. Speaker, it has been a tragic number of days emanating from Santa Fe, Texas, due south of my home in east Texas, down in Randy Weber's district. It truly is tragic. It is tragic, as well, when people in this country have become so comfortable persecuting Christians, demeaning Christians, that they put no stock, in fact, belittle anyone's mentioning of praying for the families or even praying for the country, which is where we have got to be. There is a God. It is the same God that is referenced above my head and behind me, that same God in whom a lot of us trust. It just says: ``In God we trust.'' That is the national motto, but I guess it would be more accurate to say, ``In God, whom a lot of us trust'' because of the condescending, demeaning comments made about Christians, about praying. Prayer does work, it does matter, but not when a majority of the country is prevented from discussing Christianity publicly. I mean, this was a country where Christians from different parts of the world fled to. It was a destination, a glorious destination where people could come and live as Christians and not be persecuted, because Jesus himself said we would be hated, but he said: Remember, they hated me first. We were told we would suffer for His sake, and He has certainly shown how brutal that could be. But as the oligarchs in black robes have taken over legislating, executive activities, as well as their own judicial activities, they have walked our country to the brink of despair. They have taken prayer--and I am talking about the oligarchs in black robes, the judges. I was once a judge, felony judge, then a chief justice of a court of appeals, and I know how easy it is to think so highly of oneself. When a black robe is donned, our imperfections are covered up. And by our office, we are supposed to have some higher form of reason than our fellow people. It is just not so. It is not so. People have had it forced down their throats that, when it comes to education, it can't be education about religion, particularly Christianity. Oh, you can talk about Islam. You can talk about Buddhism. You can give glowing reports about such things and what it takes to believe about the four pillars of Islam, but you don't dare talk about Christianity, because that is when the courts go nuts, say you have exceeded your bounds. Schools have been told that they need to reinforce in a child's mind the relativism of different positions, where right to some may be wrong for others, and wrong for some may be right for others. There is no black and white, right or wrong. There is simply relativism. John Adams, in 1797, as our second President of the United States, gave a warning that cries through over 200 years, over 220 years. He said it clearly: This Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. He was a very wise man. This Constitution of ours, the one we took an oath to follow here in this very Chamber, it doesn't work in a country where the people are not taught morality. When John Adams said morality and religion, he was particularly talking about Christianity and Judeo-Christian morals as one finds in the Ten Commandments, as symbolically evidenced by the fact that Moses' supposed likeness directly above and in front of me is the only face of all of those profiles that is full face and not the side, because at one time he was considered to be the greatest lawgiver of all times. At the time, it was the Ten Commandments that were considered to be so vital that those who came before us believed were the greatest laws ever given. But through the oligarchs across the street in black robes, they have said: Don't mention God. It is okay to use ``Jesus'' as long as you use it as a one-word exclamatory statement. It is fine to take God or Jesus' name in vain, that is fine, that is okay, but don't use it in a statement that you have sincerely with all your heart chosen to follow Jesus. That is just too inappropriate. So Adams, he was right. Whether you call them oligarchs, multiple monarchs, they have helped lead this country in a direction it really didn't want to go, been ahead of the country forcing us down this road to the dustbin of history. It is just so clear. If you are not going to teach the Judeo- Christian morality on which this country was founded, on which the revolution came about--without the churches of the day and the Great Awakening of the 1700s, there would not have been a revolution. Without a Second Great Awakening in the 1800s and some of the churches' leadership, we would never have seen the end of slavery in America. The world will never see the end of slavery. There will always be slavery in the world, but it is such a hideous form of people mistreating other people, I literally pray that it will not revisit this Nation, this once great Nation. I do believe we can be great again, but not when we fail to bow our head in reverence to the God that we once trusted, most of us. But if we are not going to teach the morality that would lead to a revolution, that would lead to an end to slavery, that would lead an ordained Christian minister to bring about another peaceful revolution of civil rights--read letters from the Birmingham jail. This man, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained Christian minister. It was the biggest part of who he was and whose he was. And as we have removed those things that motivated a country toward freedom and motivated a Nation toward freedom for everyone, and an end to slavery, and then motivating them yet again through the words of the Bible through leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., we are headed in a moral declination that ends in the dustbin of history. I just caught a few things that were said by my colleagues across the aisle before I came up. My friend Bobby Scott from Virginia indicated something to the effect that the lack of discipline robs students. We have come a long way from the days where students got paddlings. I have been paddled. I was an A student, honor student, head of the National Honor Society. I still got paddled. I had friends on the football team and other athletic teams, who had coaches that cared about them enough to take the time out of their busy schedule, not to give a time out to the offending student, but actually apply the board of education to the seat of knowledge. And I really believe that I had friends, both white and black, in sports that would have headed for prison if not for a coach caring enough to paddle them when they got out of line, even though they were grown; not adults by law, but certainly full-bodied adults. They got them on the path that would lead them away from prison and lead them to being productive. So when we claim, well, we have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, we have a First Amendment, very first amendment we have, a right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but when we have forsaken God and the teachings found in the Bible that were such a foundational part of our Nation's founding, then the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, don't work. You have got to give up the freedom of speech because some things you say motivate others to commit acts of violence. So instead of condemning and punishing the violence, we silence the offending speaker, because those days when we defended what others said that we disagreed with them, those appear to be a distant memory. Not only do we disagree with what others say, but we will offend to their death to try to prevent their right to say them. It is a long far cry from the calls during the Revolution often attributed to Voltaire, maybe it was him, maybe it was some other, but ``I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.'' They thought this would be a country where that could happen. But schools, public schools at least, are not allowed to teach the kind of morality that was taught for at least the first half of our country's existence. Yes, Thomas Jefferson had slaves. I have often pondered the incredible irony how Thomas Jefferson could have slaves, and yet in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, put on paper how offensive slavery was and make that as an enumerated grievance against King George for ever allowing slavery to begin here in the United States. That was taken out before the Declaration of Independence was finally agreed to and signed. But the only discussion, it seems, about the Bible in public schools is when it is demeaned and belittled. So are we shocked that there is violence? Yes, we are still shocked. We still grieve for the families that have lost loved ones that will never be there again. Put ourselves in their places. Think what could have been done differently. Well, everybody is pretty safe in this building. Going back to 1998, when two law officers were killed, when it was so easy to come into the Capitol, they were by the majority leader's office, and one was able to shoot the shooter, though it cost him his life. So we have had metal detectors. We have had people screened to come in here, but not in the schools. It is unfortunate, but if we are not going to teach biblical morality, then to be free, we just can't be. We have got to give up freedoms of speech, religion, assembly. We have got to give up our right to bear arms. Not only give up our right to keep and bear arms, but we have got to give up our right to keep pressure cookers, our right to have fertilizer that could be used for bombs. We have got to give up knives. It is amazing to me. I went to school in elementary school where we prayed most days, said the pledge of allegiance every day, were not afraid to talk about lessons from the Bible, and I carried a pocketknife to school. There probably weren't 5, 10 days in all my growing up where I didn't carry a pocketknife to school. And I just noticed in my bedside stand I have got three knives that belonged to my grandfather that he carried for much of his life, because they didn't have a problem with kids having knives in school. But when you don't teach Judeo-Christian morality, then you better take people's knives, guns, anything that might be used as a weapon. Vans. We will have to make it tougher to ever get a van. Maybe have a cooling off period before you can apply for and get a van or something that can run people down. Eventually we will have to have cars that are driverless that only the government can set in motion so that we can protect ourselves and only go where the government will allow us to go. That is where we are headed. And it is where you have to go if you are not going to teach the morality and the religion that John Adams spoke of as our second President in 1797. But that has also seen its way into our Federal Government. It is okay to lie if it helps your political team. It is okay to violate the law if it is for your team. It is okay to violate the Constitution and your oath to the Constitution if you are the head of the CIA or are intelligence and you want to stop the opposing party's candidate from winning or remove that candidate from office after he has fairly won. This May 12 article from Andrew McCarthy, National Review, he points out that ``The Steele dossier author told Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson about a human source. ``Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a human source, i.e., a spy inside the Trump campaign, as the 2016 Presidential race headed into its stretch run. ``When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, `mischaracterized' what he had been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign. ``Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI's human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. The latter date is significant for reasons we will come to. ``Simpson's testimony on this point is worth revisiting because of a pitched battle between the House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department. Essential reporting on the controversy has been done by The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel. On Thursday, she related that, yet again, Congress had faced down a DOJ/FBI attempt to stonewall the committee's probe of investigative irregularities during the 2016 election season--particularly, abuse of government surveillance powers, which the Obama-led agencies used to monitor the Trump campaign. ``Unable to get voluntary cooperation, committee chairman Devin Nunes issued a subpoena demanding the Justice Department disclose information by the top secret intelligence source who is said to have assisted the Russian investigation. That investigation is now being run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But more interesting is how it got started. On that question, officials have been surprisingly fuzzy in their explanations, and hilariously inconsistent in their leaks: initially settling on an origination story that hinged on the Steele dossier and a trip to Moscow by the obscure Trump campaign adviser Carter Page; later pivoting to a tale of boozy blathering by an even more obscure Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, when the first story proved embarrassing--the dossier allegations having been unverified when the Justice Department included them in warrant applications to the FISA court.'' Mr. Speaker, it has become clear to me, as a former judge, that the FISA courts have got to go. For some reason, these judges that have been nominated by a President, confirmed by the Senate, do an okay job when their court proceedings are open, obvious, and they have some accountability, reaction from the American public. But apparently, when they act in secret, they don't care so much about the Constitution. They have no pride in their own courts so that people can come in, take an oath, lie to them, create a fraud upon the court, and we don't hear a peep out of those judges. Not one lawyer or witness has been held to account by the courts that they offended by their fraud and deception. And that includes Rosenstein and, apparently, at least the fourth application to renew the warrant that should never have been issued in the first place--and surely would not have been if the FISA court had not been meeting in secret away from public eyes. Is there any secret this country has that is worth the destruction of our judicial system as we have seen through the fraud and the misrepresentations that have been allowed with no consequence? No offended judge is offended. It tells me that this pitiful little gathering we have allowed to be called the FISA court needs to stop. They are doing more damage to our country than they could ever possibly help by their secrecy. And the more we find out about what has been kept secret, the darker it appears for this country and for our future. We have Brennan and Clapper who perjured themselves multiple times before Congress and didn't seem bothered by it in the least. And then Brennan makes clear that, if you come up against them, you can do so at your own peril because they have ways of making you pay the price. That is exactly what our Founders were concerned about. The King had his ways, too, King George III. And, apparently, that is the kind of kingdom we have come into here in the 21st century when an opposition campaign for President can pay for a warrant to be issued for no just cause, no probable cause, and no consequences. We have seen the Justice Department, these career people, they weren't interested in ensuring that justice was done. If they had been, they would have gotten some Republicans to investigate. They were interested in being political to the damage of this country and our judicial system. It has got to stop. Mueller needs to resign, and Rosenstein needs to be fired. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.