Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Back to Libya momentarily, what President Obama did cost American lives, including at Benghazi. If he doesn't decide unilaterally whether NATO wanted it or not, he decided for America without any consent from Congress to go to war with Libya to take out their leader. It destabilized the country. It put American lives at risk that were not at that time, and it actually cost American lives. I have an article here, and I have seen on Facebook some comments, but an ``Iranian American activist outraged by `propaganda machine' glorifying Soleimani.'' There are so many Iranians who are speaking up now going: What is wrong with you people? This guy was a terrorist. He was killing Iranians. He was killing Americans. He was just merciless.

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOHMERT. It really is, and it is just a shame that at a time when we ought to come together because, unlike Libya, we do have an interest in protecting American lives. We do have an interest in stopping people who want to destroy America. We ought to be united on this. This is not a time to come in and try to condemn and belittle the President who did a good thing in taking out a terrorist. One other thing, I don't remember anybody on the other side of the aisle here that made a peep when the President of the United States, President Obama, gave the order to kill al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. So al-Awlaki, he was an American citizen. Why, because his parents came over on a visa, a student visa, had him, took him back, and taught him to hate America, but he got an American passport. He is an American citizen. He had worked with some in the Obama administration, apparently worked with some in the Bush administration. But he was really an enemy of America. President Obama gave the order not to take out a terrorist like Soleimani, who was in the process of stirring up terrorism and killing Americans, but this was an American citizen, and he gave the order to take him out with a drone strike, take out his 16-year-old son. Regardless of what al-Awlaki had done, his son was not a criminal, but President Obama just ordered him taken out and not one word from the other side of the aisle. I would have thought we could have come together on that: Wait, before we take out American citizens, should we give them a trial or should we just let a President decide? Now, I was okay with somebody that they had the evidence and that was in the process of being at war with us, but for heaven's sake, the people didn't raise not one peep about that.

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, the media helped them out. This is just an incredible time, and it is a time when free people ought to be able to come together and unite together in the cause of freedom. As Natan Sharansky pointed out, people didn't think he and his wife would be getting back together after he was released from prison in Russia because she was more religious and he wasn't, and he said that is ridiculous. I got along with the guy for 12 years in my cell, and the only thing we had in common was a desire for freedom. That ought to bring us together here. 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, I am here giving a 1-minute speech on the last day of our legislative week because not only in Judiciary were we prevented from having minority witnesses come and having a minority witness day--the majority could have changed the rules if they wanted but they didn't bother, they just violated their own rules--we have special orders every day, and that is 2 hours for each party. But with impeachment going on, the Speaker chose to shut down that for the week and shut down the 5-minutes speeches, so she pretty well shut down speeches that we normally are allowed to have. Normally, I would hope to read a Christmas proclamation, but since I am only allowed 3 more seconds, I will just say: Merry Christmas and happy new year.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, in 1998, Senator Schumer said: ``This impeachment will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles.'' We thought it was a prediction. It was a promise, and now it is playing out. That is exactly what is being done here. And for those who say we don't address the defenses of fact, here you go. The impeachment served two purposes: Number one, stop the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Ukraine into the corruption of Ukraine interference into the U.S. election in 2016. You have said this was about, oh, this terrible Russia collusion. Oh, then that fell through. It is about emoluments. It is about bribery. It is about extortion. It has changed. But one thing hasn't changed, and that is the intent to impeach this President. It has always been there. But let's be honest. The President turning his back on Ukraine, that happened in 2009, because in 2008 Ukraine invaded Georgia. What happened? Bush put sanctions on Russia to teach them a lesson. What happened after that? Well, in March of 2009, Hillary Clinton was sent over to Russia with a reset button to say: Bush overreacted. We are okay that you invaded Georgia. It was a green light to Russia to invade Ukraine. And what do you do? Oh, yeah, you send blankets and MREs. They can eat and be warm while the Russians are killing them. That is what the Obama administration did. This is a travesty, and we are in big trouble because Schumer was right. Now it has lowered the bar even farther. It will be used for political battles, and this country's end is now in sight. I hope I don't live to see it. This is an outrage.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have been reminded again this week in conversations with some friends across the aisle that there are some people in here with whom I have extremely different views. But I know them, they have got good hearts, and they want to do the right thing; we just disagree on what that is. There was a lot said today in the debate over the Voting Rights Act change. Some have tried to say and have just been mistaken--I don't think they were intentionally trying to misrepresent anything--but what we voted on today was not a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act has been in effect, and it is still in effect. But going back to the previous reauthorization that came through the Judiciary Committee I am on, it became clear that between the Republican and Democrat leaders in Judiciary, there was an agreement, and they weren't going to allow changes to their agreement. I pointed out to both of them back at the time: You have a provision in here that is reauthorized that will punish States for sins committed by grandparents--in some cases great-grandparents--that happened decades before, in many cases decades before some were born who were there. This is not supposed to be a country where we intentionally punish the children and grandchildren of somebody who committed an offense. It was wrongdoing in preventing people from voting, and the Voting Rights Act addressed that. But it was reauthorized more than once, continuing to punish the same States that have been found to be lacking, and the data we had at the previous reauthorization showed clearly there were places in some districts, in places like New York, Wisconsin, and California, where the voting disparity and racial disparity was worse than in the States that were still being punished. I know some say: Well, it is not a punishment for the Federal Government to say you are not trustworthy and so you don't get to be in charge of your elections; we have to approve every single thing you do. That is an extraordinary and basically unconstitutional action by the Federal Government that has been deemed to be constitutional, but only until such time as the States that were offending have corrected the situation. I know there was one newspaper in my district that reported I was against the voting rights reauthorization. When I provided them a copy of my transcript from the reporters, the stenographers here, exactly as it was and they read what I actually said, instead of taking talking points from the left-wing alt-left media, the editor at the time--I know from things she had said, she apparently was a Democrat--but she was an honorable person, and they printed a correction and corrected what they had said. I was in favor of the voting rights reauthorization, but not to continue to punish States that were not in violation and hadn't been for decades. So, in fact, my amendment would have required the punitive parts of the Voting Rights Act to apply to any State in the Union that was found to be in violation of the constitutional protections on voting. I pointed out to the Republican leader at the time and the Democratic leader, John Conyers. And actually, John Conyers was more open to making the change. He said: Well, you made a good point. Let me talk to some of our lawyers about it. The Republican leader said: Absolutely not. We are not changing anything at all. I said: But this is going to be struck down. There are some things we don't really know. This is one that is going to be struck down. Why risk the court just striking the whole thing down? If you allow my amendment, it will be constitutional, it won't any of it be struck down. The Republican leader at the time said: Absolutely not. Mr. Conyers came back to me later and said: I have talked to our lawyers, and they say you do make a good point, but since we have an agreement on it, it is just easier if we go forward, and if they strike something down, they strike it down. The Supreme Court came back and did just what I said they would do. They struck down an unconstitutional part that I had tried to amend and make it constitutional. But that is where we are. This today does not reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. It is interesting hearing comments from folks across the aisle about why this is so important that we don't disenfranchise votes. If you look at what the activity is, and even saying: Oh, there are 17 million people who have been disenfranchised because they are no longer allowed to vote. Despite what some who make comments online might say, I am not stupid. I have won awards at every school I have been in. But I know that traditionally dead people who vote, vote Democrat. That has just been the way it is. Republicans have had a very difficult time getting dead people to vote Republican. William F. Buckley talked about an uncle he had had who voted Republican his whole life until the year after he died, and then he started voting Democrat. He said he wasn't kidding, and that it actually happened there in Texas. Sometimes we kid about it. Lyndon Johnson, according to David Brinkley, told a story back in the sixties to reporters about how when he was running for Congress that he and his campaign manager were going through the cemetery writing down names of people they needed to have vote the next day, and they got to one tombstone and you couldn't read the name. There was moss and all this stuff on it. So the campaign manager said: Come on, Lyndon, let's go to the next tombstone. Johnson said: I grabbed him, and I told him, no, sir, this man has every bit a right to vote as anybody else in this cemetery. It was funny, and people laughed. But people who knew about the discrepancies in Duval County and the Dukes of Duval and voting irregularities, the investigation, and the courthouse burning with the records, those kinds of things were what got reported, and Johnson was able to get a good joke out of it. But, nonetheless, it is still true. If you find somebody who is dead who has voted, normally they voted Democrat. So I hope that my friends will understand. Some of the people they are talking about being disenfranchised by what Republicans want to do to fix election law, it will disenfranchise the dead who are continuing to vote. Their vote will not be allowed to count as it did when they were alive. We also have had millions reported to have voted who were in this country illegally or voting more than once or were registered more than one place. My friend, John Fund, used to be a writer with The Wall Street Journal. John had a fantastic book on voting fraud, and I have heard him say to me: Do you know that the biggest fraud about elections is the statement that there is no election fraud today? So this Voting Rights Act amendment that was voted on by the House today is yet another effort for the Federal Government to ignore the Constitution and ignore the mandate that elections are to be controlled locally, and that is according to the 10th Amendment, not just reserved to the States and people it specifically talked about. Exceptions have been made over the years that allow the Federal Government to have some say, and that was the case because of abuses and people who were prevented from voting. So I am surprised that we have colleagues here who don't want the dead people to be disenfranchised, whose names have been taken off rolls in areas where Republicans are trying to update the voting rolls. I understand my colleagues are not stupid either. They know that dead people vote more for Democrats than Republicans. So I get it, and why they would want to keep them voting. But it is something that needs to be done. The other vote we had today regarding Israeli-Palestinian two-nation peace, peace with two independent states, I couldn't vote for that. I pray for the peace of Israel, but I couldn't vote for that, a two-state solution being rammed down the throat of the one of the parties that doesn't want to totally destroy those who want to totally destroy them. I mean, we send money over to the Palestinians still. One of the things that President Trump has been wanting to do--he agreed with me once when I pointed it out--we don't have to pay people to hate us. They will do it for free. There is corruption in different places around the world, and especially, there has been in Ukraine. I was glad that President Trump was doing something about it. Obviously, President Obama didn't do anything about it, and we have a huge effort now from our friends across the aisle that want to stop the reform and the elimination of corruption in Ukraine that President Trump was trying to undertake. Apparently, Ukraine has been quite helpful to our friends across the aisle. Obviously, in the last Presidential campaign, plenty of information indicates they were trying to help Hillary Clinton. That is why it was reported that after the election, they realized: Well, gee, since we were trying to help Hillary Clinton, maybe we better try to warm up to Donald Trump. But when it comes to Israel, an effort to push through a two-state solution forcing Israel to sign an agreement or an effort to try to push them to sign an agreement with the Palestinians, while the Palestinians in response to each bilateral and unilateral effort that Israel has made to reach out with an olive branch, to try to bring about an effort at peace, they have been slapped down. As a result of those efforts at peace, Israelis have died; places have been destroyed; and Israelis live in fear. All you have to do is go to southern Israel to find out, because they are coming every day these rockets get fired. They are not that accurate on where they hit, so nobody can be sure they won't hit them, their homes. Their homes there have to have a safe place within there so that when the warning comes, which may only be seconds before the rocket hits, you have to grab your kids and head for the safe room and hope that you aren't killed. I heard from one mother once when I was over there. The rockets were flying from the strip that Israel had unilaterally given as a show of peace, an effort to reach out unilaterally, asking nothing in return. I thought it was a huge mistake, but they did it. As a result, rockets fly every day. But this lady was saying she had her little son in the car, and the warning sounded, the siren. She didn't have time to get her child to a safe place, so she laid on top of him in the car seat, put him down on the car seat and laid on top of him. When the rockets hit far enough away that it was not a threat to them, and the rockets stopped temporarily, and she sat up, her son cried and said: Mama, if you are going to die, I don't want to keep living. Don't do that to me again. I want to be with you wherever you are. This kind of stuff gets played out day-after-day in Israel because the Palestinians want to wipe them off the map. They don't want any Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and they make that very clear: We want to wipe them out. They never agreed to back off that position. It is pretty clear that no matter what kind of agreement you have, when you are still teaching children in your schools, which received money from the United States, that Jews are vermin and rats and need to be wiped out--the same kind of things the Nazis were saying and printing, they print them, say them, teach them. We are going to want to do them favors, send them more money while they use money themselves to teach that kind of hatred? I was mentioning to my friend Lee Zeldin earlier today that if the Democrats who were pushing through this demand for a two-state solution were successful, then they could historically stand with Neville Chamberlain and say, as he did, that this two-state solution means peace in our time, when actually it would just be a precursor to the killing of millions of Jews. We don't need a two-state solution where one of those states is still intent on wiping Israel off the map. It made no sense, and the people on this side of the aisle, most everybody, I think, voted against it, not that they were against peace in the Middle East. We also heard yesterday--actually, Wednesday, yesterday, today--a lot made about a comment by President Trump when he was talking about whether he would fire Mr. Mueller, Robert Mueller, as special counsel. This article by Charlie Spiering, 6 December, points out what the President said: ``Look, Article II, I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. Assuming I did all of the things, I said I want to fire him. Number one, I didn't. He wasn't fired. Very importantly, but more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would allow me to fire him. I wasn't going to fire him. You know why? Because I watched Richard Nixon firing everybody, and that didn't work out too well.'' That is the context the President was talking about. Yes, he is exactly right. He had the authority to fire Robert Mueller. I encouraged him not to fire him, just appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bob Mueller. Why in the world would he hire nothing but people who hated him? He said: Could I do that? I said: Yes. The authority of the Attorney General to hire and fire a special prosecutor comes from the President. It is his power. He could do it if he wants to. He is exactly right that Article II would allow him to fire Mueller, which he never did. So when the Speaker takes that quote, ``I can do whatever I want,'' when he is talking about whether or not he were to fire Robert Mueller and try to apply that to this is why we have to remove him from office, that is such a dangerous, dangerous direction to go. It is why I was so saddened to hear that our Speaker wants to now move forward with Articles of Impeachment. As Jonathan Turley testified before us Wednesday, this bar is so low. Historically speaking, when a governing document like our Constitution is degenerated to this point, you don't normally come back from that. What you could expect historically, if my friends do as they say they are going to do, they are going to vote to impeach President Trump. He hasn't committed any crime. He has tweeted out some offensive tweets, but to have a bar this low and try to, for the first time in American history, remove a duly elected President, then any President, regardless of party, in the future can expect that when the opposition party controls the House, they will spend 2 to 4 years, however long the opposing party is in power, fighting impeachment. That is what this will do for the future. I know some of our Democratic colleagues have seen before that they can attack Republicans. They can be unfair. They can encourage people to be unfair to Republicans. Republicans will not want to treat others the way they got treated when it was so unfair. I can't help but wonder if people think: We can do this to them, and they won't do it to a Democratic President. There are people who were often pointing out to me bases for President Obama to be impeached. Going back to Fast and Furious, all kinds of things that we should have been investigating. But at the time, we had a Speaker who didn't want to go to court and get court orders in order to get the documents that were demanded. So we had a show vote to hold in contempt, but it was meaningless unless we went to court and had it enforced by a court order, as Jonathan Turley was saying, is the right of the Congress or the President to do. If the Congress or the President does that, it is not an impeachable offense for the Member of Congress or the President. It is a constitutional right. Once the court orders that it has to be produced or orders that it does not have to be produced, then if the President or the Congress says they are not going to abide by the court order, then that gets into an area that you may want to look at impeachment, but that is not what has happened here. But it is what the next couple weeks' actions may lead us to. It is unfortunate that the President's comments were taken out of context in whether or not he had the power to fire Mueller. He was right that he did. Article II gives him that power. Then to say he thinks he can do anything he wants to do, well, no. If he thought he could do anything he wanted to do, if he was a monarch, then he would just say he is going to take all the money and shut down the Department of Education totally and divert all that money to securing our border, protecting American citizens, as he wants to do. He has made it very clear. Instead, he can take only some money here that is, under the law, open enough that it could be used for the purpose of building a wall. Otherwise, he would have a wall all built by now. But he knows he is not a monarch. So it is a pretty outrageous thing to say. But when it comes to going to court, Daniel Huff, a smart lawyer who used to be at the Committee on the Judiciary here, had an article published in The Wall Street Journal. The Supreme Court last week blocked a House committee subpoena for 8 years' worth of President Trump's tax returns. The committee will press the matter in further litigation, but the logic that supports the subpoena undercuts House Democrats' effort to impeach Mr. Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. In both cases, the use of official power to get dirt on a political rival is consistent with a broader, valid, official purpose, and that is to try to fight corruption. So Daniel Huff makes a great point in that editorial that he wrote. What we were dealing with in the Committee on the Judiciary on Wednesday, if we are really going to examine a report--and I found out there is a hearing Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. I asked who the witnesses are. Well, we don't know yet. What are we going to be taking up? Well, we don't know yet. Well, you are trying to destroy the Presidency, remove a man out of office. Something so serious that the Founders would say this is something that rises to the level--it needs to be treasonous. It has to be really serious. Under the Constitution itself, it makes very clear you cannot convict someone of treason under this Constitution, Federal court, unless you have the direct testimony of two witnesses. All they had was hearsay on hearsay on hearsay. They can't try President Trump for something like treason because they don't have two direct witnesses. So much of what they brought would never be allowed or admitted into court. We deserve to hear from former members of the Obama administration who were holdovers. I know that Mr. McMaster made a comment that he didn't want to hear any more of his employees at the National Security Council ever mention the word ``holdover,'' that just because somebody was hired by the Obama administration and Trump hadn't gotten rid of them yet didn't mean they were holdovers, that they are government employees. Well, no. They were holdovers, and he should have never been in the position he was. He spent his time trying to undermine the President the best he could. As of March of this year, our own Speaker said impeachment must be compelling and overwhelmingly bipartisan. She is violating her own statement if she has this go forward next week. In 1998, our own Judiciary Chairman Nadler said there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. Such would produce divisiveness in our politics and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. You know what? Jerry Nadler was exactly right when he said that. If they go through with this in the next 2 weeks or in January--whenever-- it is going to do exactly what he said, which is what Professor Jonathan Turley said. It is going to produce even more divisiveness in this country and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. It absolutely will. He was right back then. I don't know what has happened since 1998 when he was so acutely aware of the Constitution and the ramifications of actions like they are taking now, but this is where we are. Some of us were encouraged to file impeachment on President Obama, and some were angry that I wouldn't file for impeachment of President Obama. But I cared so deeply about this country, and I knew that if we had impeachment proceedings on President Obama, no matter what he did, this country would be so divided that it would never recover. Of course, we became much more divided during those years. Somebody asked me: When President Obama was in office, did you ever have any positive thoughts about him being President? I said: When he was elected, I didn't vote for him, but I thought, you know what? He could end up being like Coach Williams was to us back where I grew up. Coach Williams was my favorite coach. He happened to be Black, and I loved the guy. He was such a great coach. But he brought us all together as a team. We had a few good athletes, but most were like me. I was a quarterback and captain on the team at the time, and he brought us together. He treated everybody tough, but he treated everybody the same. We came together as a team, and we had an extremely winning team. We didn't win every game. We nearly did. But he was a great coach. I didn't mention to the reporter that I was quarterback, but I said that I hoped that President Obama would bring us together as a Nation the way Coach Williams did as a team. I didn't say what sport, what position I played. So, the first story I see about my comment from some big liberal was how I said my high school basketball coach was my favorite coach. Apparently, if you are a liberal like that reporter was, you just assume, well, if he was a Black coach, it must have been basketball. I didn't say basketball or football. She just assumed it. I found that rather ironic. One of my great joys last year: I was asked to come to speak to my old alma mater high school to try to fire them up before the game. Somebody told me Coach Williams was up in the press box, so I went up there. Arms flew open by both of us. He is just a good man, just a good man. He was a great coach, and I treasure the times I got to play with him. But that hasn't happened here. The country got more divided. But Sharyl Attkisson had a good account. This was November 25 and updated November 30. Some of the things she pointed out was Mueller, as anti-Trump as he, Weissmann, and all those folks were that he hired, Mueller testified there were instances of Russian social media support for Hillary Clinton as well. Try to find that in the mainstream media. She also says, according to reporting by Politico, though, in January 2017--it is hard to find at Politico now because they, I am sure, deeply regret they ever reported this. But they reported back then efforts by Democrats and Ukraine to sabotage the Trump campaign in 2016 did impact the race, even though Trump won in the end. She points out that in March 2016, Alexandra Chalupa reportedly met with top Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to tarnish the Trump campaign by exposing ties by Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia, according to Politico. Now, this is Alexandra Chalupa. She was a consultant with the Democratic National Committee in 2016 and previously worked under the Clinton administration. She acknowledged in 2017 that she worked as a consultant for the DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort's links to pro- Russian politicians in Ukraine. ``Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.'' But on August 8, 2016, that is when Peter Strzok wrote to Lisa Page that they would stop Trump from becoming President. Ukraine had formed the National Anticorruption Bureau in 2014 as a condition to receive aid. Why? Because, nominally, the Obama administration wanted to say, as Congress was dictating back then, that we wanted to see some advances in anticorruption by Ukraine. A recent poll indicated that, in the last year, 68 percent of those randomly chosen for the poll had bribed a government official. Sixty- eight percent, that is just here recently. But August 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as Trump campaign chairman. I think he was there only 3 months, something like that. The same day, Ukrainian parliament member Serhiy Leshchenko, who was part of the Petro Poroshenko bloc, held a news conference to draw attention to Manafort and Trump's pro-Russia ties. The original link to a photograph of the news conference was recently removed. ``At the news conference in Ukraine, Leshchenko was said to be exposing `a firm run by U.S. businessman and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who reportedly directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway the American public's opinion in favor of the country's pro- Russian Government.' '' Anyway, those were just some of the things that were going on that really need to be investigated. One of the important results to some of those who appear to have been conspiring with Ukraine, Americans who appear to be conspiring with Ukraine to affect our U.S. election, gee, they did have an effect, but it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the 2016 election. In 2018, Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate, and Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, asked Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray for various records, including forensic images of Chalupa's devices. They are seeking records also from the National Archives to obtain White House visitor logs regarding any meetings between Chalupa, Ukrainians, and Obama officials. August 8, 2018, that is when Strzok wrote Page they would stop Trump. But that is 2016, so this has been going on for some time, and more information has come out. Aaron Klein had a good article November 26 that a second Adam Schiff staffer linked to a Burisma-backed think tank--Burisma being the company that paid millions to people to be on their boards, including Hunter Biden. But this article is very interesting, that another staffer for Adam Schiff served as a fellow for the Atlantic Council think tank funded by and working in partnership with Burisma. Isn't that convenient? But Sean Misko was close friends with a guy named Eric Ciaramella. In 2015, Sean Misko was a yearlong millennial fellow at the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council. Thomas Eager, a staffer on Schiff's House Intel Committee staff, is currently a fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, and that educates congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region, which is obviously the take on issues that Burisma wants them to have or they wouldn't have funded this thing. Burisma cosigned a cooperative agreement with the council to specifically sponsor the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, where Eager served as a fellow. But a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Atlantic Council revealed that Eager and others had a meeting with Acting U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. That name should ring a bell. It may have been perfectly innocent, but nonetheless, Burisma has helped fund some things for some of Adam Schiff's staff. Of course, it quotes Chairman Schiff on September 17 saying: ``We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.'' Of course, it turns out his staff had talked with him, and, in fact, that is apparently the first people that were talked to about the conversation, for good reason. Misko is listed as providing a small donation of up to $999 to that think tank in 2016 but also contributions from the Open Society network that George Soros had so much to do with. Another big donor, Perkins Coie, the law firm that was used to help the DNC and the Clinton campaign with hiring Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and getting the Russian dossier hoax going. But it is just amazing when you start seeing: Wait a minute. There was a lot going on between people in our government and the Ukrainian Government, corrupt people over there. And then we find out Kerry Picket, October 11, reported: ``Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's staff in late August.'' That was the best information they had at the time. But it points out that Abigail Grace, 36, ``was hired to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House.'' But she had worked for the Trump White House as an Obama holdover. `` . . . Trump accused Schiff of `stealing people who work at the White House.' '' She had worked there 2016 to 2018 and briefly for the Center for a New American Security think tank, founded by two former senior Obama administration officials. But Sean Misko, 37, ``worked in the Obama administration as a member of the Secretary of State's policy planning staff under Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy official during her 2016 Presidential campaign. In 2015, Misko was the director for the Gulf States at the NSC, remaining there into the Trump administration's first year. ``A source familiar with Grace's work at the NSC told the Washington Examiner, `Abby Grace had access to executive privilege information, and she has a duty not to disclose that information. She is not authorized to reveal that information.' ``The same source said that Misko had not been trusted by Trump appointees. `There were a few times where documents had been signed off for final editing before they go to the National Security Advisor for signature'. . . . `And he actually went in and made changes after those changes were already finished.' So he basically tried to insert, without his boss' approval.' `` `There were meetings in which he protested very heavily, and the next thing you know, there's an article in the paper about the contents of that meeting.' ``Misko often clashed with other NSC personnel at meetings, another source said. Both Grace and Misko were close to Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor''--unfortunately--``from February 2017 until May 2018. ``Misko was a CNAS fellow in 2014. Misko's name surfaced in the Hillary Clinton email controversy when he worked in the State Department during the Obama administration. ``In a December 1, 2009, email released by Judicial Watch, Clinton adviser Huma Abedin sent classified information regarding foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her private email account. That email originated with Misko, who wrote to Sullivan that he initially `accidentally' sent it on the `high side'--which is secure--but was sending the email again. ``The intelligence committee did not respond to a request for comment.'' And then, updated information, December 3, Kerry Picket reports that, actually, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff hired a former National Security Council aide during the Obama and Trump administrations the day after the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. So it turns out, call on July 25, July 26 Sean Misko gets hired. Sean Misko, Abigail Grace, Eric Ciaramella, they had worked together at the National Security Council. In fact, Misko and Ciaramella, they were reported to be brother-like, or bro-like, that they were just always hanging around. And then we find out that, after the phone call, apparently, Ciaramella goes over to the staff, and, based on what we know--it appears to me, my opinion--that he goes over there and says, wow, you know, all the work we did with Biden, with Ukraine, maybe they were saying maybe the work we did trying to set some things up to help the Clinton campaign, whatever it was, they were scared. Clearly, they were scared. And somebody comes up with the idea, why not use the whistleblower statute even though it really didn't apply. And you know, some people say, oh, you guys, you know, you are all dead set on getting the whistleblower. The whistleblower, as a whistleblower, whoever it is is irrelevant. But these three key people, including Misko and Grace, who worked together at the Obama administration and the Trump administration temporarily, at the National Security Council, that worked with Ukraine, worked with Biden, these people are at the heart of everything about this whole Ukrainian hoax. Why are we having a Ukrainian hoax? Because all the other hoaxes were exposed, and maybe that is why we are rushing through this in record time, so that people don't find out more about how this all came about. But we need to talk to Alexandra Chalupa. She met with people involved in this, including Ukrainians, Misko and Abigail Grace and Ciaramella. Regardless, it doesn't matter who the whistleblower was. What matters is the information these people know about what went on with Ukraine's interference in our election--not the country officially, but the Ukrainian officials that interfered and what all went on. They are in it up to their eyeballs. We need to be able to talk to these people, and these are the three people--well, four people that neither Adam Schiff nor Jerry Nadler are willing to produce. Now, I made the request, provided it to our ranking member. Under H.R. 660, he has to provide it, and apparently there is somebody he had to talk to before he was willing to provide it. But at least I am making that request. To be official, our ranking member has to hand it over. It needs to be done. We need to be able to talk to these people before they irreparably destroy the institutions, as Jerry Nadler said this kind of impeachment would. We need to talk to the people that got it all--that brought about the circumstances in dealing with Ukraine, Biden, Russia. We need to be able to question them about Ukraine, about Biden, about Russia and all these intermingling ties. It is critical. We have got to be able to have that. And, of course, reference the same person in the Mueller report even, where he is in the Mueller report, is shown or is indicated to be the source of allegations that Russia told, or Putin told Trump to fire Mueller--or Comey. In any event, this is all rather tragic, where partisan politics, just as Jerry Nadler predicted in 1998, is about to take a huge step toward finishing off this little experiment in self-government. No government lasts forever. This one won't. But the actions that are being taken now have far-ranging consequences toward destroying the best hope for freedom the world has ever had. People may hate this country, but you talk to people honestly around the world that have some freedom, like I did with three people from Australia. And I was kidding around. I had a few Members say: If we lose our freedom, we can all go to Australia. None of them smiled, even. One of them said: Do you not understand if you lose your freedom here in the United States, China will take us over before you could ever get there? You have got to be strong. I heard that in Nigeria when I went to meet with mothers whose children had been kidnapped and were being raped daily, and officials there said: Well, you know, your Obama administration said if we want more help with Boko Haram we have got to adopt same-sex marriage and we have got to have abortions. As one Catholic Bishop reported: Our religious beliefs are not for sale, not to the Obama administration, not to anybody. So it is not uncommon, as we have been told, and some people want to deny, but there are good reasons to withhold aid. I don't think trying to force somebody to change their religious beliefs, like in Nigeria and Kenya and Togo, some of the places I talked with officials, but, nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with it if it is a legitimate purpose. And what President Trump is trying to get to the bottom of, you know, it is a legitimate purpose: How do you stop corruption from foreign countries in our 2020 election if you are not allowed to figure out what they did in 2016? We need to be able to know that in order to stop it from happening again. This is really serious stuff. And I appreciate the comments that so many who are participating on the other side of the aisle have made in talking about this impeachment. Of course, we even heard that from Feldman, from Harvard. Oh, he was reluctant to bring up this impeachment. My gosh, the guy was all over Twitter over 2 years ago. He thought, gee, we may be able to impeach Trump for his tweet. We may be able to impeach him for this, that, and the other. This guy has been talking about it forever. He had no qualms about wanting to impeach Trump using any little thing possible, until he comes before our committee, and then he is reluctant. And we have heard that from some other people: We are reluctant to pursue this impeachment. Well, you sure can't tell it the way you are moving forward like you have got a posse and are to hang somebody that you have just run into. So let me just finish up by stating something I hope. It was reported this week that, after the Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff had finished rolling up this ball of collusion and, supposedly, sending it to the Judiciary Committee, it was reported that the Speaker provided a cake, and it was decorated as a flag. There was a big drinking celebration. So I hope that if the Judiciary Committee does what I really do hope and pray they don't, and that is move forward with impeachment on something Trump didn't even do wrong, that if they have another celebration for the Judiciary staff and people are drinking and eating cake and having a good time, I hope they will continue to do their drinking and celebration prayerfully, reluctantly, and soberly, as we have heard they are approaching all of this. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, John Adams, our first Vice President, such a prominent fixture within the Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence, so important to our founding, such a strong antislavery personality--and he was very, very learned, constantly reading--said: I have examined all the religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. Patrick Henry, who gave the stem-winding speech that moved so many to support the Revolution, said: The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed. Benjamin Rush, also a Founder, a dear friend of John Adams, said: ``By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that has ever been published.'' And I love what C.S. Lewis said in his book ``The Case for Christianity.'' He was discussing dualism, this idea that there are two equal forces in the universe and that they are at war, and we don't know how it is going to come out. He said there is a war going on, but it is not between two equal forces. It is between a master and a rebel, and we happen to live in rebel-occupied territory. Basically, he goes on to say, can you imagine being behind enemy lines and getting a message from your home headquarters and you don't even pick it up and read it? Those of us who are Christians, we believe that God gave us this book of messages, just like C.S. Lewis said. Unfortunately, many don't pick them up. It is well known that Thomas Jefferson, though he was not a deist, believed the Bible, not all of the miracles. But the story is told that he was coming down--and CRS has verified he came to church every Sunday here in the Capitol. He usually rode his horse. When Madison came every Sunday--he was here in D.C.--he came down to the Old House Chamber. But someone asked Jefferson: Where are you going this Sunday morning? He said: I am going to church in the Capitol. He had a big Bible under his arm. He said: But you don't believe everything they do. He said: Sir, I am the highest elected magistrate in this country. It is imperative that I set the proper example. I thank my friend for setting that same proper example.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I really haven't ever become friends with General Michael Flynn. He doesn't object to being called Michael Flynn, even though he earned the title of ``General,'' even though he has not been treated fairly at all and has actually been treated unjustly. There is an article today from Margot Cleveland in The Federalist. It talks about Michael Flynn's case, and I am learning some things. I think the world of Sidney Powell. She is an amazing attorney. She is a friend. But there is a motion pending before Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan on a motion to compel and motion for sanctions that attorney Sidney Powell had filed. ``Powell's motion seeks to force Federal prosecutors to provide Flynn an array of documents withheld from his attorneys and to sanction government lawyers for their failure to provide relevant evidence to the defense team in a timely manner.'' Now, as a former judge--and I have prosecuted, I have defended, and I have been a chief justice, but nothing is more infuriating to me, when it comes to our justice system, than prosecutors who are unjust, who lie, who misrepresent. And it looks like all of that has been occurring in Michael Flynn's case or with deference to, like Colonel Vindman, General Michael Flynn. This article points out: ``Then, mere days after the final briefing came in,'' to Judge Sullivan, ``Federal prosecutors found themselves forced to admit that, for nearly 3 years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel, and the court, that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pietka, and those taken by Pietka had been written by Strozk. ``This embarrassing mea culpa surely added strength to Powell's plea for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if Federal prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?'' This goes on and points out that, at a minimum, things that are being set out now ``would also support the withdrawal of Flynn's guilty plea--something Powell does not appear to be considering at this time-- including''--and here is the circumstance that is just phenomenal, that, in a Federal district court we could have Justice Department attorneys who are this flagrantly abusive of the process. So, ``Flynn's original attorneys had a conflict of interest preventing them from representing Flynn in the criminal case; Flynn did not intentionally make false statements to the FBI agents; the FBI agents entrapped Flynn; Flynn's purported misstatements were immaterial to the investigation into supposed Russia collusion and, thus, no crime occurred; the government engaged in selective prosecution and charged Flynn solely because of his relationship to Trump; prosecutors used threats to induce Flynn's plea; the prosecutors' failure to timely disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence invalidates Flynn's plea; and that egregious prosecutorial and government misconduct mandates dismissal of all charges against Flynn.'' If you go down further, more revelations. ``The government had pushed Flynn's previous attorneys at Covington and Burling LLP, in February 2017, to quickly file a registration statement under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, for Flynn Intel Group, FIG. Federal prosecutors later obtained indictments against Flynn's FIG business partners for supposed Foreign Agent Registration Act violations, and still later, the prosecutors branded Flynn a co-conspirator in the FARA case. There was a clear conflict of interest, which the government failed to mention to Judge Sullivan. ``Further, since Flynn last appeared before Sullivan, the government's FARA case against his FIG partners has imploded. Following a 6-day trial, a jury had convicted Flynn's former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, of acting as an unregistered agent of Turkey, conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Turkey. . . . `' It says: ``But Federal Judge Anthony Trenga stepped in and tossed the guilty verdict, concluding that no `rational jury could conclude that Rafiekian conspired with Alptekin or anyone else.' Judge Trenga further held that `there is no evidence of discussions or suggestions, let alone any agreement express or implied, to either avoid filing under FARA or to cause the filing of a false FARA registration statement.' '' ``That the government's FARA case against Flynn's business partner proved bogus should also trouble Sullivan because, according to Powell's earlier court filings, the special counsel's office had informed Flynn's `counsel in the summer of 2017 that it was going to indict the FARA case then, had obtained authorization to target Michael Flynn, Jr.--who had a newborn--and had seized all his electronic devices.' ``The threat was clear: Plead guilty and cooperate or we will prosecute your son. And given Judge Trenga's conclusion in the Rafiekian case that there was no evidence of a FARA crime, there is an added postscript: We will prosecute your son on bogus charges.'' Unbelievable. It also should be quite scary to someone situated as Michael Flynn, General Flynn, that the Federal Government, the DOJ-- especially when they use unscrupulous and unethical means--they can convict anybody, even when there is no evidence whatsoever as Judge Trenga found, there was no evidence whatsoever. I don't know these people, but I know the Federal judge said there was no evidence whatsoever. And, yet, the jury came back--I am sure the judge was just thinking: I will let the jury find there is no evidence because there is none. And when they came back and convicted, wow, the judge is going: I have got to throw this out. This is totally bogus. ``The threat also wasn't a one off: After Powell took over representation of Flynn, federal prosecutors attempted to force Flynn to testify at Rafiekian's trial that Flynn had knowingly made false statements in the FARA filings--something Flynn denies. When Flynn refused to lie, federal prosecutors abruptly added Michael Flynn, Jr. to the witness list for the Rafiekian trial, but then never called him to testify.'' Total intimidation. Total effort to intimidate. Very unethical. ``The government, according to Powell, also had an FBI agent contact Flynn, Jr. directly, even though the younger Flynn was represented by counsel.'' Also quite unethical. Boy, the unethical conduct in this Department of Justice hasn't gone away. It hasn't stopped with Strzok and Page, being gone--Bruce Ohr, all of these others that appeared to conspire to defeat a Presidential candidate, and then to try the coup to take him out. ``The government, according to Powell, also had an FBI agent contact Flynn, Jr. directly. ``These maneuvers corroborate the prosecutors earlier use of Flynn, Jr. as a pawn to pressure his father to plead guilty.'' I mean, this stuff is just amazing. And if they can do this to someone who spent over 30 years dedicated to the defense of his country, all kinds of decorations for heroism, and powerful friends in Washington, they can do this to him, it is difficult to think about the terrible situation of someone without money, without friends. If these people can be this unscrupulous to people with some power, it just bodes very poorly for this little experiment in self-government when the judicial branch, or I am sorry, the executive branch's prosecutorial wing is this abusive. Absolutely incredible. A bit frightening, actually. So I would like to also touch on some of the testimony that has gone on in yesterday's hearing, the part where we had Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. He said, I think, that he has been in over 20 years. Didn't make Colonel. And I have known people, you know, my 4 years in the Army, we saw those folks. They were so self-righteous on the one hand, maybe they didn't get a promotion they thought they deserved. Maybe it was because they did something like Vindman did and was trashing the United States to Russians when he was overheard by a superior that reprimanded him for it. Sometimes it is just because there is a mean superior that doesn't want somebody promoted. But for whatever reason, he didn't become a full Colonel. Here he is, harping after he had been called Lieutenant Colonel over and over by my friend, Devin Nunes, he interrupts and demands--and I notice he didn't always call people Congressman. That didn't bother me, but it is just quite interesting that he has such a double standard for himself and for others. But when you look at the testimony, especially page 2, it is interesting--and actually, this is from our friend Adam Schiff, Congressman Adam Schiff--``Colonel Vindman, we have seen''--and I guess it should have been Lieutenant Colonel Vindman--``we have seen far more scurrilous attacks on your character, and watched as certain personalities on Fox have questioned your loyalty. I note that you have shed blood for America, and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude.'' So that is the case, we owe him a debt of gratitude for defending our country. I do love history and I point out down the hall when we are in the rotunda to groups, we have got General Gates standing there accepting surrender from the British, and he was not the real hero of the Battle of Saratoga, and that was the biggest victory since December 24, 1776, probably. And it was a big one, but it wasn't Gates. I read another book on the Revolution just months ago, and this book was saying Gates never got out of his tent, whether it was cowardice or whatever, he never would get out of his tent. But there was this great, brave, courageous, young major that just knew they could defeat the British there at Saratoga if they get on going and attack them. Gates wouldn't give the order, so this major rallied folks, and they went down and they attacked the British, and they defeated them. So the real hero of Saratoga wasn't General Gates. It was this major, a tough, strapping guy. He took them on, and he was wounded. And he carried a limp with him probably the rest of his life. He was wounded. He was hurt severely. But we owe that guy a debt of gratitude for his defense of his country. Of course, later on, he got upset that he had been slighted and didn't get a promotion like Gates' immediate subordinates, and then that caused him to fall prey to the British talking him into helping them because they would pay him, and they would appreciate him a whole lot more than Washington and others. And, of course, then he ended up setting up Washington to be kidnapped by the British. But I am amazed how many people don't know that we owe a great debt of gratitude to Major Benedict Arnold, because without him, there is no victory at the Battle of Saratoga, and that was a huge victory, so very important to our becoming an independent country. So anyway, it is just interesting when you think about history and people who demand to be given respect, and if they are not, they get rather snippy. And I don't know that I have ever met Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, but to find out that he was trashing the United States to Russians, and it was just intriguing to go through his testimony. For example, he said this about the investigation into the 2016 elections, Bidens, Burisma. ``I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and it had nothing to do with national security. Dr. Hill also asserted his comments weren't proper. Following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I agreed to report the incident to the NSC's lead counsel.'' So it is interesting. Further, he was asked by Mr. Goldman: ``On September 10, the Intelligence Committee requested the whistleblower complaint from the Department of National Intelligence.'' He wasn't aware of that. But it is just, wow, so September 10, they obviously knew all about the so-called whistleblower complaint. But when you get over here to part of the questioning by Congressman Nunes: ``Did you ask or encourage any individual to share the substance of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press?'' ``I did not.'' And he goes on like that. And then he said: ``Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25th phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25th or the 26th, and if so, with whom?'' And he said: ``Yes, I did. My core function is to coordinate U.S. Government policy, interagency policy, and I spoke to two individuals with regards to providing some sort of readout of the call.'' Nunes says: ``Two individuals that were not in the White House?'' Vindman: ``Not in the White House.'' And that is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. ``Not in the White House, cleared U.S. Government officials with appropriate need to know.'' ``And what agencies were these officials with?'' Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who is responsible for the portfolio, Eastern Europe including Ukraine, and an individual from the office of--an individual in the intelligence community.'' And that is where Nunes says: ``As you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual from?'' And that is when Chairman Schiff said: ``If I could interject. We don't want to use these proceedings''--and then cross talk--``we need to protect the whistleblower.'' And what is really interesting, of course, is when he calls out Congressman Nunes. ``It's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.'' So I want to make sure that I don't slight him. He says--and he is under oath--``I don't know who the whistleblower is. That is correct.'' And yet, he gets down to there is two people. He identifies one, and Chairman Schiff interrupts and doesn't want him to out the other person, because that would be outing the whistleblower. And, yet, Chairman Schiff and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman say they don't know who the whistleblower is, but it must be that one that he has been told not to answer because that would give away the whistleblower's identity. And yet, they say, we don't know who the whistleblower is, but we are down to one person, but we don't know who it is. Even though if he gives the name, it will out the whistleblower. It is just really amazing when you look at this stuff. And it is actually rather tragic. There was a question Mr. Castor says: ``And are you aware, and George Kent testified a little bit about this last week, that under the Obama administration, the U.S. Government encouraged Ukraine to investigate whether Zlochevsky used his government position to grant himself or Burisma exploration licenses. Are you aware of that?'' And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``I would defer to George Kent. He's a fount of knowledge on Ukraine, much deeper knowledge than I have. If he attested to that, then I'd take his word for it.'' Well, isn't it interesting that Mr. Kent knew that the Obama administration was trying to get to the bottom of corruption about Burisma, and, yet, he freaks out, not Kent, but Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, freaks out over Burisma being brought up, that that is some kind of crime for an impeachable offense, basically, for President Trump to bring up the corruption and including Burisma. But isn't that interesting? He didn't bring up there is a problem with the Obama administration bringing it up, just President Trump. But Ranking Member Nunes also brings up that, I asked Ms. Williams about this, about, if she had ever accessed, without authorization, colleagues' computers. She answered no. And he goes on through some of that. But you get down here and then it is turned over to Jim Jordan. Congressman Jordan said, ``Mr. Morrison said this: `I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment. Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill--that is Fiona Hill--in the transition with our team, its strength, its weaknesses, and Fiona and others had raised concern about Alex's--he should have said Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's-- judgment'. When Mr. Morrison was asked by Mr. Castor, `Did anyone ever bring concerns to you that they believe Colonel Vindman may have leaked something,' Mr. Morrison replied, `yes.' '' They thought he was a leaker well before this all happened. So your boss had concerns about your judgment--your favored boss, Dr. Hill--had concerns about your judgment, your colleagues had concerns about your judgment, and your colleagues felt that there were times when you leaked information. Any idea where they might have gotten those impressions, Colonel Vindman? He calls him ``Colonel.'' He gave him a promotion. But Vindman says ``yes.'' And then he raised an OER that was somewhat glowing, but actually the answer should have been ``no,'' if he was being truthful, because he later says, ``I can't say why Mr. Morrison questioned my judgment.'' But Congressman Jordan goes on: ``Colonel, it's interesting, we deposed a lot of people in the bunker, in the basement of the Capitol, over the last several weeks, but of all those depositions, only three of the individuals we deposed were actually on the now-somewhat-famous July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. There was you, the individual sitting beside you, Ms. Williams, and then there, of course, was your boss, Mr. Morrison. . . .'' ``When we asked Ms. Williams who she spoke to after the call, about the call, she was willing to answer our questions, and Chairman Schiff allowed her to answer the questions. When we asked Mr. Morrison who he spoke to after the call, about the call, he was willing to answer our question and Chairman Schiff allowed him to answer our question. But when we asked you, you first told us three individuals at the NSC, your brother and two lawyers. And then you said there was a group of other people you communicated with, but you would only give us one individual in that group, Secretary Kent. And the chairman would only allow you to give us that name. When we asked you who else you communicated with, you would not tell us. So what I want to know first, how many other people are in that group of people you communicated with outside the four individuals I just named?'' ``Mr. Jordan, on a call readout''--this is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman-- ``on a call readout, certainly after the first call, there were probably a half a dozen or more people that I read out. Those are people with the proper clearance and the need to know. In this case, because of the sensitivity of the call, Mr. Eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else. I only read out, outside of the NSC, two individuals.'' So very interesting there. And it is interesting, too, that, you know, the fact is if Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, say hypothetically he leaked--as he had been suspected of in other case or cases--say he leaked in this case to people that didn't have proper clearance, he probably would try to assert: I was named as a whistleblower, and once I had that status, you can't prosecute me. And then there would be a motion to dismiss, this kind of thing. And ultimately, the courts would say: Wait a minute. The whistleblower statute does not protect the whistleblower, because to protect a whistleblower, the person being complained about has to be within the department or agency from the person complaining. The President is not in the Intel agencies or department, and so it just wouldn't work. And, of course, previously you had to have direct knowledge. And I would submit, if you look, treason is something the President can be impeached for, but under the Constitution, that requires two people with direct knowledge as direct witnesses, not hearsay--can't be hearsay--direct witnesses to a crime. They have to testify. If you don't have two, you can't prove treason under the Constitution. It is out. And I would submit, the Senate would do well--if this is sent down there--to require the same thing of whatever bogus charge ends up coming their way, because that is all we have seen so far, but require two people with direct evidence. A bunch of people have been convicted of treason. No President has ever been removed. So if we are going to remove a President, it ought to require two direct witnesses as well. And so it ought to be a short trial. 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, these are interesting times, and I build more respect for my friend from Arizona every time I hear him speak. I am very grateful for his presence and his efforts. At this point I would like to address this ongoing issue, ongoing for only about 3 years, because it was immediately upon President Trump being elected President that we immediately started hearing all of the saber-rattling that we have got to impeach this guy, he is not qualified, he is crazy, he has committed crimes. And we have been hearing for nearly 3 years: there is no question, there is lots of direct evidence, President Trump has committed crimes, a lot more than you might think; in fact, a lot more than circumstantial evidence. Oh, it is overwhelming. We have heard from so many people for nearly 3 years--well, actually, over 3 years now--over 3 years. Then we get down to it. The great hope was the man that I believe did more damage to the FBI than all of the FBI directors for the last 50 years, a guy named Mueller. He ran off thousands and thousands of years of our best FBI experience. Apparently, he just wanted yes-people. He didn't want people who had enough experience to tell him when he was on the wrong track. He said he had no reason to apologize when he destroyed the lives of innocent people. And yet, that is the person who was put in charge of this investigation. What did he do? He went out and hired over a dozen people who absolutely despise Donald Trump, put them to work trying to destroy our sitting President. They harassed him and his family, business associates, people in the administration, threatened their families, threatened them. Even after all that, after virtually 2 years, nearly 2 years of investigation by the Mueller cabal, they had nothing. They had nothing. I think Mueller would have been happy to keep investigating and using up millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, tens of millions, as he had been doing. Fortunately, his investigation came to an end. After thousands of witnesses, they had nothing. No Russia collusion. A hoax is what it turned out to be. When it was clear there was no Russia collusion--of course, it is not a crime to collude. It is a crime to conspire. There was no Russian conspiracy between anybody with the Trump campaign and the Russians. But it is very clear, the Russians, what they really wanted, for people who have really dug into this, they wanted and what they always want, always have wanted, back when it was the Soviet Union, they want to divide America. They want to destroy this Republic. Unfortunately, they found allies, willing or otherwise, here in this country, to take absolute lies that were created, were spun up, were twisted--had the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, the FISA court, manipulated fraud upon the FISA court, which has exposed to me, as a former judge and chief justice, that since we have seen nothing from the FISA court of outrage, as a good judge should have when they realized there has been a fraud upon the court, nothing, which tells me we either need to totally get rid of the FISA court or we need to have some dramatic changes. We certainly need to change the FISA judges themselves because either they were unwilling and unknowing accomplices with the fraud upon the court, or they knew what was going on and he or she, or they, were proud to play a part in trying to destroy the Trump campaign and the Trump Presidency. I think it is interesting, this call between President Trump and President Zelensky, July 25, I mean, when so many people--we find out now so many people were on the call, including at least four stenographers taking down every word. I mean, I have been in courts for my whole adult life, and you might have a stenographer miss a word here and there. They are amazing. They hardly ever make mistakes. But if you have four stenographers sitting on a call, you are not going to have four stenographers miss anything when they consult each other and work together. That is just not going to happen. I had one of the best court reporters in the world, and, you know, there was a mistake now and then. You put four people like that together, like we are taking down the President and President Zelensky's call, and they don't make mistakes. But it had to send shivers up the spines of anybody in our intelligence community that had worked with Ukrainians, Russians, former MI-6, Italians, Australians to try to destroy President Trump. It had to send shivers up their spine. It had to get them very concerned. Oh, my gosh. This President is going to close in on us because this new President, we understand he is honest. That is what we keep hearing, that he wants to end corruption in Ukraine. This whole body, I think there were maybe 10 or 12 or so that didn't vote for the bill in 2014 that talks about Russia, I mean--not Russia, but Ukrainian corruption, and how we need to push them to end that corruption. So, I mean, everybody on this floor basically knows. And I think the ``no'' votes were based on some other reason, not on a desire not to end corruption. We all had the same goal, just concerns about different parts. The fact is, people know. There has been a lot of corruption. It sounds like President Zelensky wants to end it. You put that with a President who doesn't mind rattling cages and trying to drain the swamp and trying to change the way we do things for the better, and of course, it offends those whether they say they are part of the deep state or not. It is the people that work here that have never been elected here but think they run this country, and those in embassies who, beyond what they are assigned to do, they think they run foreign policy. We have gotten a taste of that through these hearings and through these witnesses and through their testimony. The star witness yesterday, Mr. Taylor, I don't impugn his military service, but I know if he had been the kind of gossipmonger in the Army or at West Point that he has turned into at the State Department, he sure wouldn't have gone very far. His next OER in the Army would have destroyed his career. In West Point, he would have gotten the lowest peer review ratings. He would not have done very well at all. This is, apparently, a different Mr. Taylor than the one that went through West Point and served honorably and well in the Army. But as Ambassador Sondland testified, and our friend Jim Jordan read yesterday, Ambassador Taylor recalls, and this is Sondland's testimony, that Tim Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that Sondland ``told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.'' Astounding. That is where Mr. Taylor says he got his clear understanding of what had happened. If you look at his testimony, you get a real sense of how this honorable serving military member, fine graduate of West Point, has been tainted over the years. You look at his testimony, first of all, he says something like--he answered a question. He had never seen aid conditioned on political interests. And yet, what he probably had in his mind is he had never seen aid conditioned on something he disagreed with. Most of our aid is conditioned on something. If it is not, we need to find it and get conditions on it. As I have said ever since I have been here, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They will do it for free. And yet, our country continues to pay dictators that hate us. That stuff ought to be stopped. It ought to be conditioned on making those countries less corrupt. That is what this House has tried to do on both sides of the aisle, in prior years, to end corruption in Ukraine. But you get a sense of things when--this is his testimony, at page 11, Mr. Taylor's. Let's see. ``The first summary of the July 25 Trump- Zelensky call that I heard from anybody inside the U.S. Government was during a phone call I had with Tim Morrison, Dr. Hill's recent replacement at the NSC, on July 28.'' That is what Ambassador Sondland was apparently talking about. He got that from Tim Morrison, who conveyed a message that Yermak got from Ambassador Sondland about Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and meeting with President Zelensky. He goes on, and his next statement, next paragraph: ``By August, I was becoming more concerned.'' Yeah, Mr. Taylor was becoming concerned because he had heard fourth- hand the President wanted to end some corruption in Ukraine that was affecting the United States election. I thought that is what everybody here wanted to do. That is what we have been hearing from the leftwing, or many call it the mainstream, but the leftwing, alt-left media. They have been saying, oh, how horrible. Well, here you have a President trying to do something about it, and Mr. Taylor, the wonderful, honorably serving Army man, is now concerned because of the fourth-hand account he got about what the President did. Now, we are told: Oh, by the way, I heard about a staffer who overheard a conversation between the Ambassador and the President, and he mentioned the interviews, had some question about the interviews, maybe how they were going. Oh, my goodness. The investigation, wanted to know how it was going. Gee, how horrible that we had a President who wanted to know about corruption in Ukraine that was affecting the United States. Then we get down--and I think this tells us a great deal about their star witness, until his staffer, who was eavesdropping and heard a conversation, we are told, when Mr. Taylor says, ``A formal U.S. request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper.'' Well, my understanding was the President wants to know about corruption in Ukraine that may have violated American law, our laws, work with our U.S. Attorney General to try to get to the bottom of not Ukraine, per se, but Ukrainians' effort to affect our election. That offends these deep staters in the State Department, these people that don't like a President that doesn't see things exactly like they do. How dare this President come in and want to exert his foreign policy that he got elected to put in place. He doesn't understand. We are the ones that run things. You see it here. He says that ``struck me as improper.'' I am the judge, the purveyor of what is right or not in my realm. You find that in a number of people in the State Department. We run things. Of course, they come in and testify. ``I have worked for this many Presidents, carried out their foreign policy.'' Then we find out that what means. ``I carry out their foreign policy as long as they do what I tell them. Or I ignore them and carry out what I know is much better.'' You get that sense. He goes on: ``And I recommended to Ambassador Volker we `stay clear''' because I, Mr. Taylor, know much better than the elected President. I know better than the Attorney General. I know better than all of these clowns who are elected or have been confirmed by the Senate. Who are they to go around what I think? And he goes on: ``To find out the legal aspects of the question, however, I gave him,'' the Ambassador, ``the name of a deputy assistant attorney general, whom I thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a U.S. request for a foreign investigation.'' How dare President Trump try to go around the way I, Mr. Taylor, think that foreign affairs ought to be handled and the way corruption ought to be addressed when it affects the United States? How dare he? I am the one who knows these things, not this clown President. I mean, it is pretty clear what was in his mind, and it needs to stop. And I would just suggest, if we have a vote to send this matter of impeachment, actually impeach this President for violating the sense of propriety of somebody who is so deep in the state and in the intel that they don't like somebody coming in trying to drain the swamp, if that is what they want to impeach this President over, trying to end corruption in Ukraine that affects our election, well, then, the Senate, I know some have said, ``Oh, we are not going to have a vote on that,'' well, I imagine they probably will, and they are going to need to have a trial. In looking back and researching this again, you know, there are no rules of evidence for impeachment; there are no rules of procedure. The Constitution provides for it, the impeachment trial in the Senate. But as I understand it, the Senate may have even gone to the Old Senate Chamber to have a session out from under C-SPAN cameras to work out the rules of evidence and procedure, limit time, limit witnesses, how questions are asked, all that. They have to come up with that every impeachment, a new set of rules. I would point to Article III, Section 3 for a little bit of guidance here. Article III, Section 3 talks about treason, and President Trump is not guilty of any treason. He is not being accused of treason, except from people who are suffering from PTSD. That is President Trump stress disorder. But otherwise, there will be no charge of treason against this President, because it didn't happen. But it is such an important issue when you talk about removing a duly elected President for the first time in our history. And there is a rule on treason. It is in the Constitution: ``No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act.'' That means direct evidence, no hearsay, two people who actually witnessed this despicable act. I would submit to the Senate that removing a President properly duly elected for the first time in our history, even after there were Ukrainians and Russians trying to help the Democrats to keep him from being elected--he still won, got a huge majority of the electoral college votes. This would be every bit as serious as charging someone with treason. The Senate ought to set a rule that says: We have got to have two direct witnesses to whatever they are saying he did wrong. We are not going to take hearsay to remove a President for the first time. I would suggest that if the Senate would do that, they won't even have to worry about setting time deadlines, witness deadlines. Just put that requirement on, and it will be a very short trial because there are no direct witnesses of any allegation that would rise to the level of what is being accused here. Military Personnel Have Been Treated Unfairly

Mr. GOHMERT. Now I want to turn quickly to the issue of some of our United States military personnel who have been unfairly treated, people who saw it as their patriotic duty to sign up and serve this country, risk their lives and limbs and their life as a family member to serve this country. Greater love hath no one, Jesus told us, that they would be willing to lay down their lives for their friends, and that is what these people do. My group, my 4 years on Active Duty, we were never sent to combat, but we have, currently, a Secretary of the Department of Defense who is trying to stop efforts and came out and publicly--basically threatened the President, don't you dare try to right what you think are wrongs in people who I would tell you have been railroaded by a broken military justice system. The reason Congress created the UCMJ, where military members don't even get all the rights that we give to terrorists, to foreign terrorists illegally in our country--we don't give our military as many rights as they have. The reason we had to shortcut, or Congress did, back when the UCMJ was passed was because both sides of the aisle understood that, when you are in a combat theater, you don't have time to go back and have a thorough investigation, gather up all the forensic evidence and then come back and have a nice jury trial in America. You have got to deal with it quickly and then get back on the battlefield. And yet what we have seen over and over, when the military chooses for political expedience or political correctness purposes or when they want to satisfy a terrible leader like Maliki was in Iraq who created all kinds of trouble for that country, we would send a Vice President over to stand by him and say we are going to get these guys, or tell Karzai, a corrupt family in Afghanistan, oh, yes, we are going to prosecute our guys who, turned out, killed people who created IEDs that killed Americans, people who were Taliban trying to kill Americans, and yet we have hung some of our own people out to dry. So we have a letter, a bunch of us do. It should go out in the morning, I guess, to the Defense Secretary, and, you know, I put the words in there myself that I think, if he doesn't realize that there needs to be some corrections within military justice so we don't keep sending innocent people defending our country, defending their brothers and sisters on the battlefield, if we don't stop sending them to prison and bring them back to America for a trial, don't allow the defendant to bring witnesses back from the combat theater, oh, no, but the CID and our officials will make deals with Taliban or with people in Iraq who want to destroy our country and us, if they will come over and say terrible things about our military member, we will put them in prison, and we will give them visas. And that happened with Sergeant Derrick Miller. We got a whole bunch of people. Clint Lorance, hoping that the President will act. Apparently got slowed down by the Defense Secretary jumping in. John Hatley, a first sergeant, two bronze stars, He should have gotten a silver star, but that was apparently pulled as a recommendation. Michael Behenna, Corey Clagett, we have got a whole bunch of folks, and we have a Congressional Justice for Warriors Caucus here that is working on this. And we have got a guy who recognized a Taliban member from the day before when he had his AK-47 and grabbed him in the middle of our U.S. Army camp in Afghanistan and starts questioning him, and he starts lying through the interpreter: Oh, I was here to fix electrical. Oh, no, I was here to fix plumbing. And that sergeant pulled his gun and demanded answers. The guy grabs for the gun and, in the struggle, the Taliban member was shot. That sergeant was brought back to America. The translator, who they told separate stories--I mean, they told separate stories, but it was the same story told separately. Yet, after the CID got through promising or somebody promising this guy that had been trying to get a visa into America and turned down every time: If you will come to America and testify that the Taliban member never grabbed his gun, then we will give you and your family visas; you will probably be able to get citizenship. Oh, okay, then that is my story now, he never tried to grab the gun. And you threaten another witness who was there, he is going to prison if you don't turn around and change what you have said from the very beginning without any influence from Sergeant Miller, and you put the guy in prison for premeditated murder? You don't have the weapon? Oh, no, you don't let him have the weapon. You don't have it examined so that it can show that the fingerprints of the Taliban member were on that gun, he did try to grab it. And he is sentenced for premeditated murder for the rest of his life. Well, we got that turned around. We got it paroled, and thank God we did. He is one of the finest people I have ever known, Sergeant Derrick Miller here, working for me now, and he is working for our caucus. We have a system that is broken, and we need to fix it. And if our Secretary of Defense doesn't recognize that, he needs to go, and we need to take the money that we have allowed them to use to drag people back to America, away from the combat field, away from juries that have combat experience, we need to put them on trial in a civil Federal court and let them have all the rights and privileges they should have as American citizens. If you are not going to do it in the combat theater the proper way with the proper investigation, let's bring them back. Use your money from defense. Use that not in courts-martial but here in the United States in a civil court, and that will solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we had a vote today. Some would say it was very important, but actually, it didn't do so much. In fact, it revoked some of our history, some of our precedent, some of our rules to take an unusual step toward supposed impeachment. I still continue to be of the opinion that we will not end up having a vote in this Chamber on whether or not to actually impeach President Trump because if that happens, it goes to the Senate. It gets slam- dunked down in the Senate, both on the basis of a massive failure of due process as well as no direct evidence of any wrongdoing, unless we are talking about someone who is a Democrat and has held the second- highest office before. But this is not due process. By the way, of course, once it gets to the Senate, they vote it down, and then it ensures a repeat of 1996, where the current President is reelected. I am sure my friends across the aisle don't want to do that. I am still of the opinion that I don't think we will end up with a vote to actually impeach or not impeach President Trump. We will see how that plays out. But it is worth looking at precedent, as an old history major who has never quit studying history. If we look at the impeachment committee authorizations in 1974 and 1998, back then, when there was bipartisan concern about due process, not just one-sided concern, the authorization by the House directed the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate if there were sufficient grounds for impeachment. Currently, though, the Speaker directed six different committees, with the House Intelligence Committee at the forefront, to continue their ongoing investigations as part of what was called an impeachment inquiry. Regarding the subpoena power in 1974 and 1998, what was authorized in the resolution back in the days when there was concern about due process and fairness and ensuring justice would be done, the resolution authorized both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary to issue subpoenas acting jointly or unilaterally. If either the chairman or the ranking member declined to act, then the other had the right to refer the decision to the full committee. Currently, under what we voted on today, it authorized the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Schiff, and Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas, but the authorization to the ranking member only is with the consent or approval of the chairman. It is incredible. I mean, basically, our friends have said, well, it is like a grand jury. Well, I have been a prosecutor in front of grand juries. I have been a judge who impaneled grand juries, answered their questions, and dealt with issues that arose over grand juries. I am quite familiar with them. With a grand jury, every single person on the grand jury who is going to get a vote gets to hear every witness, gets to ask any question they wish, and they could even send the prosecutor out of the grand jury if they wish. He is only there as an adviser. But what we have had not only was a sham impeachment inquiry, but they actually had armed guards outside of the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, the SCIF. They had armed guards with guns to try to keep us out, people like me, on the Judiciary Committee, who is fully authorized, under the current rules, to sit in on any impeachment inquiry, participate, because the rules, through precedent, have made clear it is the Judiciary Committee that does that. The Speaker can't just stand up and say: ``I am changing all the rules unilaterally''--except for the fact that, in this case, that is exactly what happened. ``Forget the rules. I am decreeing these are the committees that will do an investigation.'' And I didn't realize until we went into the SCIF, which I am authorized to do and which, under the rules, Judiciary having jurisdiction, I should have a right to hear each one of those witnesses. I didn't know until we got in there, it turns out, Chairman Schiff, each time a witness was about to begin to speak to the Intelligence Committee, the committees, he would instruct, now, this is unclassified, so if a question is asked that you think might end up revealing something classified, then you can just say you can't answer, it might reveal classified information. It sounds to me like that was instruction, when the Republicans ask you a question you don't want to answer, just say, well, it may reveal classified information, and you don't have to answer their questions. Except that then we find out that, in the more recent depositions, the witnesses were actually instructed not to answer questions. Well, this metaphor of a grand jury totally breaks down. It doesn't apply. There has never been a grand jury where one grand juror could tell the witness you don't have to answer these other grand jurors' questions, and we are going to put armed guards where people that are on the grand jury can't get in to hear the testimony if we don't want to hear the testimony. Sure, they will have to vote at some point, but we are going to put armed guards to keep the biggest part of the grand jury out of being able to see the witnesses, to see their countenance as they answered questions. It is why in military courts martial that I participated in, in Federal trials, in State trials we have an aversion to having depositions. Yes, you have a lot of depositions in civil trials. But in criminal trials, something as important as liberty--and I would submit, a President being thrown out that was duly elected is just as important. In such a case, you get to ask the questions, see the questions; you get to hear the answers; and you get to observe the witnesses. It is important. Yet, under orders of the Speaker and Chairman Schiff, this so-called comparative grand jury kept the huge majority out of those hearings where we could hear and see for ourselves. Now we find out, through the vote today, that, yes, the Judiciary Committee is ultimately going to get this from the Intelligence Committee. But never in the history of this country have we had such gross unfairness that one party would put armed guards with guns to prevent the duly authorized people from being able to hear the witnesses and see them for themselves. Then, oh, we hear from this resolution today, we are going to send you the depositions after we get through doctoring and looking at and editing the transcripts. We will send you those so you have the evidence you need. That is not the kind of evidence that a coup should be based on. If we are going to have what they are trying to legalize as a coup, we ought to have a right to see each of those witnesses. And the only potential use for the depositions should be impeachment of those witnesses, nothing else, not for anything substantive. The President's attorneys, unlike in 1974 and 1998, were not allowed to be there or even see and hear the witnesses. So the references to this being a Star Chamber are not inappropriate. It is outrageous what has been going on for people who truly care about due process. Regarding the procedures now, the Judiciary Committee must operate pursuant to the procedures imposed by the chairman of the Rules Committee. Well, previously, one of the oldest committees in the House of Representatives, the Judiciary Committee, in prior impeachments made the rules for the impeachment hearing. We didn't have it dictated by the Rules Committee, no, because this is the Judiciary Committee. These are people who are supposed to have expertise in constitutional issues. So when you have the committee that has more expertise in constitutional issues, what did the majority do? We don't want the committee with the most expertise on constitutional issues dealing with these constitutional issues. We want to put armed guards outside a hearing and have it in a Secret Compartmented Information Facility. And we are not going to let the other side call their own witnesses so we get a fair picture of what actually went on, and we are not even going to let them ask questions we don't want them to ask. We will instruct the witnesses not to answer because, you see, they want it to be a one-sided, non-due process, sham court. It is about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes. And if there is one thing I don't want to see in my lifetime, I don't want to ever have participation in, it is a civil war. Some historian--I don't remember who--said guns are only involved in the last phase of a civil war. What is going on here has not protected the Constitution. It has not protected the institutions. It has not protected this little experiment in self-government. No. What it has done is put it all at risk because what some people in this body don't seem to understand is, when you set a precedent as dangerous as what we have been watching for the last 3 years, it won't be me, but there will be Republicans, if this isn't stopped, there will be Republicans who will take the precedent of what the Democrats have done here and use it against a Democratic President, try to set him up and create a coup. Like I say, it won't be me, but that is the way history works. When somebody sets a precedent, then eventually somebody also not concerned about due process is going to try to mimic that and go one further. In 1974 and 1998, the committee procedures during the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, they included the ability of the President's counsel to attend all hearings, including those in executive session; question any and all witnesses called before the committee; submit written questions for additional testimony; provide summaries of what he would propose to show; and respond to evidence received and testimony presented, either orally or in writing, as determined by the committee. The President's counsel could also review all evidence obtained in the course of the impeachment inquiry. Not only has the President's counsel not been allowed to do any of those things that have been done in the past to ensure due process and fairness, even the rest of this voting body that will have to vote on an impeachment were not allowed to see the witnesses, to hear the witnesses, to review the transcript until after they are through working with the transcripts. This resolution today, it bifurcates the impeachment, only allows the President's counsel to participate in Judiciary Committee proceedings. It provides no ability to participate in the ongoing Intelligence Committee investigation. If we presume that the procedures the Rules Committee has dictated to us on high allow the President's counsel to participate in Judiciary Committee proceedings at all, they will only have access to documents transmitted to the Judiciary Committee and not all the material obtained in the course of the Intelligence Committee's hearings. I just happen to have H. Res. 803 from 1974 that involved--well, it was from Chairman--Democratic Chairman Rodino, from the Committee on the Judiciary. See, that is the way it is supposed to be done. That is the way it has been done in the past, 1974, 1998. Under the rules that the Democrats passed earlier this year, in January, the rules say, if a rule is not specific about a matter, then precedence is the rule. That is the rule, and it has been ignored repeatedly. So we voted today basically rubberstamping the secret Star Chamber hearings, the one-sided questioning of the witnesses. Oh, we did hear today Republicans have equal time to the Democrats. It is just that Democrats could ask whatever they wanted and get answers, and Republicans couldn't. Impeachment in the past, when we have impeached Federal judges before, came through our Judiciary Committee, very bipartisan, because, even as recent as the last 10, 12 years, even Adam Schiff realized, when you are going to remove a Federal officer from a position he is duly placed in, you have got to make sure you provide due process, and you allow buy-in on both sides. There was no buy-in today because, even though there are some Republicans who are not big fans of the President, to put it mildly, they realize this process is an outrage, and it is a threat to our little experiment in self-government. So an article comes out yesterday by Paul Sperry, entitled: ``The Beltway's `Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name.'' To my knowledge, I have not ever talked to this Paul Sperry with RealClearInvestigations, but he brings out a name that has been bandied about on the internet. A lot of people are speculating this guy was the whistleblower. Regardless of whether this guy is the whistleblower or not, it is important to look at what has been going on with him. Just forget about the claim he is a whistleblower; look at what he has been doing. The more you find out, the more you realize, wow, President Trump should have revoked clearances for prior potential conspirators long before he did. But then, in the article, it mentions a 33-year-old--we already knew he was a male, that he worked for Vice President Biden, this guy. He was held over from the Obama White House. And one of the things that President Obama was able to do so much better than President Trump was make sure that the people who worked in the White House, in the CIA, in the DOJ, the FBI, but especially in the White House, in the Old Executive Office Building for the Vice President, they made much better certainty that everybody there was going to be loyal to President Obama and Vice President Biden. They did a magnificent job of that. So anybody who is held over--in fact, I understand H. R. McMaster, great Obama Democrat loyalist that was working, continuing to work in the Trump administration, made clear that he didn't want to hear any of his people ever say again that someone was an Obama holdover. I guess he didn't want people outed in front of people loyal to the President as being loyal to President Obama. But McMaster also was a boss of this guy. He did work for Biden. He worked for CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan, as the article said, was ``a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia `collusion' investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.'' Further, this guy ``left his National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017. . . .'' This guy was working in the White House; Loved Brennan, loved McMaster, and he is in President Trump's White House and part of the National Security Council. They get to see everything that concerns anything on foreign policy and our own national security. But there were ``concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.'' The article says: `` `He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,' said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.'' Alas, this guy ``huddled for `guidance' with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff's office had recently recruited from the National Security Council.'' This guy ``worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up the dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian Government. `He knows her. He had her in the White House,' said one former coworker. . . .'' ``Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with'' this guy ``in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid to Ukraine.'' And that is the aid we know we have seen, heard former Vice President Biden bragging: Hey, I am leaving in 6 hours, and if they want this $1 billion, then they are going to have to fire the prosecutor, who just happened to be investigating the gas company that was giving millions of dollars to his son. The article says: `` `Everyone knows who he' ''--the whistleblower-- `` `is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the President knows who he is,' said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and National Security Advisor to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media. ``Yet a rare hush swept across the Potomac.'' You know, normally, The New York Times and The Washington Post, they can't wait to out a whistleblower, can't wait, don't mind seeing them destroyed. But you look at a real whistleblower, not a fake one like we have here, a real whistleblower with direct information like Adam Lovinger, who, working in the Defense Department--I didn't know that this scheme went that far. But Lovinger is supposed to investigate improper payments by the Defense Department, and he saw hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid at different times to a guy named Stefan Halper, who is a professor, and he couldn't see anything in return for all the money. Then we have this investigation about President Trump and find out that, actually, Halper was getting paid by the Defense Department to help set up Trump campaign people so they could use that information to go before a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court and get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Phenomenal. The Defense Department is paying a guy to help set up the Trump campaign before President Trump was ever elected so they could get warrants to spy on the campaign. It is incredible. The article says, ``Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a `corrupt' and `biased' media trying to protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity, and doesn't cover press disclosures. ``His Democrat attorneys meanwhile have warned that outing him would put him and his family `at risk of harm,' although the government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.'' And I come back to the facts. There are lots of people that have testified adversely to President Donald J. Trump. As far as I know, they are all still living, breathing, and saying nasty things about him. Their health is not put in jeopardy in any way. Their personal safety is not a problem. Now, that is not true of some other people that have been in high positions in this town where people end up dead in the morgue. I am not saying they caused it. I am just saying, if you are worried about outing some incident, somebody, President Trump is not the one you need to worry about. Fleitz said, ``They're hiding him. They're hiding him because of his political bias. A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine,'' this person, ``was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency,'' meaning CIA, ``in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.'' That is the same Susan Rice--according to a book a few years after-- according to that book it reported that Secretary Clinton called her husband and said, they are wanting me to go out there and say this attack in Benghazi was all about a video. And the advice was, you know, you can't be the one that goes on the Sunday shows because nobody is going to buy that. So Susan Rice was picked to go out and tell people the attack in Benghazi was based on a video, when most everybody, maybe not Susan Rice, but most people who had looked into it at all knew it was not about a video at all. And the Obama administration had been warned repeatedly of the threat that was coming and didn't give them the security they needed, nor did they allow anyone to go lift a finger to help the people at Benghazi. And I love hearing people on the other side say, oh, you investigated Benghazi for so long and you had nothing. Yes, that is because the Obama administration wouldn't produce anything that we asked for, the important things we asked for. They covered things up. Same on Fast and Furious, and we didn't have a Speaker on the Republican side that would allow us to go to court and get those things released. So the more important things that got released were a result of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton's folks going to court and getting the court order to get things produced, but still there was so much that was not produced we don't know all the facts about what happened. By the way, I do know that Intelligence people lied to the Republican chairman of Intelligence back then and he never would wake up and realize it. Because he reported to our Republican conference after Benghazi about 6 months after, well, guys, some of you have asked me, isn't there somebody at Walter Reed that was injured? We keep hearing rumors. And Mike said, no, I can tell you, there is no one who was injured at Benghazi that is at Walter Reed. I couldn't sit still anymore. It was in one of my trips to Walter Reed I met such a person. He was on the roof with Tyrone Woods and the other heroes. He had much of his leg blown off. And I had met him, and I honored his request for anonymity being out there. But I couldn't sit there and listen to the Republican chairman of Intelligence perpetrating what he thought was true but was not, and I knew it wasn't. I said, That is not true. He got red faced and said, That is true. I said, No, I had lunch with the one yesterday. He said, That is not true. And he told me later after the meeting, I have talked to our intelligence people, and they tell me that the guy you must have seen, he is not at Walter Reed, he comes there for physical therapy. And I said, No, I can tell you the building number and where his apartment is, and it adjoins the physical therapy. It is right there on Walter Reed. Anyway, he didn't believe it. I had emailed this great hero and didn't hear from him for a couple of weeks. He later emailed back that: Gee, the strangest thing happened. I had the most painful surgery on my leg. He had numerous surgeries, but this was the most painful since half of it got blown off on that rooftop in Benghazi. He said: They medicated me because of all the pain. That night, in the middle of the night, these guys show up at our apartment there, and they moved my wife, my kids, all of us immediately off the hospital property. It doesn't make sense. Well, it made sense to me because we had intelligence people that were covering up the lie that they had told the chairman of the Intelligence Committee because he was a Republican chair. I bet they don't lie like that to Adam Schiff. Anyway, Federal records, according to the article, show that Biden's office invited this guy ``to an October 2016 state luncheon the Vice President hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.'' Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to this guy, who was a relatively low- level GS-13 Federal employee, ``was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.'' Former White House officials said this guy ``worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the Vice President was President Obama's `point man' for Ukraine.'' He is a Yale graduate, speaks Russian, Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. ``He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan. He was held over into the Trump administration and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC,'' under President Trump, ``eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017. `He was moved over to the front office,' to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he `saw everything, read everything.''' The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that this guy ``opposed the new Republican President's foreign policies. `My recollection . . . is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing, Ukraine,' he said. `He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the President's policies.''' In May 2017, this guy went `` `outside his chain of command,' according to a former NSC coworker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the President a week earlier. Contents of the email appeared to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called `crazy, a real nut job.''' In effect, this guy ``helped generate the `Putin fired Comey' narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress.'' Anyway, it is a mess. Now, one of the things about whistleblower protections, though, is if you were to be prosecuted for committing a crime, then the whistleblower status could be used to help hold off potential prosecution. It is my understanding that it would not likely win the day, but it could delay a prosecution. Say, hypothetically, you worked for somebody like Brennan, or say, hypothetically, you worked for somebody like McMaster and Brennan, and you helped come up with a conspiracy to oust a duly-elected sitting President by alleging some conspiracy with Russia, and you found out that the Attorney General and the U.S. attorney assigned to investigate the origins of the Russia hoax were closing in on participants of your conspiracy. Well, if you had a really smart lawyer, he might just tell you, if you could get whistleblower status, if they start closing in on you, then we can start filing motions to keep you out of that prosecution because if you are a whistleblower, you are in a protected status. It shouldn't prevent the ultimate prosecution, but it could delay things for a while. So it could make sense, if you are a coconspirator and trying to bring down a duly-elected President, that you might want that whistleblower status. The problem with that is--and this is a problem for a tainted inspector general who would protect such a whistleblower--if you are complaining, it has to be, to get that status, somebody in your chain of command. The President, we were told, is not in the whistleblower's chain of command because that is outside, the CIA. It has to be within that leadership ladder, and the President is outside of that. So he wasn't a real whistleblower. Plus, a whistleblower has to have direct evidence. What we have seen with this march of the gossipmongers, as it is best described, that have been paraded into the secret Star Chamber with the armed guards outside of it so that other members of this grand jury can't get to see and hear the witnesses, it really appears to be a march of those who don't like President Trump and are willing to sully in some cases valiant military service, a great career. They are willing to have that tarnished and sullied by becoming gossipmongers. For example, one person who apparently had a great career in the Army, William Taylor, I understand he was in the infantry for 6 years. I was at Fort Benning for 4 years, and I can tell you, anybody who was a commander in the infantry didn't last any time at all if he allowed gossipmongers, like he has become, to come before him and say: Captain, Captain, I heard that somebody else heard something that was said. He would throw him out of the office: I am not going to be running a gossip column here. If somebody knows something directly, send them to me, but don't you come in here being a gossipmonger. Well, now he has become the gossipmonger. ``Well, I heard that somebody else heard that they heard the President say. . . .'' I just come back to this, as someone who had to sit and listen and evaluate evidence and make life and death decisions in a courtroom, you analyze what kind of person this is before me as a witness. If you have a witness before you that is willing to try to destroy and remove a President from office who was duly elected under our Constitution, and they are now willing to use secondhand, thirdhand, fourth-hand gossip, it tells you they are not the great person that they once were. They are not the patriot they once were. They are nothing but gossipmongers. If you are going to be a fair arbiter of truth and justice, it should dramatically diminish your evaluation and analysis of what they have to say. This is not a classy person. This is a gossipmonger. That is what William Taylor became for the Intelligence Committee, and that is what Vindman became. Some have said: Oh, gee, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, he is the ultimate American. He even came in uniform. Well, I was trained that if you are going to say bad things about someone in your chain of command, including the Commander in Chief-- because a lot of us were not happy with President Carter when I was at Fort Benning, but we all knew you can't say anything negative about President Carter, especially not in uniform. It doesn't matter if it is true. You can't do it. He comes parading in, in his uniform, to try to take down a sitting President, and he uses gossip to do that. We also have to wonder, okay, so whistleblower number one, this great patriot, we are told--who he is not. He is a gossipmonger. Where did he get that information since he didn't get it firsthand? He was not allowed to receive information about those telephone calls the President made to the leader of another country, so somebody violated the law by telling him. We don't know who that was. Whoever it was, Vindman or anybody else, there is a good chance they committed a crime. That crime and all the surrounding information about their crime should be admissible in helping impeach and analyze that witness's testimony. You ought to be able to pursue it, but we are told, when Republicans were asking Colonel Vindman who he told about this, who did he transfer information to, they were shut down by the chairman. That tells you the chairman must know what the answers were, and he didn't want the Republicans to have them. It sounds to me like there is a chance he committed a crime, and that was being covered up. Otherwise, if you want due process, if you want a fair process, if you want justice, then we have to hear the good, the bad, the ugly, so we can make a fair determination. Every person elected as a Member of Congress is going to have a right to vote on that impeachment, if it ever comes up, and we have a right to hear the witnesses. Anything else is a sham. By the way, this Colonel Vindman, it turns out, it has been published, he went to the stenographers. We had heard previously from the President there were four stenographers who take down everything. Well, I have used court reporters my whole adult life, and they miss a word from time to time. I have had to fix transcripts where they have missed something. We have that problem here. They are amazing. These stenographers are absolutely incredible, but they miss a word from time to time. But they have four. Apparently, we are told, the reason is that they don't want to tape it so that no foreign leader has to worry about ever hearing his own voice say things that he said in a private conversation with the President of the United States. So they have four stenographers so that they make sure they get exactly what was said. And this guy Vindman goes to the stenographers and tells them: I want to get these words inserted in the transcript, Burisma--the name of the gas company they are trying to go after President Trump and say he demanded information on them. Apparently, none of the stenographers heard that. It sounds like not only is he a potential criminal for leaking information to people who weren't supposed to get it, but there is also potential there that this is part--when you go to prove a conspiracy in Federal court, you have to prove not only that you plotted but that there was an overt act. His overt act of going to stenographers and trying to get words embedded into the transcript that the President didn't say could potentially be such an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. There is a lot we don't know here, but this process has the possibility to bring this Nation's constitutional Republic to the brink of the end on our watch. This ought to be a bipartisan thing. You can hate a President; you can disagree with him; but let's make sure that we have due process so we don't get drug into a third world status. We know no country lasts forever, no country ever will. If we are going to perpetuate this any further, we have got to have some bipartisan concern for justice, for due process, for making sure that all of the protections to protect against a Star Chamber-type thing are not what we use here. Unfortunately, that is what we have been seeing for nearly 3 years. One of the things I was taught in law school is what separates us is that we don't just take somebody and try to find a crime. That is unconstitutional. You have a crime that you find was committed, and then you try to find out who probably committed it. When you get probable cause, you can get them indicted, then you can have a trial. What we have seen clearly is that, over 3 years ago, some people in Justice, FBI, Intelligence, maybe Defense, maybe somebody in the White House, decided: Here is Donald J. Trump. Let's find a crime, whether he committed it or not, that we can wrap around his throat. That is what we have been watching happen. They found somebody. Now let's find a crime that we can allege. The problem with this one about the quid pro quo, demanding something, they are going to have to prosecute Vice President Joe Biden. They are going to have to prosecute some U.S. Senators who have sent letters that have said: Gee, if you don't do this or that, we are going to cut off funding to you. Whoa, Joe Biden bragged about it: I told him that, if you want this billion dollars, you better fire that prosecutor. They are going to have to prosecute all of those people before they go after President Trump, and he didn't do anything nearly like he was accused of. There is nothing wrong with a President saying to a foreign leader: Your country apparently was involved in a conspiracy to affect our election. Could you help us out by giving us information about what happened? We just need to know. There is nothing wrong with it. And you look at the transcript not amended by somebody who was trying to set up the President, but by four stenographers who were intent on having everything in there that was said, and you see there was nothing wrong with this phone call. What was wrong was the process of trying to commit a coup d'etat and take out a duly elected President. It is time we wake up and we do what is right for this country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this is an unbelievable time in our history. There is nothing more important than elected office. It is something that was discussed in the Declaration of Independence, and yet, we have an attempted coup taking place. It violates the principles on which this Nation was founded of due process--the right to confront the witnesses against you. And I would submit, humbly, that there is no cause for concern for the so-called whistleblower's safety from President Trump. All the witnesses against him are alive and well. So who is it he is afraid might come after him if he discloses what he knows and who conspiring to bring down this President? Ah, there is the rub. Let's get to the bottom of it. And at the bottom will not be President Trump. It will be the coconspirators trying to bring this government down.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute to a colleague, Congressman Elijah Cummings. We had political disagreements, but in working together to help an Army sergeant who was unfairly, inappropriately prosecuted while serving and being heroic in Afghanistan, I developed a great appreciation for Elijah Cummings' desire to see justice done. It was an honor to work with him in successfully helping Sergeant Derrick Miller. I am proud to have Sergeant Derrick Miller now working with me and those of us that have started a caucus, the Congressional Justice for Warriors Caucus. That arose out of sincere, worthy, and quite able efforts by Elijah Cummings. I had not been on a committee with him, but it gave me an opportunity to see the heart of the man. He will be sorely missed here in Congress, and I am grateful to have had the chance to have worked with him. Madam Speaker, I also felt it was important to pay tribute to one of our fallen soldiers. That is Master Sergeant Mark Allen. This is Master Sergeant Mark Allen, his wife, and child. I think this article from David Aaro is very helpful in reminding people who Master Sergeant Mark Allen was. First of all, to become a master sergeant, with all the stripes above and below, it takes many, many, many years of devoted service. Just for a little background, when I was finishing college at Texas A&M with a 4-year obligation of Active Duty coming up in the Army, I was told by an officer: Look, Louie, the best thing you can do when you get to your post is find a master sergeant that you like and feel comfortable with, and make him your confidant, because if he is a master sergeant, he has been around and has seen everything. You can trust him, and he is one of the best we have in the military. It was very wise advice. That is the kind of guy Mark Allen was. This article says: ``Retired Army Master Sergeant Mark Allen died . . . 10 years after he was shot while looking for a missing soldier in Afghanistan back in 2009.'' He has died at the age of 46. Master Sergeant ``Allen was unable to walk or speak since being shot in the head by a sniper in July 2009 during his attempted search for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his base in Afghanistan.'' The article doesn't say it, but basically, Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter. He betrayed his country. Even worse than betraying his country, he betrayed his fellow soldiers who have to rely on each other in a combat theater. He simply walked away and went over to the enemy. This heroic master sergeant, Mark Allen, dutifully went out into harm's way, looking for what they hoped was not a deserter. They hoped that something happened, that the enemy may have gotten him. They went looking. He was leading, looking for what turns out to have been a deserter. In his service to his country, and in his service to what he was afraid was a fellow warrior who had befallen an enemy's tactics, he got shot in the head by an enemy sniper. Master Sergeant Allen died 10 years after he was shot while looking for Bowe Bergdahl, the article says, who went missing in Afghanistan. He deserted. ``Bergdahl later pled guilty and was dishonorably discharged, reduced in rank from sergeant to private and fined $1,000 per month over a 10- month period for deserting his post and endangering the lives of fellow soldiers, including Allen.'' In other words, we can thank Bowe Bergdahl's desertion for getting this man maimed, paralyzed for 10 years, and killed. ``When Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban prisoners''--those are the enemies. Those are people who were killing Americans, and the Obama administration thought it wise to give five people who had killed Americans, who were enemies of America, give those back so that they could go on killing other Americans so that we could get our deserter back from our enemy. ``When Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban prisoners and brought home, Shannon Allen, Mark's wife, didn't hold back her feelings for how he changed their family forever. `` `Meet my husband,' she wrote on Facebook, `injuries directly brought to you by the actions of this traitor.' '' Our President, Donald Trump, ``also expressed his disdain toward the prisoner transfer of Bergdahl, calling the decision `a complete' and `total disgrace to our country and our military.' ``During the trial of Bergdahl, Shannon testified that it took 90 minutes to get her husband out of bed, showered, and dressed each morning. She had to use a pulley system, which was attached to the ceiling to move him, according to Task & Purpose.'' Master Sergeant Allen's ``young daughter also enjoyed climbing into his wheelchair and sitting on his lap, Shannon told the outlet. ``U.S. Veterans' Network posted a tribute, calling Allen `a true American hero.' `` `Master Sergeant Mark Allen, a true American hero. Thank you for your service, brother.' ``His service will be held in Loganville, Georgia.'' May he rest in peace and may something that we do here give comfort to the family of this American hero that was betrayed by a man who the Obama administration traded five of our enemies to get back. That is a hero. If we were going to trade enemies for anybody, it would have been a guy like this. We thank Mark Allen for his service and his incredible wife and daughter for standing by our hero for the last 10 years. I was here in the Chamber the last couple of hours and heard the exchanges during the colloquy between Steve Scalise and Leader Hoyer. I heard the comment that Adam Schiff is fair and judicious. And I hope the Parliamentarian won't get nervous, because I am going to adeptly avoid violating the rules. Congressman Adam Schiff, back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, we were on the Judiciary Committee together, and we had two Federal judges who needed to be impeached. They needed to be eliminated from their official positions as Federal judges. One had committed a sexual assault, and the other had trouble understanding that bribes were not appropriate for judges. Congressman Schiff was put in charge, basically, of a temporary committee to deal with the impeachment of those two judges, and during those efforts, it was quite bipartisan. Republicans had just gone into the minority for the first time in many years. We were in the minority, and Democrats were in the majority. I found Adam Schiff very easy to work with. I found that when he gave his word on something, it could be trusted. I found that he was a person who was a pleasure to work together with. I have had trouble melding those experiences with what I am seeing in the effort to eliminate a duly elected President from his position. I heard our majority leader say he is fair. So I would ask a hypothetical question, not pointed directly at an individual, but just hypothetically: Is it fair if someone lies for 2 years saying they have overwhelming evidence that a President is guilty of being a traitor to his country and that there is no question, the evidence is just overwhelming and it is not just circumstantial, and it turns out there was never such evidence? Hypothetically speaking, I would think that such a person's fairness would come into issue. Hypothetically, is it fair to conspire and collude with gossipmongers loyal to President Obama, people like Clapper and Brennen who use potentially third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixthhand hearsay, to try to convict a President in public opinion while remaining anonymous? By the way, I heard reference to a whistleblower who had no direct information--he is a gossipmonger--that there was fear for his safety. As an old history major who has never stopped studying history, I think we can take a look at history. If you look at this President's time as President, and even before being President, people who have spoken out against President Trump or candidate Trump or businessman Trump, they seem to still be around and talking. I read about an Italian individual who may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign in helping try to set up candidate Trump so that our intelligence, with the cooperation, potentially, of Britain, maybe Australia, corruption in Ukraine, corruption in Russia, trying to set President Trump up. He was concerned for his life in Italy and was asking security. That is what brought the question to my mind: Well, gee, who is he afraid of? The people who have things to say--even complete lies--about President Trump are still alive and well and kicking and lying, and they are out there just spreading more gossip and lies. They seem to be plenty healthy. So the question arises: Who the heck are they--people like the person who was involved in the conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump, who is he afraid of? It shouldn't be Donald Trump, because the people against him are still out there. Could it be that fear of safety could be from those whom such a witness could identify as conspiring to bring down Donald Trump? There are plenty of people who are no longer alive who had been potential witnesses against others in the Democratic Party, but it doesn't seem that there are potential witnesses against Donald Trump who are dead. So who would this gossip-mongering, so-called whistleblower--he is not a whistleblower. He is a gossipmonger. He didn't have any direct evidence. He just wanted to create a problem for President Trump. People with whom he colluded knew that President Trump, if they said: Oh, he conspired in this phone conversation. He threatened Ukraine's President. He did a quid pro quo in that conversation, it is very clear--we even had a chairman represent from the chairman's position that a number of times in that conversation that President Trump made clear that he was threatening the Ukrainian President to either get dirt on Vice President Biden or else you are not going to get help. Well, we know Joe Biden did that. He is on video. The President doesn't want to talk about that, at least not the mainstream. Anyway, they knew that President Trump could not afford to release a transcript of the conversation, so they knew whatever they were going to say about what was in the conversation, that would be the mantra. But it turns out President Trump did release the transcript of the conversation, so it kind of messed up the strategy there. They were already talking about the President doing a cover-up because that was the strategy: Look, first, we will have this gossipmonger call him a whistleblower. We will change the rules by other Obama loyalists still in the intelligence arena in our government. We will change the rules because it has always been a rule, and a good one, you couldn't be a whistleblower unless you had direct evidence. So they had to change the rule. The inspector general, the new one--not the one who was there previously; he was a very honorable person--the new one, not so honorable. And that is why he dishonestly changed the rule for whistleblowers so that you could be a whistleblower and not have any direct information at all. And he backdated that so that it would go back to the time that this gossipmonger was actually coordinating and colluding with the majority staff on the Intelligence Committee. We still don't know if the Intelligence Committee staff helped prepare this so-called whistleblowing complaint. So when we hear the so-called whistleblower, the gossipmonger is concerned for his safety, well, it sure couldn't be from President Trump, because none of his enemies have been harmed. So who is he afraid of? Is he afraid of the people that he colluded with to try to bring down President Trump? He has no basis being afraid of Trump. As a former judge, sometimes you have to sign protective orders. If somebody came in with the facts that we know so far about this gossipmonger, my question would be: Who is he afraid of? He shouldn't be afraid of President Trump in this situation. So who is he afraid of? And that is a really good question, I think. So we have this Star Chamber proceeding attempting to remove a properly elected President. We never had proceedings like this trying to take out a President-- never. Since the Judiciary Committee was formed, any time there was any effort toward impeachment, it went through the Judiciary Committee, which I am a part of. Apparently, the powers that be have not been pleased with the Democratic performance in the Judiciary Committee, so somebody figured out we are better off politically--no matter the damage it may do to our country, we are better off politically having a Star Chamber proceeding where we are the only ones who go out and leak what we want to be out. That way all of the exculpatory evidence, evidence that shows the President didn't do anything wrong, that doesn't get to come out, because, if it does, then we will demand prosecution. So we will be the only ones that leak information. And we can legally make things available to the press, so we will only make those things available that are taken out of context that help us accomplish our goal of trying to make President Trump look bad. I heard the Speaker on television say that she was tasking six committees with investigating President Trump, and one of those, the Judiciary Committee, I am on. Sometimes we have things that are so important to keep secret that they are handled only by the Intelligence Committee only in a SCIF, so it is secured. But even then, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, many times I have gone to the SCIF to review classified information. I remember on one occasion back when the Democrats were in the majority previously, I think it was the first closed session we ever had here at Congress, because it was desired to discuss something that was classified, and I came down here, was speaking right here, and I was stopped by the majority leader. And he said: Wait a minute. We are authorized to have this classified discussion, but the gentleman from Texas is getting into areas that are above the classified area. He is authorized to have information that everybody here is not allowed to have. So I was not allowed to continue talking on that subject. The point being, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we get into things that are of a more secret nature, classified information, that a majority of our body here is authorized to know and discuss and learn about. So it has been quite surprising to be locked out of hearings. And we know that they are not so sensitive that only the Intelligence Committee could hear them, because they lumped in two other committees, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform, so it is not about just keeping it confined to the Intelligence Committee. But I specifically heard the Speaker say that six committees would be investigating, and I am on one of those, and, yet, I go into the SCIF, into the hallway outside of the secure area, and I am not allowed to go in. I wanted to know who gave the order, and the Democratic staff said: Well, you know, that is the order. Who gave the order? Well, our boss told us. So an unelected staffer tells two other staffers that you are to prevent a duly elected Member of Congress from doing their job. I wanted to know who gave that order. Is it in writing somewhere? Who gave that order? Who is it that is undermining the election of over half of the Members of Congress to prevent them from being able to do their job? Who gave that order? They couldn't say. They send out more staff; not a Member of Congress. It seemed a little cowardly to me. Nobody would come out. I was there with friends like Andy Harris, Andy Biggs, and others. I went ahead and went through the first door--there is another door there--and they went apoplectic. I am authorized to hear classified information. I am authorized to hear the classified information that they were supposedly listening to. But the truth is, it is not classified. There is no reason for it to be classified. This is all a political show. That is why there is no written order. That is why there has been no vote in here to proceed with impeachment, and it is just wrong. I don't remember who said it, but there was some historian that noted there are many different--not many, but there are a number of different phases of a civil war, and only the last phase involves guns. But this sure feels like this coup attempt is setting this country up for civil war. I won't participate in a civil war, but our job here, our oath here is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I took that oath as a prosecutor. I took that oath in the United States Army--Active Duty for 4 years, inactive Reserve for 2 more years. I took that oath as a judge, as a felony judge. I took that oath as a chief justice, and I take that oath every 2 years, right here. And that is what a lot of us are trying to do. But what is going on around here is not fair. It is not just. It is against the House rules. The House rules are very clear: If there was not a specific rule in ``Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives,'' as adopted every 2 years, then the precedence is what is the rule in that case. And the precedence on impeachment, it goes through the Judiciary Committee, and it doesn't happen anything like what is happening now. It is true. The majority could come in here and have a vote and amend the rules so they could defy all precedent on impeachment. But for some reason, they prefer to break the rules rather than simply come in and do what they can as majority. They can change the rule any time they get ready. They have got enough votes to do that. They won't do that. For some reason, they prefer to break the rules. This is not good. Kids across America see what is going on. They are not taught history like they once were. Why? Because since we have the Department of Education and it mandates the Federal test-- oh, yeah, you can come up with your own test, but here is what has to be on there. And if a child fails that, then you don't get any of your money back for that child's year in school. So everybody is scared. Many schools drop history, drop civics. That is why a survey in recent years indicated college students could name The Three Stooges in greater numbers than they could name the three branches of government. So they don't know as much as they used to about what goes on here. But when they see that if you are in the majority, you can break the rules any time you want, if you dislike some other elected official-- like a President--and just try to eliminate him from office, then it is okay. In other words, the new Constitution for America, apparently, based on what we are seeing going on here on Capitol Hill, is that if you are in the majority, then the ends justify the means. Since I have been here, there were times we were in the majority when there were Republicans--thank God they were in a small number--but they thought the ends justified the means. It didn't for them, and it doesn't for anybody else. This little experiment in self-government, we know won't last forever. Anybody that studied history at all knows, no country, no government lasts forever. And we are on borrowed time right now, because we are setting records every day as the Nation that has functioned the longest under one founding document, our Constitution. The Romans didn't make it that long as a republic. We are setting records every day. We know it won't last forever, but my commitment is to do everything I can to perpetuate our freedom, and what was given to us, as the greatest country in the history of the world, more opportunity, more individual assets than any country, even more than Solomon's Israel. We are an anomaly. And we have broken the record on how long we can exist with the freedoms we have. It is time we come together and stop playing political games so that years from now, future generations will not be rising up and cursing our names. We need to come together and abide by the rules and the Constitution so that we have a shot some day of our children rising up and calling us blessed. That ought to be our goal. 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, what is going on with regard to the attempted coup on a United States President is really outrageous. It is playing out now in the House of Representatives. I am on the Judiciary Committee, as are other friends. Andy Biggs-- who just addressed us--our friend, Andy Harris, and others went down to the SCIF where there is supposedly a hearing going on about impeachment. I was not allowed in, nor were the others with me who are Members of Congress. We were told: No, you are not allowed in. I asked: Who gave that order? Because until a vote is held on the rules to change the rules of precedent, it goes through the Judiciary Committee. They couldn't explain. They said: Well, our staff boss says an elected Member of Congress cannot go sit in on a hearing like that. It is outrageous. They couldn't say who said it. It is outrageous. This coup needs to stop now.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this previous question because in doing so we can finally take care of a matter that should have been taken care of long before now that I understood was a bipartisan matter. Both sides of the aisle wanted to help address the tremendous backlog of DNA rape kits that needed to be analyzed. The Debbie Smith Act, as my friend from Arizona indicated, was previously passed and reauthorized, and now we need to reauthorize it again because even though there are 641,000 DNA cases that were processed, there is still so much that needs to be done. In addition to crime scene evidence and rape kits, the Debbie Smith funds also are utilized to process offender DNA samples to ensure evidence from unsolved crimes can be matched against our database. So the funds provided by the act are incredibly critical since they will help solve crimes and get criminals off the streets. I know from my friends across the aisle and in our hearing that was just going on that I just left in Judiciary that there is an effort to, as one Democratic witness said: Gee, we are here just to ask you to do something. Rather than taking guns from law-abiding citizens as is being proposed, I would submit a better answer is let's get the criminals off the street. I know there is a big effort to get criminals out of prison, but how about if we get criminals back in prison for crimes they have committed that have not been adjudicated? This needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be a political issue. If we could get a majority to vote ``no'' on the previous question, then we will get this amendment in as part of the rule. I don't know if we would have more than a couple of people who would even vote against the Debbie Smith Act. So it is all a matter of getting it to the floor. Here we are about to enter October, and we still have not taken this commonsense step to get criminals off the street. So I hope we will do the right thing by all those victims, all those women who have been raped and are waiting for their criminal--their horrible and torturous individual--to be taken off the street. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question, and then we can do that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, today in our Judiciary Committee was quite interesting. For some people, it was quite a role reversal. We had a hearing on the potential reauthorization of the FISA courts and discussion about powers of our DOJ, FBI, and NSA under what is often referred to as section 215. It was interesting in the way of role reversals because, for years, we have been told that Democrats are the real civil libertarians. They are the ones who are trying to defend privacy rights, rights of Americans to think what they want, do what they want, and without being interrupted or spied upon by the Federal Government. Yet, today, over and over, we heard apologies basically from our Democratic friends to the representative of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and National Security Administration for comments of some Republicans. There really was no need to apologize. We weren't attacking these three individual witnesses, but there are issues that are still unresolved that many of my friends across the aisle used to be concerned about, privacy and Fourth Amendment rights that are supposed to protect us from improper search and seizure or spying, or surveillance being one of the more important. So we had these witnesses. It was interesting, and if I were our friend Israel, I would be very concerned, because I asked these representatives, first of all, does the Department of Justice, the FBI, or the NSA consider Russia to be a known terrorist organization under section 215. Each of the representatives indicated, in turn, that they could not answer that question. Well, the silence seemed to speak volumes to me. It should have been an easy question to answer. I asked about Israel. Does the DOJ, FBI, or NSA consider the Ambassador from Israel to be a representative of a terrorist organization, and they couldn't answer that question. That is quite interesting. But my concern arose out of reading and hearing, in prior years, about how apparently Jeff Sessions was surveilled because he was speaking to a Russian Ambassador, and there were reports that the Ambassador from Israel had been surveilled. So, under 215, they are supposed to be part of either a known terrorist or an ally, someone who identifies with a known terrorist organization. So it is interesting that things have evolved the way they have so that our own intelligence can't tell us whether Russia or Israel is considered a terrorist organization. It is quite alarming. But ever since I first got here, my first term, when we took up reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act--and I understood when the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was just days after, maybe a week or so after 9/11, and we didn't know who had hit us, were they about to hit us again, were 3,000 or more people going to be dying any day again and again. So I wasn't here, but Congress passed this overarching bill that gave way too much power to the government, but I understand the atmosphere here at the time. Then section 215 came up for reauthorization, as has the FISA courts in recent years. It is important that we continue to take a look at those. I think it is extremely important that we have sunsets; otherwise, if there is not the chance that these powers will go away, then we always have trouble, no matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican administration, always have trouble getting people to come up and speak frankly or get records so we know what may have occurred, whether it was abused or not. But I go to section 215, and I have been concerned about some of this language since I first got here. As a former litigator, prosecutor, judge, chief justice, I know words mean things. This section says that, basically, the FBI can make an application for an order requiring production of tangible things for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activity. Now, I asked this several years ago when this was being pushed for reauthorization: What does ``clandestine intelligence activity'' mean? What does that mean? Because, to me, if I am the judge, you come to me and you want a warrant and you say, ``We have caught somebody engaged in clandestine intelligence activities,'' wow, that is so broad. So the question I asked today I asked years ago: Could that mean that, if my neighbor is peering, watching my yard from behind his or her curtain--well, that is clandestine. They are hiding behind a curtain. They are trying to see what is going on. That is gathering intelligence. So would that justify a warrant from the FISA court? Well, they couldn't answer that question, and they never have. They never have attempted to answer that question. In fact, years ago, when it was reauthorized, the representatives of DOJ, CIA, NSA, they were all saying: ``Look, that really doesn't come into play, particularly.'' ``Oh, well, good. Then let's eliminate it.'' ``Well, no. We don't want to eliminate our ability to get a warrant based on clandestine intelligence activities.'' ``Well, what does that mean? How has it been used?'' Couldn't get an answer, but they sure wanted to keep it in there. What does that mean? It doesn't say ``foreign clandestine intelligence.'' It doesn't say ``terrorist clandestine intelligence.'' So words mean things. Why do they keep wanting that language in there? It used to be not as big of a concern until we find out that the FISA courts, basically--we might call them the RS courts instead of the FISA courts. The FISA courts are basically RS courts, rubberstamp courts because, basically, when the Federal Government comes in, they get what they want. I was one, having, again, been a judge, I had law officers come before me many times. Sometimes they would come to my house at 2 or 3 in the morning. They would need a warrant quickly, and the requirements of the Constitution are very clear. I just happen to have a copy of the Constitution. Amendment IV says: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' That particular description, those words, are very important, as are the two words, ``probable cause.'' We were taught, and as a judge I applied it, that if a law officer wants a warrant--sometimes there were FBI who would come and sometimes they would come with other law officers--but they knew, under the Constitution--they normally did a very good job--you have to have an affidavit that establishes there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and probable cause to believe the person whose records were sought to be seized had probably committed the crime. It is not enough to just allege we have probable cause to believe a crime was committed and this person committed it. That is not enough. The affidavit must describe facts--not conclusions, but facts--that establish that, yeah, probably a crime was committed and probably this person did it and that is why we need this record, that is why we need this search warrant, and that is why we need to be able to go look for those specific records, specific things. Imagine my surprise when a FISA court order was leaked--and it was an order by the FISA court here in Washington--and it says, it orders, it was ordered: The custodian of records shall produce to the NSA on service of this order and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order, unless otherwise ordered by the court, all call detail records or telephoning metadata created by Verizon for communications 1) between the United States and abroad, or 2) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls. This order does not require Verizon to produce telephone and metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries. That was interesting to me because, first of all, what this order is going after, supposedly, under section 215, trying to monitor terrorist activity, it only wanted calls by Americans. Whereas, if you are an American in the United States, you have constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment, that this certainly appears to violate. There is no allegation of probable cause a crime is committed, no allegation that Verizon or the records of the people being sought had committed a crime, the application apparently said ``must have'' because that is the way the order reads: We want everybody's records that Verizon has if they are protected by the Fourth Amendment, but we don't want anybody's records, foreign records, even though they are not protected by the Constitution and Fourth Amendment rights against unfair search and seizure. That is really an interesting role reversal right here. You are protecting the people who have no protection and going after the people who are protected by the Fourth Amendment. It has caused a lot of concerns about, well, what else does the FISA court rubber stamp? It seems kind of silly, but we have been told that section 215--that I have read from here--was reformed and that the NSA ended their program of gathering records. But the thing is, as long as there is a FISA court and as long as there is a section 215 that is even half as broad as it currently is, any of our law enforcement can go back into the FISA court and get a warrant rubber stamped, which is basically what happened, it appears, in the FISA orders regarding the Trump campaign. The thing, as a former judge, that really grieves me most about the FISA court is that we have not had a FISA judge who had sufficient righteous indignation to demand Comey, Rosenstein, or McCabe--if he participated--any of those participants, to come in before them and show cause as to why they should not go to jail for committing a fraud upon the court, which it sure appears they did. They were not truthful about the Russia hoax, about the so-called Russian dossier that a discredited, dishonest former MI6 agent in England put together based on representations by Russian agents, that he now admits they could have worked for Putin, I don't know. And that were being purchased, paid for, by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, which included Nellie Ohr, who is married to Bruce Ohr, who kept bringing material from them that had been purchased by the FBI to the DOJ. This, more than anything else, causes me to think maybe we need to do away with the FISA court and go back to the way that things were, because we didn't have a FISA judge involved in this with enough morality, enough righteousness, and enough honesty, to recognize that a fraud against their court was committed and to be offended by it. If somebody came in and got a warrant from me and they did not provide me the true facts, and they knew their source could not be verified and they swore that this was verified, somebody would be going to jail. That is so dishonest. People in those kinds of positions that we trust with so much power, they need to be honest, and especially before a judge. But, apparently, we have one or more FISA judges who are not offended to be lied to. Maybe it is because they saw it was going for a good cause to try to stop the Donald Trump campaign or get him thrown out as President, that is a worthy cause. Even though it was a dishonest application affidavit and warrant, that is okay with the FISA judge. I would really like to have the FISA judges come before our committee and testify about their lack of morality, their lack of integrity, and their not caring that people would come in and submit lies and verify something they knew, and intentionally deceived about, being unverifiable. We have some work to do. I am very grateful to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. I believe she was sincere today in a hearing when she looked down the dais at me and my Republican friends and said, we know there are reforms that need to be made, we know that there are amendments that need to occur regarding the system, and we look forward to working with our friends on the other side of the aisle. I hope that is true because this little experiment in a constitutional Democratic Republic is in jeopardy. I know people want to talk about climate change, but 12 years from now when we are told the world may end if we don't do something about climate change, this little constitutional Democratic Republic will have ceased to be based on the Constitution, which has already set a record for being the longest basis for a country in the history of the world. So we have work to do, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan manner. Even if you read in the Bible about King David, what you learn is that even the finest people in the world, if they are not held accountable, if there is not some accountability, can do some really egregious things. That is our obligation here in Congress. Let's have some accountability. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot going on today, a lot going on this week. I wish I could say it was all good, but we spent until 10 p.m. the night before last working on bills that would find ways to take people's guns away and, unfortunately, not give them the kind of due process that we think the Constitution affords people. During my days as, well, a prosecutor and as a felony judge, thousands of criminal cases went through my court. I don't remember anywhere a criminal defendant bought his gun at a sporting goods store, gun store, applied for a gun. That is not the way criminals work. And so I didn't see anything in our hours and hours and hours of committee hearings trying to amend bad bills with good amendments that the majority didn't allow to be passed. We thought they might be joining us on some. They said they would look at some, but, basically, defeated every amendment. Today, we met in the Judiciary Committee at 8 a.m. to take up a semi, sort of, kind of, a bit of an impeachment resolution. We had amendments that would have made a bad resolution a little better--still not good-- but we had a hard time figuring out, on the Republican side: What is this? It sounds like--in Texas, we would say we're fixing to do something. A lot of times people say, ``I am fixing to do that,'' but it means it may get put off and I may not really be serious, because if I was really serious, I would do it right now. But this resolution--and I have it here--it, in the first paragraph, talks about the committee making discovery requests. But the second paragraph is really the one that deals with allegations that would be an impeachable offense, or offenses--at least, it is supposed to. And so it says: ``Whereas, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report released on April 18, 2019, found that the Russian Government interfered in the 2016 election in `sweeping and systematic fashion.''' Okay. But the Mueller report made very, very clear, and those who investigated, I thought, made it very clear there was no collusion or, to use the legal term, conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign with the Russian Government--none. That part didn't happen. Even though we have networks like CNN and MSNBC, and I don't know who all else, but for 2 or 3 years they have talked about the crimes of this President and their collusion with Russia. Well, when people who have law degrees talked about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, that immediately sent up red flags with me because that is not--``collusion'' is not a legal term that is used in talking about crimes; it is conspiracy. And so it immediately begins to raise questions. Are they really serious about some type of crime? Because if they were, they would use words that are used in criminal terminology. But here, this is a completely deceptive allegation when it comes to President Trump because they take this initial allegation and say Mueller found that the Russians really were trying to interfere in our 2016 election. Okay. But it didn't involve anybody in the Trump campaign. That was clear. So they tried to brush over that and make it sound like, yeah, even though there was nobody, President Trump or the Trump campaign who were involved at all, but we are going to kind of word this, put it in the same sentence so that it kind of sounds like, yeah, President Trump was involved with Russia, because then it jumps into another gear. It says, ``that there were at least 10 separate episodes of President Trump using his official powers to''--and here is the word--``thwart or attempt to thwart the special counsel's investigation.'' And that is also very troubling language for those of us that have dealt with legal terminology in criminal cases. I don't know of anybody that has dealt with criminal cases. I didn't hear from anybody on the committee that has ever heard of a crime involving thwarting. We are familiar with obstruction of justice. But these are the kind of games you play with words when you know, yes, there is no evidence a crime was committed, but maybe if we use different terminology it will sound like some kind of bad crime was committed. And clearly, we are not going to be able to remove a President from office with the Senate understanding that even the Mueller report, even the Mueller special counsel team that had all these people that hated Donald Trump, they still couldn't find anything that would be indictable. Now, some say, Well, but there was obstruction of justice. We even had one, I would say, incompetent law professor come before our committee and say she could guarantee that she could get a conviction and win on appeal. Well, I have tried enough cases in State and Federal court and in the Army that I know--and I have told people that were looking for lawyers in my days as a judge--I couldn't recommend a lawyer, but I would warn people--if you ever hear a lawyer who tries cases who says they can guarantee you a win in a trial, then that lawyer is either totally incompetent or is one of the biggest liars in the legal profession. I don't know which one this professor was. I got the impression she just really didn't know what she was talking about, because no one swears, Oh, yes, I can guarantee you, you know, I can win this case at trial and on appeal. That is not a good lawyer. That is somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. What we have found now after thousands and thousands of interviews, subpoenas, documents, millions of documents, there was no crime. And the reason there was no obstruction of justice by President Trump or anybody that was assisting him is because the President made very clear as soon as he heard about some collusion, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it with Russia to rig the election, he knew he never colluded. He knew that he never conspired, nor did anybody in his campaign conspire with Russia to affect the election. That never happened, and he knew it. But he could see from what these 17 or so people on the special counsel's team were trying to do. They were trying to frame him. And this guy that was dishonored and was no longer respected by MI6 that he used to work for in England and there was information that he was discredited, not just his information, but he had been discredited, but that is who was hired by Fusion GPS, that was hired apparently by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to try to dredge up dirt on candidate Donald Trump so that they could rig the election against Donald Trump. And we have gotten to the bottom of it, almost. We know that Christopher Steele is the one that didn't just collude, he conspired with people in Russia who he ultimately had to admit, yes, it is quite possible they could have been working for Vladimir Putin. So Christopher Steele, it appears most likely he was the one that was conspiring with people from Russia, sounds like Putin's agents, to try to destroy Donald Trump. And there has been noise made about, oh, gee, you know, Russia really wanted Donald Trump to win. That is not the way Vladimir Putin thinks. He wants the old Soviet empire back. It really bugs me when educated people say, you know, he is such a complicated guy. No, he isn't. He is one of the most easily discernable people in the world. He wants the old empire back. He is a former KGB guy, and he will do whatever it takes to try to get it back. I don't think he cared so much who won the election. He wanted to divide America, and lo and behold, he was able to see the Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, the Clinton campaign, DNC, they were able to take all this information that were nothing but lies in the dossier--they have even given dossier a bad name--and divide America. And at least one political party in America has been totally willing to be complicit to help divide America over a bunch of lies in a dossier that was created as political fodder when it became very clear very quickly to those who had paid for the dossier that it was not only not verifiable, the person that gathered the information didn't really know the people, the Russians that gave him the lies about Donald Trump, and that got taken before a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on a campaign; to wit, the Trump campaign. That is scary stuff; when one administration can use the powers of the office of President, the Intel community, the FBI, the Department of Justice, use all those powers to destroy another campaign. And as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, if Ms. Clinton had won, we would have never known how corrupted and weaponized the DOJ and FBI had become. And I know there are some of my friends here in Congress on our side of the aisle that think Michael Horowitz is doing a good job, because look at all the evidence of wrongdoing, bias, all this that he has found. Well, if you look at the most recent report, just like the first one, in the first report Horowitz found--and he was a good Obama appointee as inspector general there at the Department of Justice, good Democrat, good appointee. And so he does his digging, finds hundreds of pages of the most outrageous political bias--it's actually a personal hatred for Donald Trump and absolute love and affection for candidate Hillary Clinton--so much overwhelming bias, and every conclusion that these biased, prejudiced, bigoted investigators had was 100 percent consistent with all of their conclusions. That speaks for itself. Now, if half of their conclusions had gone against their bias and prejudice, bigotry, then you would say, well, you know, maybe it really didn't affect the outcomes of their investigations. But when every conclusion is consistent with the bias and prejudice, even though it is clear, like in the case of the investigation into the Clinton emails, you had Strzok and Page examining emails, and they were making the calls on whether documents are classified, knowing full well if they said something was classified that Hillary Clinton was being set up legitimately to be indicted and convicted. So they wanted Hillary Clinton to win. They wanted to do whatever they could to stop Donald Trump from winning, and if he didn't win, as they said, they needed an insurance policy, you know, just in case he won. And Horowitz did a grave injustice within the Justice Department, and he says there is no indication that all that bias had anything to do with the outcomes of the cases. That is just garbage. He is being disingenuous. He wasn't doing his job in his conclusions. And I know there were a lot of Republicans that said, Yes, okay, but, boy, when he investigated, when that report comes out on Comey, it is going to end up sending him to prison. Well, Comey did leak information that he should not. He did keep documents that he was not permitted to keep. He secreted them, kept them after he had left government service. He is not allowed to do that. And the biggest thing about those and whether or not they were felonies that would put him in jail would be: Was this information classified and at what level? And we find out, you know, on page one and two of the Horowitz IG report, the FBI investigated, and the FBI determined that this wasn't classified; the FBI this and that. And you have to wait 40 pages to see who he means by the FBI. Well, it turns out, the two most important people, because they had the most experience in analyzing documents to determine their classification level, it was a couple named Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. And he has the gall, Horowitz does, to even point out--to try to get more credibility to Strzok and Page's work on deciding whether Comey should go to prison, because they were classified at a high level. He said, Oh, but they had more experience, because they did all this work on the Clinton emails determining whether those were classified or not. For heaven's sake, somebody needs to wake up. Michael Horowitz does not need to be doing the investigation. Maybe let him do the investigation, but he doesn't need to be doing the reports. In a lot of places people would say he doesn't know sic `em from come here when it comes to proper conclusions. It is outrageous. And he justified not having them re-examined because time was of the essence 2 years ago in 2017, back before Strzok and Page were fired. But not to worry, because a guy named Bill Priestap was going to rubber stamp whatever Strzok and Page decided on classifications. There was another unit chief. Didn't give us that name. That tells you something right there. But Priestap was supposed to have the final decision, apparently rubber stamp whatever our experienced Strzok and Page decided when they knew full well if they classified things at a certain level that it meant Jim Comey was going to prison. So they did Comey a favor. And so then Horowitz, he didn't want to have them rereviewed for proper classification away from the bias of Strzok and Page and Priestap that--you know, there were reports of him going to London trying to help out Steele's credibility. So Horowitz said time was of the essence, so nobody reconsidered the classification that the bigoted bias and prejudice of Page and Strzok would not be determinative. And I know that people, Republicans, many of them are saying, well, look, there is no question that McCabe lied, perjured, he should end up going to prison. But I am telling you as a history buff, a historian, if you would, it is true. History is often the best indicator of what someone will do in the future. The indications are that Obama's IG, Horowitz, will find some terrible things, but he will do it in such a way that he will give not only Comey, Strzok, and Page a get-out-of-jail-free pass, but he will do that with McCabe and with anybody else he is investigating, because that is his history. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and who is doing the buttering, who got him in the position he is in. We end up now being told, well, this isn't a formal impeachment hearing, the investigation we started today in the Judiciary Committee. Then, toward the end of our hearing, we heard from two different Democrats who wanted to go on record to make it very, very clear that this was an impeachment hearing, an impeachment investigation. That is what it is. It is not just a resolution for investigative procedures, as it says here on the resolution. There was so much fraud involved in this case. I am not talking about from anybody with the Trump campaign. I am talking about a guy like James Comey who should have known better. He swore and apparently verified the application and affidavit information to go before the FISA court so he could get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all while he was lying to the President about him not being under investigation and also trying to set the President up by doing little memos. I hope and pray one of the things that comes out of all this Department of Justice, FBI, and intel abuse is a practice the FBI has had for years. It is section 302, where FBI agents, after they do an interview, they sit down and type up their own version of what they think or what they recall a witness said. Most of the ones I have seen over the years in my different roles in the justice system appear to be very accurate. But it is a problem when every other local and State law enforcement entity I am aware of, when they want credibility for a statement, they record it. I saw it from juries in my court. ``Look, you are telling us this is what the defendant said. Why didn't you record it so we could see for ourselves, hear for ourselves, see the body language?'' That is why local governments all over the country have come up with billions of dollars altogether so that they can make sure that they get video and audio of someone being questioned, so there is no question what they say. But not at the FBI. Oh, no. They will talk to a witness and then write out their own version of what is said. Thankfully, most of them do a great job, but it also allows unscrupulous FBI or DOJ officials, as now we have seen existed under the Obama Justice Department, it allows them to twist the FBI's or the DOJ's version of what a witness says and use that, as they have thousands and thousands of times, I don't know how many times, to convict people, saying, ``This is what he said because I wrote it down in my own notes after I did the interview.'' ``Really? Well, let's see the video. Let's hear the audio.'' ``Well, we don't do that at the FBI. We only write down our version of what is said because we really would rather you hear our version and not the defendant's version of what he said, because we get more credibility than any defendant.'' At least that used to be the way it was. But I hope one of the things that will come out of all of this is, in order for the FBI to get back the credibility they used to have as the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, they are going to need to start doing audio and video so that we can see what a witness said, hear what they said for ourselves, and so that juries can hear that and judges can see and hear that. But we don't have that here. People like the biased Strzok and Page, who hated Trump and loved Hillary Clinton, when you talk about obstruction of justice, I don't know how you can be more obstructive than to get a subpoena for emails and then BleachBit, take all the stuff off so nobody can ever see and then beat up with hammers cellphones and whatever you need to, to destroy the evidence. That would seem to be a classic case of obstruction. Fortunately, for people involved with Hillary Clinton, it was Strzok and Page on the job, so they didn't see anything, didn't hear anything that might resemble something that should be prosecuted. But we end up today with this resolution that the majority passed without allowing any amendments, and they used this word ``thwart,'' that the President used his official powers to thwart or attempt to thwart. Nobody has ever been convicted of thwarting. You just can imagine, say the Democrats got exactly what they wanted and were able to impeach or charge President Trump with thwarting an official investigation. It goes to the Senate. They get what they want, and President Trump is removed. Years down the road, they say, ``You used to be President. You were removed? What were you removed for?'' ``Well, I was a thwarter, apparently. I have been branded a thwarter.'' Maybe we ought to put a ``T'' on their head so everybody knows: Here comes a thwarter. The only thing he was thwarting, if at all, is massive injustice from the Justice Department. He knew he had not conspired with anybody in Russia, nor had anybody in his campaign. The evidence has borne that out. Even Mueller, Weissman, the people who hated the President, had to come around to saying they couldn't find any evidence of them conspiring with Russia. Nonetheless, we still have to go through this hearing today, and I am sure there will be other hearings. The truth is, President Donald Trump never obstructed or thwarted justice. He knew that if there was true justice, this effort to frame him for colluding with the Russians would be found false and would be found to be a frame-up job. He wanted justice. The DOJ could never convict someone of obstructing justice when all they did was what they could to ensure that an injustice did not occur. They were seeking justice to make sure there wasn't a successful frame- up. That is not obstructing or thwarting justice. That is seeking justice. But there certainly were people inside the DOJ who were doing what they could to inflict an injustice on President Trump. So here we go into this impeachment exercise that started today. I think about those in England who would say, ``God save the Queen,'' ``God save the King.'' God save this Republic. We are in a lot of trouble when we have caught the Justice Department red-handed trying to impose a massive injustice, conspiring to do so, even having an Acting Attorney General who we found out from the emails this week--and some of us knew this because we knew from other information that Rosenstein, the Acting Attorney General, did not just once say sarcastically: I will wear a wire. I can get into the White House. I will wear a wire and record the President. Then, they could try to remove him under the 25th Amendment for not being competent. They formulated a response to act like he was being sarcastic when everybody there knew he was not being sarcastic. Apparently, from what I understood, the reason he brought that up is because others there in the meeting were mad at him. They said: You have been helping the President instead of helping us get the President. You wrote that memo that gave him a basis to fire Comey. Whose side are you on? That is the kind of context where Rosenstein says: Look, I will wear a wire if you want. He wanted to show that he was an Obama team player, a Sally Yates team player, a Loretta Lynch team player, that he was not a Trump team player: I will even wear a wire and go in. That wasn't the only place he brought it up. He brought it up at another meeting, such that McCabe went back and told people: You know, Rosenstein brought it up again. He still says he is willing to wear a wire. That is because Rosenstein was trying to convince them he was a good team player and would go set up and try to frame the President to help remove him from office. That is not all that has gone on this week. We had the vote today. The House has voted to eliminate the tiny, little part of ANWR where Jimmy Carter said that drilling would be allowed. Now, this is Jimmy Carter who says everybody is supposed to wear a cardigan and turn your temperature in winter way down, wear a sweater, you know, shiver a little bit. It is okay because we are going to save energy. Even he said it is right that part of ANWR, that tiny, little part of that huge area, nothing is there, so it is not going to affect any wildlife, really, so that can be an area that can be drilled. Since then, Democrats have done all they could to put it off-limits. Sometimes you see these pictures of all this wildlife, this beautiful, pristine area. Well, if that is what you see, that isn't the part of ANWR where drilling would be allowed. We can get a little perspective on the size. There was another poster up here somewhere. It has a map of how big Alaska is, and then it has the size of ANWR. Then there is a red dot that you can't see more than a few feet away that is the tiny, little part, comparatively, where drilling would be allowed. There are people here in this body who are absolutely wonderful people, friends on both sides of the aisle. Some of my Democratic friends, I know they would never lie to me. They are honest people. We just have disagreements on things. One of the most honorable people I ever knew in this body was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee back initially when Democrats took the majority in January 2007. He wanted socialized medicine. We disagreed on that. But I knew the man's heart. He wanted to help poor people. That is why he didn't want to pass the cap-and-trade bill, because he knew it would cause the price of energy to skyrocket. And he knew it was a tough blow to the Nation's poor, to our senior citizens on Medicare, but especially on Social Security, a fixed income. If you start skyrocketing the price of energy to those folks, it is devastating. That is why John did not want to pass the cap-and-trade bill. He wanted to do everything he could to help poor people. That was his nature. He knew if you start doing this kind of stuff for the rich with energy prices--gasoline, electricity, propane, and those things going up--it is an inconvenience, but for those on a fixed income, it is absolutely devastating. America, under the Trump administration, has been allowed to gather up more of our own blessed energy sources. The economy gets better. More people are working now than ever. Unemployment is the lowest it has ever been for minorities since they started recording those numbers. It is fantastic. Energy prices have come down low, and it has been stabilized because we are finding so much of our own energy and using it. We disagree about a lot of things on both sides of the aisle. I don't know anybody who serves in this body on either side of the aisle who doesn't want a clean environment. But those who know our history of the world know that, if you have a struggling economy, the number one thing that suffers, besides the people, is the environment. In China, that government, as big and totalitarian as it can be, they know if people get laid off and are not working, they could have another revolution, and they don't want that. They are more concerned about people being busy and working and having money than they are about the environment. In India, they are scared to death of too many people not being able to work or have income. We get all of this pollution from the other side of the world. I heard today that 85 percent, somebody said, of the pollution that we have in our atmosphere is coming from these other countries. When those countries' economies are struggling, there is more pollution. That is just the way it works, because you just can't help afford to clean up the environment like we are and have been in the United States. We need a vibrant economy to continue to clean up our environment. We have lakes that were dead, now brimming with activity and with wildlife. These are good things. In Texas, it seems like our air gets cleaner every year. I asked my staff to find a picture, as best they could, that would reflect what we are talking about in ANWR in that tiny--well, relatively speaking, tiny area of ANWR where drilling would be allowed. This is from Google Maps. This isn't actually the area, but it looks like most of the area where drilling would be allowed. From time to time, there will be wildlife across this area, in the area where drilling would be allowed, but they can't stay because they can't live there in that area. There is just not enough to sustain life there. As Jimmy Carter figured out, it is an ideal place to drill, and that is why they designated it for that. But we have been waiting over 40 years to use that as a place to even further reduce our cost of energy, which will also allow us to export energy, which means European countries don't have to be blackmailed or extorted by Russia. There is one country that hopes the Democrats are very, very successful--well, of course, the OPEC nations. But Russia is probably the most hopeful that the Democrats are successful in preventing us from getting the energy that we have been blessed with in this area where you don't have caribou or things, wildlife, like you do in other parts of ANWR. They don't want us to drill because they know we will be able to get energy to Europe. And we won't blackmail Europe. We won't extort Europe the way that Putin often has, countries that he supplies natural gas to. If we export that, we can help give more freedom to the world. We can bring down our own prices even further. Why wouldn't we do that? This picture was near the proposed exploration area. It is from Google Maps. It is taken on Dalton Highway, just south of Prudhoe Bay. It is facing east towards the coastal area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So it is not right in the refuge, but it is a very fair representation of the coastal areas found within the refuge. It is actually a more accurate depiction of the proposed exploration area than the images that we have been seeing around here about the mountains and rainbows and all the herds of animals. This is much more representative than any of those types of pictures. I want to touch on one more thing about the Russians meddling in our election. Sean Hannity had a great article 1\1/2\ years ago, February of 2018. In there, he quotes from President Obama. President Obama said: ``There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.'' That was at the height of the 2016 election. He goes on to say: ``And so I invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.'' President Trump did nothing. It turns out they knew that the Russians were trying to meddle in our election. So why wouldn't Obama try to stop the Russians from meddling in our election? He did nothing. There is speculation that he knew Hillary Clinton was going to win, and he was afraid if they started admitting what they knew was true-- that Russia was trying to meddle in our elections--and then Hillary Clinton won, it might make her victory look suspect if they talked about the effort they knew Russia was engaged in to affect our election. But the truth is that Putin wants to divide America as much as he can. Divide and conquer is what he hopes to do. And he has been successful. The Russians that they had who gave their lives to Christopher Steele, the discredited former MI6 guy, that he provided to Fusion GPS that apparently the Clinton campaign and the DNC had hired, it has done what they wanted. It has done what Putin wanted. It has adversely affected the President of the United States. It has divided our country, and it has pitted family against family. Someone once said that the last phase of a civil war involves guns, but we have been in a nonfirearm civil war for a while now. And this Mueller investigation--the whole Russia dossier, the lies in there about candidate, now President, Trump--the Russians, just like Putin wanted, have been successful in dividing this country. As of yesterday, being 9/11, we can disagree, like John Dingell and I did, but I loved the guy. He was a brilliant, caring, honorable man of integrity. We have those on both sides of the aisle. You have some that you have got to be careful on both sides. But there are people on both sides of the aisle; and we can work together because they are honest, honorable people, and we can disagree when we need to. I need to touch on, before we finish the week here, of course, we have seen in the news Afghanistan peace talks with the Taliban broke down. The Taliban continue to kill Americans, and they are going to continue to kill Americans. It is who they are. It is what they are. In my trips to Afghanistan and other places, I made friends with some of those Muslims who were part Afghan, Muslims who were part of the Northern Alliance. It is no longer called the Northern Alliance. But these were Muslim friends of the United States. They just wanted their freedom. They are Muslims, but they did not want ruthless totalitarians like the Taliban running their country. The enemy of our enemy were people we could work with. Unfortunately, our intelligence was not sophisticated enough, plugged in enough, so that a day or so before 9/11, when Ahmad Shah Massoud, sometimes called the Lion of Panjshir because he was such a hero--he was a great warrior, soldier; he was a great politician, beloved in Afghanistan. The Taliban wanted to kill him, but he had good security. The Taliban, they may be crazy, they may be haters and want to kill all Americans, but they are not stupid at all. They knew that if the United States figured out that the 9/11 attack had originated in Afghanistan with al-Qaida and the Taliban, that the United States would come to Afghanistan, and we would look for an Afghan leader that the people would rally behind, who could lead the country to destroy the Taliban. And they knew that would most likely be the Lion of Panjshir, the hero of the Afghan victory over Russia, Ahmad Shah Massoud. A day or so before 9/11--I think it was around 36 hours or so before--they had gotten Massoud to agree to an interview. His security people checked out the reporter, known reporter, the cameraman there, let him in, and, when they start the interview, the cameraman blows up the bomb in his camera and kills Massoud. If our intelligence people had been on top of their game, they would have known something was about to happen. Something was about to happen for them to kill Massoud now, this national hero. Ahmad Shah Massoud has a brother, Ahmad Zia Massoud, and I think of him as a friend. I hope he thinks the same way. He fought with and under his older brother. His brother used him as a diplomat, but he was one of many of the Northern Alliance. The movie ``12 Strong'' shows General Dostum that we got after 9/11, getting around October, got other tribal groups to agree to fight with Dostum as the leader. Some of them weren't happy, but they agreed. And we provided air cover, and we provided weapons for them. We have 300 or so, as I have understood it, special ops, Special Forces, CIA, in there, and only our guys could call down bombs and direct them at specific targets. Between the weapons we provided the Afghans, the bomb support from B- 52s 40,000 or so feet up, the Northern Alliance, our Afghan Muslim allies, they destroyed the organized Taliban, within--some say, maybe it was March, but February, March of 2002. Without a single American casualty, we defeated the Taliban. Then I think it was a mistake. We were considered heroes. We came in. We helped get rid of the Taliban that a majority of Afghanistan did not want running the country. And then we came in and started what appeared to be occupying. And that probably could have been okay if we could have helped them get a new government going and then get out. Condoleezza Rice, as I have heard from others, relied on recommendations to use a guy named Zalmay Khalilzad, a Pashtun. You can be Pashtun and not be Taliban. He is not Taliban. But you can't be Taliban and not be Pashtun, as I understand it. And anyway, she relied heavily on him. I talked to a guy who said he was part of the inner circle, and the decision was: What kind of government are we going to give Afghanistan now that we have destroyed the Taliban? Unfortunately, that shouldn't have been our decision, but there were people who said, Look, this is a Tribal country and nothing would fit this area better than to have strong local and state or province governments, and then it is a Federalist society where the national government is kind of an umbrella, but the real power is in the provinces and the local government. That is not what we did. The wrong people were listened to. And we pushed a constitution through that gives the power to the President, almost making him a dictator. The President is elected in Afghanistan, but then he appoints the governors. He appoints the mayors. He appoints the police chief. It just cut the local folks and the province folks out of governing themselves. And as my friend Massoud said: You know, look, we know you are going to end up having to pull out some day, so please help us get an amendment to our constitution that allows each province to elect its own governor and allows each city and town to elect their own mayor. Let us pick our own police chiefs, not somebody that Karzai, and now Ghani who is President would pick, but let us pick our own leaders. And the reasoning I thought was very sound. He said, when America leaves Afghanistan with this strong central government where the President has all power, all I have got to do is either knock off or corrupt the President, and they are right back in charge of Afghanistan. The Taliban hate Americans, so they are going to come kill a bunch more once they take back over Afghanistan. And then you are going to have to come back and Americans die all over again for nothing. If you will simply allow us to have that local provincial power so we elect our own leaders and not have them appointed from Kabul, then, yeah, maybe the Taliban gets one or two provinces, but the rest of us can rise up like we did before and defeat the Taliban again, and you don't have to have Americans die like you have for all of these years. That made sense. But the only trouble is, the guy that helped get Afghanistan this ridiculous constitution that has created basically a totalitarian Presidency, that is who was negotiating with the Taliban. There are rumors that he wanted to be President of Afghanistan at one time himself, but regardless, this guy, he gave the Bush administration bad advice. He gave the Obama administration bad advice. They were trying to cut a deal with the Taliban. The Taliban, you can cut a deal with them and then they are going to cut your throat the first chance they get. It makes no sense. But we have people from the Bush administration through the Obama administration. Khalilzad is still being listened to, and he wanted to do this deal with the Pashtun brothers, the Taliban. We don't need to be dealing with our enemies. We need to be dealing with our allies. And this was one of the great dangers, by rejecting those who lost family members, risked their own lives to help us take out the Taliban, eliminate the organized Taliban originally, without a single loss of American life, why wouldn't we want to put them in positions of power? They can get elected, if we just--I said to Massoud: What makes you think we could help you amend your constitution? And he said: You are still paying for most of our government operations. If you threaten to pull out all of that money prematurely, yeah, we will change the constitution. But we need your help to do it, so you don't have to keep losing American lives here in Afghanistan. It made so much sense. But, unfortunately, the deep state just continues to be deep and Khalilzad has been part of that from the beginning. He seemed like a nice guy when I met him in Iraq back in 2005. He seemed like a nice guy. He is just the wrong person to be listened to. Americans have continued to be killed while he has been wanting to have peace talks with the Taliban, not with the northern or former Northern Alliance people who risked their lives and lost family members fighting with us and for us. Oh, no, we are not going to deal with them. We are going to leave them. And all of the former Northern Alliance, they know that when we leave and we cut a deal with the Taliban or leave things so that the Taliban can take right over again, they are all going to be killed. Then there isn't going to be anybody in Afghanistan who will be able to stand up and fight against the Taliban. On top of that, even if there were, they wouldn't want to cut a deal with us, because they will have seen the way the Northern Alliance risked lives and lost lives to help us defeat the Taliban. What do we do? Do we leave them high and dry? Do we allow the Taliban to come in and kill them when we go? No. No. We need to be talking to our friends who fought with us and got rid of all of the organized Taliban by February or March of 2002 before we became occupiers, more or less. There needs to be a Federalist system there, and we need our friends, our allies who fought the Taliban and don't want them back in positions of authority. And I think President Ghani would be willing to do that, but, you know, deep state just keeps getting deeper. We need to negotiate with our friends, so they are in a position to help our enemies not get back in control to kill Americans again. 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. Madam Speaker, it is a great honor to celebrate with my fellow east Texans the outstanding accomplishment of the Stephen F. Austin University bowling team on winning the NCAA National Collegiate Women's Bowling Championship this year. Entering the NCAA tournament ranked sixth, the Ladyjacks demonstrated their hard work and determination to oust teams from Sam Houston State University, McKendree University, and University of Maryland Eastern Shore before facing off with the No. 1-ranked team, Vanderbilt University, in the final. The final began looking like it would end in the Vanderbilt Commodores' favor. The Ladyjacks lost the first game but quickly recovered to win the second game and tie the match. They did not let the initial setback discourage their performance. Instead, it pushed them to play with more determination and skill. They went on to win each consecutive game, finishing the match with a 4-1 victory over Vanderbilt. These Ladyjacks demonstrated incredible focus and skill to clinch the National Championship. It is an esteemed honor to pay tribute to the members of the 2019 NCAA Division 1 Women's Bowling National Champions: Paige Beeney, Dakotah Hazlewood, Amber Whitcomb, Megan Eaglehouse, Sarah Gill, Dakota Faichnie, Sarah Voiers, Annie Leihardt, Carlene Beyer, Head Coach Amber Lemke, Athletic Director Ryan lvey, Loree McCary, Steven Lemke, Luke Bolanos, Ben Bibby, Mackenzie Wenger, Kira Rubin, and Kara Carpenter. This is not just a feat for the bowling team but for the entire university. It is the second national championship in the school's history as a NCAA Division I contender. Furthermore, both national championships were clinched within the past four years. This speaks highly of the hard work and dedication of the men and women and the excellent coaching staff at Stephen F. Austin University. It is with great pride that I join with all of east Texas in congratulating the Ladyjacks bowling team on their NCAA Division I National Championship. May God continue to bless these consummate first class competitors, along with their families, friends and neighbors in east Texas. This outstanding accomplishment is now preserved in the Record which will endure as long as there is a United States of America.