[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H285-H290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to be here and, 
especially, to look out and see some people for whom I have eminent 
respect in this body. That is a nice thing, being in a body where I 
actually have respect for the people in the body, a good thing.
  We know that elections, as President Obama told us quite succinctly 8 
years ago, have consequences. Elections do have consequences, and we 
have a new team coming to town. One of the things that has concerned me 
greatly, and I know it has concerned many in this body, is that we as a 
Nation have had the ability to give protection basically to this idea 
of freedom that our Founders had, cultivated, and gave their lives to 
create.
  As I have mentioned from this podium previously, as I was told by 
some west African Christians in Togo, they said:

       We were so excited when you elected your first Black 
     President, but since your President has been there, we have 
     seen America get weaker and weaker. We all are Christians and 
     we know where we are going when we die, but we also know our 
     only chance for peace in this world is if America is strong. 
     So please go back to Washington and please tell the other 
     Members of Congress to stop getting weaker. We suffer when 
     you get weaker.

  I seen this article from Melissa Mullins after a study was done. It 
said, ``Christians Most Persecuted Religious

[[Page H286]]

Group in the World.'' And that is while America is supposed to be the 
strongest nation in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I see a friend is here on the floor, and I now yield to 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a 
privilege to serve the constituents of the Second Congressional 
District of West Virginia for a second term.
  As we begin the 115th session of Congress, my top legislative 
priorities are rolling back anti-coal regulations that have been 
imposed by President Obama's administration over the last 8 years; 
fighting the drug epidemic; repealing ObamaCare and making health care 
more affordable and accessible; and investing in our roads, bridges, 
airports, and other key infrastructure.
  West Virginia needs good-paying jobs. President Obama has spent the 
last 8 years waging a war on coal on our country. During this session 
of Congress, we must continue to work together to promote an all-of-
the-above energy strategy that conserves our natural resources, 
cultivates our economy and jobs, and promotes American energy 
independence.
  One of our Nation's and our States' greatest natural resources is our 
fossil fuel. Fossil fuel, including coal, supplies around 85 percent of 
our Nation's energy. West Virginia produces about 15 percent of that 
total.
  Under the outgoing administration, we have seen our West Virginia 
energy industries come under attack even though we have made 
significant strides in recent years to improve the quality of our air, 
land, and water. By rolling back harmful regulations like the so-called 
stream protection rule, we can save 30,000 jobs in the Appalachian 
region right now. That is why last year I introduced my bill, the 
Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining 
Act, also known as the STREAM Act. My bill was passed by the House last 
year with bipartisan support, and I will continue to fight to stop this 
outrageous rule from taking effect.
  Another top priority for this Congress must be stopping the drug 
epidemic in our country. Drug abuse ravages our communities, rips 
families apart, and further ruptures our State's already-ailing 
economy. This issue is above party politics. It is a plague that both 
parties must come together to solve. There is no magical solution to 
this epidemic. We need local, State, and Federal officials to work 
together to effectively and efficiently fight back.
  This past Congress I worked with Members on both sides of the aisle 
to find commonsense solutions to fight back against this scourge. That 
is why I introduced H.R. 4499, the Promoting Responsible Opioid 
Prescribing Act. This bipartisan bill struck out a harmful provision of 
ObamaCare that places unnecessary pressure on doctors and hospitals to 
prescribe narcotic pain medicine. I am proud to say that the Department 
of Health and Human Services announced that they changed their policy 
and implemented my bill. This change in policy is an important part of 
the fight against opioid abuse. I will remain steadfast in my efforts 
to fight this epidemic.
  Another important way to fight back against the drug epidemic is by 
making health care more accessible and affordable. The first step to do 
this is to repeal ObamaCare.
  Healthcare costs are on the rise because ObamaCare adds burdensome 
taxes, regulations, and mandates onto American consumers. The limited 
choice in health insurance plans is harming families and their budgets. 
ObamaCare will kill 2.5 million jobs in 10 years. It has continued to 
raise health insurance costs and has placed the Federal Government in 
between patients and their doctors.
  Research done by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that 
average monthly premium costs increased for almost everyone regardless 
of their age, race, or gender after ObamaCare was implemented.
  As a Republican in Congress, I want to ensure that everyone has 
access to health care, but I want it to be quality health care that 
people choose for themselves. That is why Republicans have come up with 
a plan that we call A Better Way. Our plan recognizes that people 
deserve more patient-centered care, not more bureaucracy. That means 
more choices, not more mandates.
  The A Better Way plan offers many improvements that will help West 
Virginia's Second Congressional District, including commonsense reforms 
such as allowing health insurance sales across State lines. Simple 
changes like these will lower costs and increase choice for Americans.
  Finally, it is imperative to pass bills that invest in our Nation's 
deteriorating infrastructure. President-elect Trump has said that 
updating our Nation's infrastructure is a top priority for his 
administration.

                              {time}  1830

  The Federal Highway Administration has classified more than 142,000 
bridges as either ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally 
obsolete.'' Also from the Federal Highway Administration, traffic 
delays cost the U.S. economy more than $50 billion annually. Most major 
roads are rated as ``less than good condition.''
  Improvement to other Nation's infrastructure would greatly benefit 
West Virginia, which needs road, bridge and rail repairs. We are also 
in need of water, sewer, and power line repairs.
  By improving the transportation, our country will open the 
opportunity for job growth and expansion. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the House and the Senate, as well as the new 
administration, to make sure that these legislative priorities take 
hold.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much my friend Mr. Mooney's 
points. Well made.
  This administration hasn't turned around health care in America, 
hasn't seen more choices, people keeping their doctors, keeping their 
insurance policies they liked. They have seen deductibles skyrocket, 
such that so many people across America have had $5-, $6-, $7-, $8,000 
deductibles. We never had deductibles that high before.
  What that effectively meant was they weren't going to get any health 
insurance help. They were totally on their own, that every single 
payment that they made, even if they got subsidies from the Federal 
Government, was for nothing. They got no help. They could never come up 
with enough money in 1 year to meet the deductible so that the 
insurance would start paying in.
  What is even more egregious is that apparently we found out that much 
of this was known would happen before people had ObamaCare forced onto 
them.
  Then, in the last week we have had this story from Stephen Dinan, 
from The Washington Times, finding out that the IRS prioritized their 
role in ObamaCare over taxpayer customer service. That is what their 
own inspector general report said.
  You would think that an administration that says their number one 
concern was America's health care, that they would not drive so many 
people off of the insurance they had, they loved, that they could 
afford, that had the doctor in the system they could use, had the 
medicine in the policy covered that they could use. Millions have been 
driven off of their policies to Medicaid, which so many doctors don't 
even take, and this administration has called that a great victory.
  Yet, in the midst of all of this, we knew--it was talked about back 
in 2010 when this bill was being passed--that there could be 18,000, 
17-, 18,000 new IRS agents that would force ObamaCare upon the country. 
And as so many people have reported, when you get notice from the 
Internal Revenue Service that they are coming after you, it does not do 
anything to enhance your health.
  KLTV, in my hometown, contacted me here today, wanting to know more 
about what was happening with the IRS. It has been outrageous what they 
have been doing across the country in their local taxpayer service 
assistance offices.
  It was reported to us that a sign was put up by one of the IRS 
employees that, basically, if you don't like the long line and the bad 
service, then contact your Member of Congress--and fortunately, many 
did, so we became acutely aware of it.
  And what was worse, I mean, we had an office in Longview. Some people 
are able to go--are required to go get documentation from the IRS in 
order to do

[[Page H287]]

what they need, whether it is with insurance, with their employer, and 
they couldn't get into the IRS office. The IRS office closed in 
Longview, making it so much more difficult for Americans in east Texas 
to get the customer service they needed.
  Well, this article from The Washington Times points out that the IRS 
has made things much more painful for taxpayers than it should have 
been, and that is according to the IRS' inspector general. That was in 
a report Thursday that accused the agency of cutting money for customer 
service and ignoring phone calls while moving the money over to keep 
ObamaCare and other administration priorities on track.
  Well, what that means is the IRS would be there to bully people who 
had concerns about or problems with ObamaCare, which certainly would 
not help their health at all.
  But one reporter had told me that previously they were told by the 
IRS that Congress cut funding and, you know, that is why customer 
service was cut. Yet, when we presented the actual facts of what had 
happened, yes, in the past 6 years, the House of Representatives--not 
the Senate, for heaven's sake. They haven't cut anything in their own 
House of Congress. But the House of Representatives cut our own budgets 
about 22 percent over a 3-year period, and that is pretty dramatic.
  Anybody that has ever had to cut their budget by a fourth 
understands. Americans have had to do that across the country. We did 
it right here in the House of Representatives, and it has been very 
difficult for some of our offices to provide the care for constituents. 
So many areas, we are it. We are the ones that can help them stand up 
against the bureaucracy and demand that they get what the government is 
required to provide, and yet we were able to do it.
  On the other hand, the IRS wasn't cut 22 percent like the House cut 
ourselves down to the bone. In fact, they had a substantially smaller 
cut over 2 years, I believe it was.
  In this past year, we increased the amount of money the IRS got by 
millions and millions of dollars. What the IRS chose to do is not help 
taxpayer service, which could also help the IRS from increasing their 
punitive work against taxpayers that make mistakes because they didn't 
get proper advice or service from the IRS assistance.
  But no, they moved the money. The massive increase we gave to the 
IRS, they moved it over to be a bigger bully regarding ObamaCare and 
cut out offices, like the one in Longview, and fell more into the 
stereotype than I have ever seen for the IRS, this as ``IRS 
employees ignored more than 30 million phone calls from desperate 
taxpayers seeking help in the run-up to the 2015 filing deadline--and 
those who did get through often waited a half hour before getting help.

  ``The IRS apologized publicly for the poor service and blamed 
Congress, saying lawmakers needed to pony up more money if they wanted 
better results.
  ``But Inspector General J. Russell George said the IRS cut its own 
funding by eliminating nearly $150 million from customer service, 
slashing more than 2,000 staff positions''--and that is so they could 
go after more enforcement of ObamaCare, as if ObamaCare wasn't doing 
enough damage to people's health as it was.
  As my friend, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady 
pointed out: ``The IRS is running out of excuses for its abysmal 
customer service record and poor management decisions.'' This new 
report is even more proof the IRS is failing the very people it was 
created to serve--American taxpayers.
  Congress did add more money for the agency last year, just as I was 
saying, Mr. Speaker. This article also echoes the same thing. The IRS 
doubled the number of calls it was able to answer, but the agency has 
promised to maintain a level of service for next year.
  But let's face it, the IRS has shown they will target people because 
of their political beliefs. They will allow themselves--not just allow 
themselves. They insert themselves and have allowed themselves to be 
political weapons. Certainly saw that occurred from what has come out 
from 2012.
  Did they affect the election? It is hard to say. But they certainly 
prevented many conservative groups from being able to organize.
  I have heard some who are liberal, not that smart, asking questions: 
Well, I don't see how that would hurt conservative groups just because 
the IRS did not recognize them. They could still have gone ahead and 
organized and done their thing.
  Again, apparently they pay too much attention to the mainstream media 
and don't think for themselves, because when one begins to understand 
the power of the Internal Revenue Code in the United States, you put a 
group together and you pool your money into one pool to start spending 
as a group, somebody's going to be in trouble and going to be 
accounting for that money as income. I mean, there may be creative ways 
to handle it, but the way you are supposed to handle it is to get 
recognition from the Internal Revenue Service that you have a group 
that can come together, put your money together, and work together 
toward a common goal. Liberal groups have not had much problem getting 
that kind of approval, but conservative groups really were targeted by 
the IRS.
  And there is a law--we didn't need to pass a new one--that, according 
to the facts that have come out regarding Lois Lerner and others at the 
IRS, it certainly appears that there is probable cause to believe 
crimes were committed and should have been pursued. Yet nothing was 
done.
  Why?
  Because they were groups that were persecuted, not allowed to 
organize, that did not support this administration; therefore, 
according to the Justice Department that became more of ``just us 
department,'' they weren't going to pursue anything like that.
  And in the further category of further de-Americanization of America, 
this report from Paul Bedard that U.N. shipped 6 of 10 refugees to the 
United States, even more this year.
  Then there is a list from the United Nations refugee resettlement 
referrals. This report just came out in the last week, less than a 
week. The U.N. reports that of the 134,044 refugees settled in 2015, 
gee, 82,491 of the 134,000 were sent to the United States, that despite 
the fact information came out, study done, that actually we can support 
12 refugees in place in the Middle East for the same price of bringing 
1 refugee to the United States.

                              {time}  1845

  In fact, this administration didn't have to use the term redline. 
This administration could have simply said: we are going to make sure 
there is a safe zone in which people can live in the Middle East in a 
certain area and the U.N. will assist them with food--hopefully, 
without raping the women and girls, because they have in some areas. We 
will provide them a safe zone, and their needs will be cared for there. 
We can handle 12 times as many for the same price as bringing 1 into 
the United States.
  I think voters understood that, when they voted Donald Trump as 
President, there are so many of these refugees that simply cannot be 
vetted.
  We know this administration has made mistake after mistake, not only 
with people that we have no information to use to determine whether or 
not they are a threat because we have no background information on so 
many of these, but also, once they are here, we don't know where they 
are, we don't know where they go. We don't know even the threat.
  Then, on top of that, we find out hundreds, maybe thousands--we know 
hundreds--of people were supposed to be deported that this 
administration accidentally--instead of deporting them and getting them 
out of the country so they were no longer a threat, this administration 
accidentally granted them citizenship.
  There are some things that this government could do and you would 
say: well, it is easy to understand. That is an easy mistake. Instead 
of a 1, they put an 11. Or, instead of a 0, they put a 3.
  Instead of deporting people and getting them out of our country, this 
administration accidentally gives them citizenship and has made clear 
that they are not capable of protecting us from the threats that we are 
seeing all over Europe and other areas of the world.
  A point of personal privilege, really, I would like, Mr. Speaker, a 
shout out to the TSA, which is underneath our

[[Page H288]]

Department of Homeland Security. It was such an honor to be singled out 
last Friday for the two molestations. Apparently, I am attractive when 
it comes to TSA agents. They want to feel up and down, make sure all 
the parts are actually attached.
  They did a very good job of that both times on Friday evening when I 
was flying back to Texas. So my thanks to the TSA. Job well done. It 
delayed me 30 minutes or so. I kept thinking the TSA agent was going to 
lie back and have a cigarette or something, but that never happened.
  Anyway, due regards for the TSA. I am really and truly hoping that we 
can change substantially management of the TSA in this coming year. At 
airport after airport, we see two, three, four times longer lines for 
the TSA PreCheck than there is for the general boarding. Yet, TSA 
continues to encourage people to go ahead and apply. We can streamline 
your getting through the inspection. And yes, that does mean when you 
are in PreCheck, you will enjoy having hands laid on you, not in a 
Christian kind of sense.
  Over and over, there are good TSA agents, I am finding, all over the 
country, but the management is atrocious. How long would any security 
agency stay in business if every day they had longer lines in one area 
that was the least threat to our security as they do in the general 
boarding lines that need to be more carefully monitored, we are told? 
Well, you would fire them. You would hire another security agency.
  I haven't seen a study done on this, but, as I recall--I was watching 
back during my days as a judge and chief justice, and I will have to go 
back and look--there were so many screams from Congress, especially the 
Senate, especially on the other side of the aisle, that we have got to 
have the Federal Government take over security at the airports. We have 
got to. We are in such danger. We have to have that happen.
  Has security been enhanced by adding tens of thousands of people to 
the government unions? No, it hasn't. It really hasn't.
  So, what I want to go back and look at, it seems like I remember back 
years ago, after the Democrats were able to prevail over Republicans 
who were in the majority and get them to agree to federalize the 
security at airports so that they could get them in the government 
unions, I was thinking, I don't know that that is really going to help. 
Are we going to see a better quality of TSA agent than we had in 
private security? I would like to see an official number.
  Maybe if somebody in Homeland Security is listening, Mr. Speaker, 
they could, in their time between looking the other way as people come 
into the country illegally, they might just look up how many private 
security airport personnel were not hired by TSA.
  The reason for federalizing the security was so that we will get a 
better quality of security. It seems like there was a lawsuit back 
there by a couple hundred people, maybe. We are the only ones not hired 
by TSA. Out of the thousands and thousands, we are the only ones that 
weren't hired.
  It seems like there was a problem in response that yeah, we really 
needed people that could read and had finished high school. If you 
couldn't read or hadn't finished high school, we really needed that 
level.
  So, basically, it seems what happened is one group here in Congress--
and it wasn't the Republicans--had their way. The security at airports 
was federalized. We are not seeing an increased percentage of capturing 
items that are coming in, but I have got to say they do a good job of 
feeling up and down my person.
  I am not really a threat, though Homeland Security would assume that. 
Well, I was in the Army for 4 years. I am a strong Christian. I believe 
in the Bible, and I believe in the United States Constitution as the 
greatest governing document that was ever promulgated.
  Apparently, according to the minds at the top of this Homeland 
Security Department, that makes me more of a threat than most anybody 
in the country. I was even told back in London, coming back, I believe 
that was from another trip to Egypt or maybe Israel, and I had to go 
out from security and come back through. I was told by one of the 
security guys: Sir, I know who you are and your position, but your 
Homeland Security Department tells us we have to thoroughly inspect 
your baggage and you personally. I got it from the British security 
folks as well.

  Apparently, if you believe in the Constitution, you believe in the 
Bible, you have served your country in the United States Army, and you 
are a Christian then you are a big-time threat.
  It will be so nice to have an administration that doesn't see the 
world the way this administration has seen it.
  We had a lecture from the Secretary of State. The President of the 
United States said amen and hallelujah when he condemned Israel over 
and over and over. We stabbed our friend, Israel, in the back. There 
are reports in some sectors that not only did we abstain but we 
encouraged the resolution to be brought forward so that Israel could be 
condemned.
  It apparently generated this article from Victor Davis Hanson from 
National Review. He said:
  ``Secretary of State John Kerry, echoing other policymakers in the 
Obama administration, blasted Israel last week in a 70-minute rant 
about its supposedly self-destructive policies. Why does the world, 
including now the U.S.''--I would submit, Mr. Speaker, not for much 
longer--``single out liberal and lawful Israel but refrain from 
chastising truly illiberal countries? Kerry has never sermonized for so 
long about his plan to solve the Syrian crisis that has led to some 
500,000 deaths or the vast migrant crisis that has nearly wrecked the 
European Union. No one in this administration has shown as much anger 
about the many thousands who have been killed and jailed in the Castro 
brothers' Cuba, much less about the current Stone Age conditions in 
Venezuela or the nightmarish government of President Rodrigo Duterte in 
the Philippines, an ally nation.
  ``President Obama did not champion the cause of the oppressed during 
the Green Revolution of 2009 in Iran. Did Kerry and Obama become so 
outraged after Russia occupied South Ossetia, Crimea, and eastern 
Ukraine?
  ``Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was never so 
impassioned over the borders of Chinese-occupied Tibet, or over 
Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus.
  ``In terms of harkening back to the Palestinian `refugee' crisis that 
started in the late 1940s, no one talks today in similar fashion about 
the Jews who survived the Holocaust and walked home, only to find that 
their houses in Eastern Europe were gone or occupied by others. Much 
less do we recall the 11 million German civilians who were ethnically 
cleansed from Eastern Europe in 1945 by the Soviets and their imposed 
Communist governments. Certainly, there are not still `refugee' camps 
outside Dresden for those persons displaced from East Prussia 70 years 
ago.
  ``More recently, few nations at the U.N. faulted the Kuwaiti 
government for the expulsion of 200,000 Palestinians after the 
liberation of Kuwait by coalition forces in 1991. Yet on nearly every 
issue--from `settlements' to human rights to the status of women--U.N. 
members that routinely violate human rights target a liberal Israel.''

                              {time}  1900

  ``When President Obama entered office, among his first acts were to 
give an interview with the Saudi-owned news outlet Al Arabiya 
championing his outreach to the most nondemocratic Islamic world and to 
blast democratic Israel on `settlements.'
  ``Partly, the reason for such inordinate criticism of Israel''--well, 
the article says ``sheer cowardice,'' but that might be inappropriate 
for a Member to say about the President, so I am not even going to read 
that part. ``If Israel had 100 million people and was geographically 
large, the world would not so readily play the bully.
  ``Instead, the United Nations and Europe would likely leave it 
alone--just as they give a pass to human-rights offenders such as 
Pakistan and Indonesia. If Israel were as big as Iran, and Iran as 
small as Israel, then the Obama administration would have not reached 
out to Iran and would have left Israel alone.
  ``Israel's supposed Western friends sort out Israel's enemies by 
their relative natural resources, geography, and population--and 
conclude that supporting Israel is a bad deal in cost/benefit terms.

[[Page H289]]

  ``Partly, the criticism of Israel is explained by oil--an issue that 
is changing daily as both the U.S. and Israel cease to be oil 
importers.
  ``Still, about 40 percent of the world's oil is sold by Persian Gulf 
nations.''
  And I might add parenthetically, when we have a new President, that 
will drop even further because the United States will begin to produce 
more of the energy that we have been blessed with. There will be more 
nations in the world that will not have to go begging to Russia, which 
supposedly those on the left are so concerned about these days. Well, 
if they are so concerned, let us produce more west Texas oil, more east 
Texas natural gas, more oil and gas from around the country, and, boy, 
we will be energy independent. And as smart people have pointed out for 
a long time, it is a whole lot easier to take on terrorists who are 
throwing rocks than terrorists who are launching nuclear weapons.
  Back to this point being made here in National Review: ``Partly, the 
criticism of Israel is explained by oil--an issue that is changing 
daily as both the U.S. and Israel cease to be oil importers.
  ``Still, about 40 percent of the world's oil is sold by Persian Gulf 
nations. Influential nations in Europe and China continue to count on 
oil imports from the Middle East--and make political adjustments 
accordingly.
  ``Partly, anti-Israel rhetoric is due to herd politics. The 
Palestinians--illiberal and reactionary on cherished Western issues 
like gender equality, homosexuality, religious tolerance, and 
diversity--have grafted their cause to the popular campus agendas of 
race/class/gender victimization.
  ``Western nations in general do not worry much about assorted non-
Western crimes such as genocides, mass cleansings, or politically 
induced famines. Instead, they prefer sermons to other Westerners as a 
sort of virtue-signaling, without any worries over offending 
politically correct groups.
  ``Partly, the piling on Israel is due to American leverage over 
Israel as a recipient of U.S. aid. As a benefactor, the Obama 
administration expects that Israel must match U.S. generosity with 
obeisance. Yet the U.S. rarely gives similar `how dare you' lectures to 
less liberal recipients of American aid, such as the Palestinians,'' 
for example, ``for their lack of free elections,'' not to mention their 
lack of paying, encouraging, immortalizing people who are suicide 
bombers who are successful in killing innocent victims.
  The article says: ``Partly, the cause of global hostility toward 
Israel is jealousy. If Israel were mired in Venezuela-like chaos, few 
nations would care. Instead, the image of a proud, successful, 
Westernized nation as an atoll in a sea of self-inflicted misery is 
grating to many. And the astounding success of Israel bothers so many 
failed states that the entire world takes notice.
  ``But partly, the source of anti-Israelism is ancient anti-Semitism.
  ``If Israelis were Egyptians administering Gaza or Jordanians running 
the West Bank'' as they did for 20 years or so, ``no one would care. 
The world's problem is that Israelis are Jews. Thus, Israel earns 
negative scrutiny that is never extended commensurately to others.
  ``Obama and his diplomatic team should have known all this. Perhaps 
they do, but they simply do not care.''
  Then we find out this administration, we see what happens when there 
is yet another terrorist attack in Israel. What does this 
administration do after such a powerful chastising of our dear friend 
Israel?
  Nothing. But ``a Palestinian who may be linked to ISIS rammed his 
speeding truck into a group of Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem Sunday, 
killing four people and wounding 15 others before being shot dead in 
one of the deadliest attacks in a year-long campaign of violence.''
  Now, even that, from friends at FOX News, is not as accurate as it 
could be. Yes, they were soldiers that were killed. They were on a 
sight-seeing tour, and apparently the insidious radical Islamist sat 
parked and waited for them to be in a vulnerable position, not in a 
position to use weapons, not fighting. They were sightseeing. As this 
radical Islamist saw these people getting off the bus, that is when he 
moved and became the murdering, blood-thirsty, radical Islamist that he 
was.
  Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Faso). The gentleman from Texas has 14 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to finish talking about this issue 
that has been raised about the Russians being such a big threat to our 
elections. Some of us have been screaming here on Capitol Hill that we 
need to have security of the Internet. And as part of that, one of the 
last things we needed to do was give control over Web site 
determinations to the international community. That was created as an 
American entity, the Internet. We had control over ICANN, the 
organization controlling the Web sites, and this President did 
irreparable damage to our security. Oh, I know he thinks he didn't, so 
I am not accusing anything untoward, but irreparable damage was done by 
giving over that power to the so-called international community.

  This article from John Fund, who had a great book about election 
fraud, points out, and he quotes from a former colleague, Rahm Emanuel: 
```You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' Rahm Emanuel, 
Obama's just-named chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal 
conference of top CEOs in November 2008 while his boss was still 
President-elect. Since then a slew of constitutionally dubious 
executive orders, presidential emergencies, and rushed legislation have 
characterized the Obama presidency. Now he is leaving office by issuing 
a blizzard of `midnight regulations' and edicts.
  ``One of the most troublesome came last Friday and gave the federal 
government the power to begin centralizing our election systems. The 
Constitution explicitly gives states the power to set the `times, 
manner and places of holding elections.'
  ``But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson used the excuse of 
Friday's release of a report on Russian hacking of the Democratic 
National Committee to declare that state and local voting systems will 
be designated as `pieces of critical infrastructure' so that the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security can protect them from hackers.
  ``His move--coming just 15 days before President Obama leaves 
office--led many experts to question both its wisdom and its 
constitutionality. `While the Federal Government has the general power 
to protect the nation's cyber infrastructure, it cannot intrude into 
areas of state sovereignty without clear constitutional mandate,' John 
Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley, told CNSNews.com.
  ```There is no federal power to control or secure elections. Each 
state administers its own elections, restricted only by constitutional 
protections for voting rights,' agreed Illya Shapiro, senior fellow in 
constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. `It may make sense for 
states to request federal support here, but it would set a dangerous 
precedent for a federal agency to unilaterally take over state 
electoral processes.
  ``Secretary Johnson's decision sparked outrage among many of those 
who are most knowledgeable about our election system--the 50 
secretaries of state who, along with local officials, run the election 
process. Even Johnson admitted that `many of them are opposed to this 
designation.'
  ``Secretary of State Brian Kemp of Georgia, told me in an interview 
that Johnson's action `uses security as an excuse to subvert the 
Constitution and establish the basis for Federal encroachment into 
election systems.'''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to pause and look at what 
happened in this last election. Now, there have been some people 
saying, as I heard down at the Senate in the Kennedy Room at Jeff 
Sessions' hearing this morning, there were 17 intelligence agencies 
that agreed about the Russian hacking. Well, I am not sure. They must 
have seen something I didn't, but I had understood there was, like, 
three, and that we have been told actually they had these conclusions, 
but people have admitted--no, actually, they didn't hack our election 
system. They didn't hack any voting machines. Clapper even admitted 
that. Of course, he has said: I have testified very falsely. He has 
admitted under oath that he has not been truthful under oath to the 
Senate before.
  So as a law professor once asked: If you have admitted lying, well--
he

[[Page H290]]

would say--are you lying now or were you lying then? If you admit you 
are lying, which one is really the lie?
  We don't know. Is he lying now or lying then?
  You have said--you have told us you are a liar. Which one is it?
  What we find among smart juries, once they found you lied to them, is 
that they are not going to trust you about anything else. I think that 
contributed to the voting results we had.
  But Conservative HQ had an article: ``Russian Hacking Story A Twofer 
For Obama And the Left.'' Say, gee, they get to blame the Russians and 
they get to take control of the voting system.

                              {time}  1915

  Well, all that has come out is somebody hacked John Podesta's 
emails--most likely an unprotected server like Hillary Clinton was 
using--and we lost secrets we may never know. But it was unprotected. 
Podesta's was at least protected. And people saw published what 
Democratic people participating in the Hillary Clinton campaign had 
said about Christians, Catholics, the duplicity of trying to bring down 
Bernie Sanders, the duplicity at debates, the if it is not illegal, the 
certainly rule-violating strategies of revealing questions before a 
debate.
  Shockingly, when the truth was revealed and certain people in the 
Hillary Clinton administration, or in their campaign, were exposed as 
lying about so many things, those people are now saying: Hey, when 
America found out we were lying, they voted against Hillary. They hurt 
our election. They affected our election because we were exposed as 
liars and it cost us votes. That is grossly unfair. The American people 
should never have known the truth that we were lying about so many 
things, that we were conspiring to bring down Bernie Sanders and defeat 
him unfairly. The American people weren't supposed to find those things 
out and, doggone it, those Russians need to be punished.
  Well, I don't know where it came from. And I also know, as a fact, 
that some intelligence personnel have lied to the chairman of our Intel 
Committee in the last Congress. I know it is a fact. I don't know who 
it was, but they did.
  When you have Clapper say, Yeah, I came in here and testified about a 
bunch of stuff that wasn't true, you wonder wouldn't it be a good idea 
to take those incredible individuals in our intelligence agencies that 
have been faithful to our country, served our country, not their 
political agenda, and done great things for America, let's get them in 
the positions of authority in the intelligence agencies. And since they 
have been working there, they will know what to do; they will know who 
to trust, who not to trust.
  As you find out, if you ever sit on the bench as a felony judge very 
long, it doesn't matter what area of life you are in, there are people 
that are not honest. Fortunately, in law enforcement, intelligence 
agencies, homeland security, places like that, in my opinion, there is 
a much higher number of good, honorable, honest people that care about 
providing for the safety of the American people. That is where we need 
to go. Find those people in those departments and put them in positions 
of leadership.
  We have a great opportunity now before us, and if you are agnostic or 
atheist, you should believe it was all a roll of the dice. This kind of 
stuff happens. Hey, even a pragmatist agnostic would probably say: 
Well, if I am honest, somebody--Julian Assange said it wasn't the 
Russians. Indications were it may well have been an unhappy Democratic 
operative in the party that provided. But wherever they came from, 
information was provided to the American public showing the terribly 
unfair and untruthful things that have been said or done, and they 
voted against the party that had apparently done the unfair, untruthful 
things.
  So I think we need to look, as Shakespeare would say, not to our 
stars, but in ourselves. Personally, I think we were mercifully given 
another chance to give back to the American people the power that this 
Congress and the executive branch has used for far too long and let 
America be America, not the evil parts--the KKK, the lynchings, the 
horrid things that mar our history--but the goodness, the part of 
America that would say, ``I don't care about the KKK. I am going to 
take you into my home. I am going to protect you''; the parts of 
America that said, ``I don't care what color your skin is. We are 
fellow human beings and we have got some good ideas and we are going to 
work together and we are going to raise this Nation to heights it has 
never seen before.'' I am hoping and praying that is where we are 
headed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________