[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.
____________________