[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4908-H4911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rutherford). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to finish his statement.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding and allowing me to complete my remarks on this Special Order 
organized by Congressman Walker.
  As I was saying, if you recall the 2014 debate over funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration made it clear 
that they would contravene the will of Congress with regard to 
President Obama's amnesty order and would fund his amnesty program 
using fines and fees.
  The Department of Homeland Security had over $400 million that the 
Department could spend outside of what Congress appropriated. It is 
unacceptable for agencies to ignore the will of Congress by funding 
programs outside of the typical appropriations process.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets all of its funding 
outside of Congress through transfers from the Federal Reserve and from 
fines imposed on financial institutions. The CFPB does not get one dime 
appropriated from Congress, meaning they are not subject to 
congressional oversight. When it comes to the CFPB, Congress has no 
power of the purse to ensure that that agency is accountable to 
Congress.
  One of the top priorities in the Republican Better Way agenda is our 
commitment to reclaim our Article I authority. The Agency 
Accountability Act would direct all fines, fees, and settlements to the 
Treasury, making them subject to the normal appropriations process. 
This would end the unconstitutional slush funds that allow programs to 
operate independently and outside the purview of Congress. Most 
importantly, it would allow for Congress to fully account for how much 
money the government actually collects and where that money is coming 
from. The House should take up the Agency Accountability Act and pass 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my friend for pointing 
out the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  One thing about that group, when I was a judge, or assistant DA, if 
you needed somebody's banking records, then you would have to get sworn 
evidence--normally in affidavit form--and take it to a judge, and there 
had to be sufficient detail in the affidavit to establish--again, under 
oath--that a crime had probably been committed and that the person 
whose banking records we were seeking had probably committed the crime.

  If that could be done, then the judge would sign the warrant. Like my 
years as a judge handling felony cases, there were some warrants I 
turned down. There is just not enough particularity here. There is not 
probable cause that this person committed the crime, or I don't see 
probable cause that a crime was committed. But, normally, law 
enforcement was good about making sure that probable cause was there, 
and the DA office would help them.

[[Page H4909]]

  But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has come in and it has 
basically begun to challenge the Internal Revenue Service for acting in 
the most unconstitutional ways. It may be a toss up now which one uses 
more unconstitutional authority than the other.
  For the CFPB to gather people's financial records when there is no 
evidence that they committed a crime, no evidence that any crime had 
been committed--they just gather evidence, purportedly, to make sure 
nobody is taking advantage of people--well, that is not the way our 
Constitution works. It is supposed to be that if a bank or a lender 
takes advantage of an individual, then the individual can complain; 
then their banking records can be obtained.
  But for a governmental entity to just gather people's financial 
records, it is not just Orwellian; it is outrageous, and it needs to 
stop. And as my colleague, Mr. Palmer, was pointing out, they have 
gotten--it was set up back when the Democrats had the majority, and 
they intentionally set up this governmental entity that would basically 
be beyond control by the Congress. They intentionally set up a group 
that could make a living hell for individuals or for banks, for others, 
because it is the government and it is gathering people's records.
  And then along comes--you had ObamaCare get passed. Well, in order to 
help people, just like the CFPB--and for my liberal friends, that is 
sarcasm--well, you are going to get everybody's healthcare records, 
that way the government can help people better because they will have 
all of their records.
  Well, some people, some liberal left-leaning folks would say: Well, 
we call that helping people. We gather all of their medical records and 
we gather all of their financial records so we can help them. But those 
who are Libertarian, Conservative, we don't consider that helping; we 
consider that abusive, and we don't need it.

                              {time}  1800

  One of the great honors and developments since I have been in 
Congress has been the development of a friendship with just an 
absolutely great patriotic American. He is a friend of mine, and he has 
come twice to sit in my seat in the gallery, most recently to hear 
President Trump deliver a State of the Union Address.
  Here is a story by Sean Hannity. It is entitled, ``Pull the plug on 
the Mueller-Comey witch hunt.''
  It says: ``Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is turning 
into a witch hunt and it needs to be shut down immediately.
  ``Ex-FBI Director James Comey, who admitted sparking the probe by 
leaking information to The New York Times, is nothing more than a 
calculating, cunning partisan political hack at home in the D.C. swamp. 
During last week's hearing, Comey admitted that he intentionally gave a 
memo to his friend hoping it would lead to appointment of a special 
counsel.
  ``'I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a 
reporter,' Comey told lawmakers. `Didn't do it myself for a variety of 
reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the 
appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine 
to do it.'
  ``What Comey is admitting to under oath cannot be overlooked here or 
understated. His end goal was the appointment of the special counsel, 
which just so happens to turn out to be his longtime friend, Robert 
Mueller.
  ``By leaking information, Comey could be putting himself again in 
serious legal trouble. If those memos were classified--and several 
legal experts are arguing they are--Comey may have broken the law. 
Comey created those memos on government computers in a government 
truck, making it property of the U.S. Government, not James Comey. In 
addition to that, there are nondisclosure agreements that the FBI rules 
that exist that Comey also could have violated.
  ``Leaks aside, Comey's relationship with Mueller is a massive 
conflict of interest. It is why it is time to now shut down this 
political witch hunt that is really aimed at stopping the President, 
delegitimizing him and hopefully, in the minds of some, making sure he 
gets thrown out of office. It is that serious.
  ``We have a guy, Comey, who is beyond disgruntled and angry after 
being fired by the President and now one of Comey's closest friends is 
leading the investigation as the special counsel. I don't care if you 
are left, right, Republican, Democrat, does that sound fair, honest, 
objective to you? Of course not.
  ``Conflict of interest rules disqualify Mueller from being special 
counsel in a case involving his pal. And if that is not bad enough, 
four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats.
  ``Not to mention, why did James Comey wait until his hearing last 
week to actually mention the fact that Loretta Lynch, the then-Attorney 
General, tried to interfere with an FBI investigation? He testified 
that she instructed him to soft-pedal his investigation by calling it a 
`matter.' This on top of her infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill 
Clinton.
  ``The real collusion that Mueller is never going to probe is not with 
President Trump and the Russians, it appears to be between the Clinton 
campaign, the Obama administration, Loretta Lynch and James Comey.''
  And I would add Mueller himself.
  ``Let's pull the plug on this witch hunt and go after the real 
lawbreakers.''
  So that is from FOX News.
  Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary what has come out. I already knew 
before all of this started that Robert Mueller--a great patriot who 
served this country in the Vietnam war, Bronze Star for courage and 
bravery--but he got into government, and he apparently wanted nothing 
but yes-men. He wanted yes-men and -women. He didn't want people who 
had been around for a while that could point out when he had a 
suggestion that was going to lead to trouble. He would rather have the 
trouble than have anybody point out such things. So he created a policy 
he called the 5-year, up-or-out program.
  We have FBI offices all over the country and local law enforcement 
that I have worked with so many times through so many years. And, as 
people know, you will have bad apples in every crowd, but I would 
submit that when you are talking about law enforcement, the percentage 
of bad apples is dramatically lower than you find in the general 
population at large. We are greatly blessed in that respect. But with 
all of the massive number of employees with the Department of Justice, 
Mueller has this 5-year, up-or-out policy.
  So if you were in a supervisory position of any kind for 5 years 
anywhere in the country, then at the end of the 5 years, you had to 
uproot your wife and your children--your family--and you had to move to 
Washington and be a minion among minions in the office here at the 
Department of Justice; or, if you weren't willing to uproot your family 
in the communities where they had gained so much credibility and were 
considered such an important part of law enforcement in the area, then 
you had to get out of the FBI. It is not that you weren't absolutely 
priceless and invaluable to law enforcement, it is that Bob Mueller did 
not want your experience where you might ever question him.
  So as an article--I believe it was in The Wall Street Journal--years 
ago pointed out, under his leadership, the FBI lost thousands upon 
thousands of years of experience. So we keep having people get killed 
around the country, and people wonder: How did the FBI not pick this 
up? How did the FBI not recognize this?
  Well, I recall when I got out of law school and I was an assistant 
DA, I would see criminal defense attorneys. I would think in my head--I 
would know in my head--I knew a whole lot more law than they did. Heck, 
I had won moot court; won a trip to London, England; at Baylor Law 
School, I won an award for best brief award--for that I had a partner. 
I won an award for a Law Review article on torts that I did. Gee, I was 
coming up against lawyers who hadn't won awards in law school like I 
had. So I am going: gee, this ought to be pretty easy. They are not 
near as smart as I am when it comes to the law.

  What I learned rather quickly in courtroom work is that knowledge of 
the law is extremely helpful, but experience is even more helpful: 
getting a feel and an understanding of human nature, learning to pick 
up different signs

[[Page H4910]]

from people, what they think about different things, when they are 
holding something back; when you are cross-examining somebody, when to 
know to keep going or when to know to stop. There are a lot of things 
you pick up over questioning thousands of people.
  Somebody right out of law school that knows every bit of the law is 
going to have a hard time competing with somebody that has a tremendous 
amount of experience in the courtroom with human nature.
  That is true of law enforcement. I have known law enforcement that 
just had an incredible knack for just knowing when people were lying. 
It is amazing to see some of our great law enforcement at work, as I 
have through my career.
  But FBI Director Robert Mueller didn't want them around. After you 
have been in a supervisory position for 5 years or more, you either 
come to Washington and take up your little cubicle or get out. Again, 
Robert Mueller did incalculable damage to the FBI, to its experience, 
to its ability to root out and find criminals. That experience that he 
ran off from the FBI was absolutely incalculable. It is just priceless.
  He also spent millions on a software program. Many tried to tell him: 
Wait, you have got us inputting stuff in a system that is not going to 
work. It doesn't fit our needs.
  I don't know if he had some relative there he got it from, why he was 
so sold on this terrible program. People tried to tell him, but those 
are the people he wanted out. He didn't want anybody questioning his 
brilliant intellect.
  As a result, they wasted a massive number of hours by FBI employees 
and wasted the millions that were spent on the program trying to make 
the program work. Later they had to scrap it. Why? Because he was 
talked into a bad program, and he wouldn't listen to anybody that tried 
to tell him about the problems.
  We also know that one of the reasons we continue to have people who 
were on the radar of the FBI--even questioned by the FBI--continue to 
get away with murder, literally, or be able to commit murder in America 
and commit terrorism involving murder, is because Robert Mueller tried 
to make radical Islamists who hate America and who want to overthrow 
our way of life feel better. So he brought in people to purge our 
training material in the FBI so that we wouldn't offend radical 
Islamists who want to kill us.
  Michele Bachmann and I reviewed much of the material that was purged. 
Lynn Westmoreland viewed some of it and he had to go, but it involved 
hours going through.
  Unfortunately--and obviously it was intentional--but the FBI, under 
Mueller, classified the purged materials so I couldn't have a blowup 
poster here to show something very important that FBI agents would need 
in order to understand radical Islam. So they classified that so I 
can't bring it down here and show people. Once again, the damage that 
FBI Director Robert Mueller did to the FBI was basically incalculable. 
I mentioned before, one of our intelligence guys said: We were blinded 
of our ability to see our enemy.
  We have Robert Mueller to thank, or CAIR, the Council on American-
Islamic Relations, that is always there to rush in and have a press 
conference after violence and say: We don't support this kind of 
violence.
  Though, clearly, when the evidence is reviewed, the Council on 
American-Islamic Relations--individuals involved in CAIR--ultimately 
wants to see sharia law as the law of the land. There are principals 
that should have been prosecuted as supporting terrorism.

                              {time}  1815

  There were scores of people that were listed as co-conspirators in 
supporting terrorism. Instead of pursuing those after the Holy Land 
Foundation trial convicted the principals involved--I think it was over 
100 counts of supporting terrorism--instead of being alerted and being 
more on his guard, FBI Director Mueller bent over backwards more and 
more to accommodate those who want to see Sharia law take over America 
and be the law of the land, scrapping our Constitution.
  At one time it was considered treason to want to scrap the 
Constitution and replace it with anything, but in Bob Mueller's 
America, people that wouldn't mind seeing the Constitution go away and 
be replaced by Sharia law, you want to develop an outreach program for 
those people.
  So instead of going to the Boston mosque, where the Tsarnaevs surely 
had to have indicated and shown signs of being radicalized, Robert 
Mueller and his FBI went to the mosque as part of an outreach program 
to make merry and play patty cake with people who could have 
established, if they were honest, that the Tsarnaev brothers had indeed 
been radicalized, the information from Russia was correct.
  Yet because, under Bob Mueller's leadership, the training materials 
were purged, FBI agents didn't know what they were looking for. They 
didn't know what scriptures in the Koran were referred to, were quoted 
by people who had been radicalized.
  They had no idea what to look for in speaking to Kim Jensen, who 
prepared over 700 pages of training materials so people in the FBI 
could learn radical Islam. His training materials were banned. They 
were supposed to have been destroyed, but after it became clear that 
the FBI could not recognize radical Islamists, that Mueller had done so 
much damage in regard to training FBI agents, it was finally decided 
that we kind of need to get somebody back in here and get some 
materials back in here so maybe we don't keep getting people killed in 
the country after we are alerted to somebody who has been radicalized 
as an Islamic terrorist and we let them go because we don't know they 
are radicalized because FBI Director Robert Mueller prevented our FBI 
from being trained to recognize radical Islam.
  I know there are some people who--not because they are aware of his 
virtues, but have heard other people say he is a great guy--just extoll 
his virtue, not realizing the kind of damage that has been done.
  As I mentioned last night, Mr. Speaker, you look at the damage that 
James Comey and Robert Mueller--really tight friends--have done to the 
country to an extent I didn't even realize until we started looking at 
the article by Mollie Hemmingway in The Federalist, which is rather 
breathtaking, and I had no idea until I read that.
  According to the article, Comey talked a very fine man, John 
Ashcroft, into recusing himself so he would not appoint a special 
prosecutor to find out who leaked the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA 
agent. He commits to Ashcroft: Recuse yourself and I will find somebody 
good.
  Mr. Comey likes to talk about conflicts of interest, unless they 
apply to himself.
  So Ashcroft recuses himself, and Mr. Comey, who convinced him to do 
so, looks high and low: Who could we possibly find to investigate and 
prosecute whoever it was that leaked information about Valerie Plame? 
Oh, how about my very dear friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, who happens also 
to be the Godfather of my child?
  So he likes to talk about conflict of interest and chummy 
relationships, unless they are his chummy relationships, in which case 
he just puts them in places which appear to be clear conflicts of 
interest. Which is no surprise that he was supportive and even 
manipulative in creating what appeared to be a need for a special 
prosecutor, which actually there was not a need for a special 
prosecutor at all. He just leaked information. There was a good chance 
he probably violated the law. He certainly should have violated his FBI 
employment agreement.
  Memos that he prepares as part of his job regarding meetings he had 
as part of his job, those should belong to the FBI under an employment 
agreement. I am sure that he has seen Presidents for whom he has worked 
take their own memos and take them back and use them to write books. 
Perhaps that is what he is thinking: I will take my memos that I 
personally prepared and I will be like a President and I will save my 
memos and use them to write a book.
  Of course, it turns out, with regard to this one memo that he wrote 
about his conversation with President Trump, he consulted with other 
members of the Justice Department, who all need to be fired, and 
colluded with them to figure out what should be done.
  There is no question these people are smart, or they wouldn't be 
where they were. They knew that if there was an obstruction of justice 
in which Trump

[[Page H4911]]

had engaged, then they would have to report it. Failing to report it 
would be a crime. They didn't. So we know there was no crime. What we 
know is they were conspiring and colluding to hurt the President of the 
United States.
  So we don't need a special prosecutor. We certainly don't need 
Mueller. He has done enough damage. It is time to let the special 
prosecutor go that Comey needlessly created.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________