[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5425-H5429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2015
HEALTHCARE ISSUES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear all the
rhetoric about Republican efforts that a majority of Americans have
wanted us to take. Going back to even before ObamaCare was passed, the
majority of Americans didn't want ObamaCare passed.
I have been amazed at some of the rhetoric from across the aisle, I
think from the former Speaker, who said something about how open their
process was.
Really?
Anyway, I know sometimes our memories aren't what they once were.
That was not a terribly open process. I believe the Speaker back then
said: We don't need any Republican vote and we don't want your input.
Basically those were the words I recall.
People were promised over and over again by the President of the
United States that if you like your insurance, you can keep your
insurance. On at least one occasion he even said the word ``period,''
there are no exceptions. If you like your insurance, you can keep your
insurance.
So it was quite disappointing. Some of us knew this was a disastrous
bill. I did read it. I didn't have to wait until Speaker Pelosi passed
it to find out what was in it. I read it and I knew it was going to be
a disaster.
Then, after it passed, we ultimately find out that they knew well in
advance that if you liked your insurance, there was a very good chance
you would not be able to keep your insurance, period. It wasn't true.
All those, including the President, went around saying: If you like
your insurance, you can keep it. According to statements after the fact
by people involved, yes, they talked about it and they knew people were
going to lose their insurance. They are going to lose their doctor,
they are going to lose their healthcare provider, but we can't say
those things and still pass this bill. We can't let that get out there.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just want people to remember how this disastrous
legislation ever came about in the first place, and how, going against
the will of the American people to pass the disastrous bill--around
2,500 pages is what my two volumes came to--but people knew it was
going to do lot of damage to people's health and their lives. As we
know, when you cannot get the healthcare you need or the lifesaving
healthcare you have been getting, you no longer live.
It is amazing now, after ObamaCare passed 7 years, to find out things
about the knowing design of ObamaCare. They knew that insurance
companies, under ObamaCare, were given incentives not to have the best
people to treat cancer, the best cancer healthcare providers, the best
cancer lifesavers in the network.
They had incentives under ObamaCare to not include the best
physicians and hospitals that will save the lives of people who have
cancer; don't include the best healthcare providers that will help
those save their
[[Page H5426]]
lives, or at least prolong the lives of those with AIDS; don't include
in your insurance coverage the best healthcare providers for those with
heart problems.
If you don't include the best healthcare providers for cancer, AIDS,
heart problems, or whatever it is, then people who are going to cost
you a lot of money will not likely choose your insurance.
It was all part of the design to implode healthcare in America,
destroy the broken system we had so that people would eventually throw
up their hands and say: Well, I didn't originally want healthcare, but
surely anything will be better than what we have.
Apparently, from the beginning, the intention was to set it up to
give Big Pharma, to give some insurance companies, basically, not only
incentives, but mandates that would force their prices ever upward. As
Big Pharma knew, they were going to make profits like they had never
made in their history.
As I have told some of the Representatives before, when they signed
onto ObamaCare, they basically signed your own death warrant. Yes, you
will make tens, maybe hundreds of billions more than you have in the
past, but eventually it will lead to your industry being controlled by
the government in such a way that you will be like pharmaceutical
companies in Third World countries where they are allowed to collect
the costs of production and maybe a small percentage above that, which
means there are no new lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs being produced
in countries like that. Eventually, down the road, ObamaCare would
destroy the incentives to create new lifesaving drugs and it would be
the end of this incredible run of decades of the most incredible
advances in medicine in the history of the world.
Some medical historians say that maybe 100 years or so ago, protocols
around the time of World War I were the line of demarcation in our
history. Somewhere around the early 20th century, early 1900s, there
was a point where--before that point in time, if you went to a doctor,
your odds were better of getting worse. If you go to a doctor seeking
help for a healthcare problem, the odds were you would get worse. On
the other side of that line, in the early 1900s, was a point that if
you went to a doctor for healthcare help, your odds of getting well
were better than of getting worse.
So it is pretty remarkable, if those historians are right, that for
the thousands of years of recorded history, it is only the last 100
years where you had a chance of getting better if you sought medical
help than of getting worse if you got medical help.
Look at what has happened since then. It is just incredible,
especially since the 1950s. I would submit that the Founders' vision in
creating copyright and patent protection for intellectual creations and
thought helped drive those developments in healthcare. It made a lot of
people wealthy. But there is nothing like real incentive, more luxury,
more freedom, more enjoyment because of the huge rewards of great
intellectual creations. Healthcare had just become incredible.
I began to notice after I got to Congress that my friends across the
aisle were completely skewing the massive difference between health
insurance and healthcare. Health insurance was an even newer thing to
most Americans. For healthcare--as we say, maybe the historians are
right--it is around 100 years ago that, for the first time, you had a
better chance of getting better than you had of getting worse after
seeking a doctor's help. But wow, the advances, the progress that was
made.
The more the government interferes and dictates who gets what, the
more rationed care you get, the less advances in healthcare, the less
incentives there are to create lifesaving, life-enhancing medications.
When government is the most powerful player in healthcare, you will
always end up with rationed healthcare.
Some point to the situation with the small child, Charlie Gard, in
the U.K. They say that is what happens when you have bureaucrats
deciding who gets to live and who has to die. But the more appropriate
analysis, I think, is they are not actually deciding so much the
ultimate conclusion of who gets to live and who has to die, but what
they are really doing to get there is deciding, rationing, which lives,
in the opinion of government bureaucrats, are more important or may be
more helpful to the socialist movement, to the bureaucratic
entrenchment than someone else.
If you are perceived by the government bureaucracy or the government
bureaucrats, the D.C. bureaucrats as being a threat to more
government--more powerful government, more control of the individual,
if you are a threat to those things, then you can pretty well be
assured that when your situation is analyzed by the bureaucrats, you
are not going to be eligible for the lifesaving medications and you are
not going to be eligible for the hip replacement because we looked at
your age and you have had a nice life and it is time to give it up. We
don't have enough for everybody to have everything we want, so we in
Washington will decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Actually,
we decide who gets what treatment.
In the case of Charlie Gard, it is not a lack of concern about life;
it is just in the opinion of the bureaucrats, where it always goes with
socialized medicine. We only have limited government resources,
therefore, we have to be careful whom we help. In their opinion,
Charlie Gard may not make it.
{time} 2030
The way Americans, a majority of Americans, at least, used to feel
was every life is worth trying to protect. Of course, along came Roe v.
Wade and made clear only those lives are worthy of protecting if a
mother wants to protect them.
We even had people in the previous administration that had voted,
made the pronouncement through their actions and votes, statements,
that even if a child is born alive after an attempted abortion, in the
opinion of those individuals, like our former President, you still
should be able to kill the child even if the child is born alive
because the mother wanted the child aborted, so go ahead and kill the
child.
I am grateful for all the stalwarts over the years, but I believe we
have seen a change in that philosophy in the realization, like with the
heartbeat bill, that says, in essence, if a child has a heartbeat, they
are a living person and may not be aborted.
So it is an interesting time here in America, but it has now resulted
in a lot of rhetoric that is really outrageous. You know, I have said
for years here on this floor that, with all the allegations,
statements, verbal wars that have gone on across the aisle, you know,
we know that no one on the Democratic side wants to harm people, wants
people hurt. We don't question their motives, and yet, as I am in my
office hearing friends across the aisle--okay, I am using the term
``friends'' loosely--but hearing them use terms about how we want
people to die. We have come to a sad place in our history.
This story, June 30, from FOX News, was reporting on statements made
by some individuals. This quote said--this is from Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren: ``These Medicaid cuts are blood money. People
will die. Let's be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax
cuts for the wealthy with American lives.''
Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' to
predict thousands would die if a projected 23 million drop or lose
their insurance. And Senator Sanders accused Republicans of trading
healthcare for tax breaks to the rich: ``Is this what America is
supposed to be about, taking away health insurance from kids with
disabilities, from people with cancer in order to give tax breaks to
the billionaires?
``Let us be clear, and this is not trying to be overly dramatic:
Thousands of people will die if the Republican healthcare bill becomes
law.''
Well, you want to fact-check that, of course. If the Republicans'
healthcare bill, whatever it says in the Senate, is passed, thousands
of people will die. If the bill is not passed, thousands of people will
die. So I guess we can't say it is not true. People are going to die
whether it passes or not, but the implication is that Republicans,
through their efforts, are going to kill people.
What I would just like is an acknowledgment from our friends across
the aisle, like Senator Sanders, that there
[[Page H5427]]
have been people since ObamaCare has passed who lost their insurance,
lost their healthcare provider, didn't get the treatments they needed,
their way of life was harmed; and there are bound to have been a lot of
people who died sooner than they would have earlier if the President's
words had not been hollow that, if you like your insurance, you can
keep your insurance, and if ObamaCare had not rewarded insurance
companies for not including places like MD Anderson, treating for
cancer, or good healthcare providers.
Obviously, if they have the best healthcare providers for cancer, for
these other life-ending diseases, then people will use their insurance,
drive up the cost; so it really created an incentive for insurance
companies not to get the best end-of-life treaters in their network. To
their credit, some have, but many haven't. So it has been amazing.
Here is other rhetoric. The former Senator, Hillary Clinton, said:
``Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death
party.''
I mean, maybe that is one of the reasons she didn't win. I mean, that
is just an outrageous thing to say.
This article goes on to say: ``Some Democrats traveled the country to
ring the alarm. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper came to Washington
to lobby against the measure, which he said was immoral and would lead
to 100,000 deaths by 2026.''
Now, there is this liberal group, apparently, Center for American
Progress, liberal think tank--I don't know what their tank is full of,
but it is obviously more socialistic thinking. But according to this
liberal group, the Center of American Progress, if 23 million fewer
people have health insurance, then the coverage losses from the Senate
bill would result in 27,700 additional deaths in 2026 and 217,000 over
the decade.
Well, isn't that interesting. There is nothing that they can
adequately point to as a factual basis. Any citing of CBO, whose margin
of error on ObamaCare could have been anywhere from plus or minus 200
to 400 percent--CBO is not a source that should ever be cited with a
straight face. They just shouldn't be.
I agree with my friend, Dr. Arthur Laffer, that when it comes to tax
reform, we just need to forget CBO. They don't know ``sic `em'' from
``come here.'' They explain, yes, they create these models, so they
don't really come up with a score. They create models that provide us
the scores: garbage in, garbage out.
So it has just gotten to be a sad state of affairs because people are
hurting across America. And I know there is apparently 25 percent in my
district. I have heard them. I understand they want to keep ObamaCare.
They want to move towards socialism. They like the government having so
much control over their lives. Just go ahead and check them into an
Orwellian center and let them enjoy Big Brother taking care of them.
But I do represent their best interests, and I think the 75 percent
in my district are right about what will be best, that ObamaCare needs
to be repealed. We need to get relationships back between a patient and
a doctor without an insurance company or a government in between them--
except for very rare occasions--as it once was. It used to be the
government didn't have anything to say much at all about that other
than having the FDA, things like that. But insurance companies came
along, and they were only for catastrophic problems, so we still had
complete control of our healthcare.
I do appreciate, greatly appreciate, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi referencing the need to honor God. That means a lot to me. Her
statement that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of
worship, to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us, but
if the government is big and strong enough to say who gets healthcare
and who doesn't, who gets treatment, who gets the lifesaving care and
who doesn't, then that is to put government in the place of God, and
nothing dishonors God more than to have any person or any entity that
believes it is the substitute for God.
The United States Government is not a substitute for God. Without
God's blessing, as our Founders repeatedly made clear, we wouldn't have
even the freedom we have today.
Joseph Schmitz, on July 5, wrote a terrific article, and it is
absolutely worth every Republican taking note of. I would encourage my
friends across the aisle to take note of it, but I understand their
positions. They cannot participate in the repeal of ObamaCare because
they staked the majority--well, they staked future socialism on this
bill.
Mr. Schmitz says: ``In early 2016, Congress passed H.R. 3762, a law
that would have repealed most of ObamaCare. On January 8, 2016, Obama
vetoed that would-be ObamaCare Repeal Act.
``240 years earlier, Congress declared `to a candid world' that, `The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute tyranny over these States.' Among other usurpations
specified in the Declaration of Independence, `He' ''--talking about
the king--`` `has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither
swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.'
``Our 1776 Declaration of Independence concluded, `We, therefore, the
representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress,
assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world' ''--that is not
the government. That is appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world--``
`for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority
of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that
these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent
states; . . . and for the support of this declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'
``In July 2017, Congress should likewise acknowledge the `swarms of
officers' harassing our good people under the guise of ObamaCare and
reenact the 2016 ObamaCare Repeal Act.
``Note well below the revenue-raising nature of the ObamaCare repeal
sections of H.R. 3762, keeping in mind that ObamaCare originated in
2009 as the `Senate Health Care bill,' and the Constitution provides
that, `All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives.' '' That is Article I, section 7, clause 1.
{time} 2045
And he goes on for quite some time to cite all the different sections
in ObamaCare that actually make it a revenue-raising bill. Section 204
has the individual mandate mandating people have to pay money and buy
something; section 205, an employer mandate mandating that they must
pay a massive tax like the individual or pay for insurance, buy a
product. For the first time in American history, citizens are required
to buy a product, employers are ordered to buy a product. Section 206,
Federal payments to the States; section 209, repeal of the tax on
employee health insurance premiums and health plan benefits; section
210, repeal of the tax on over-the-counter medications.
I am sorry. These are the names of the sections in the House bill.
Those were not in ObamaCare. These are the provisions in the House bill
that would repeal all these taxes, as Chief Justice Roberts called
them.
So these are all good sections, is what Joe Schmitz is pointing out,
individual mandate, employer mandate, getting rid of those, Federal
payments to States. It is just taking out a repeal of the employee tax.
So there we go. It is eliminating so much of the taxes on individuals,
repeal of the tax on over-the-counter medications.
This was the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, who passed
this legislation, ObamaCare, the ACA. They put a tax on over-the-
counter medications, they put a tax on employee health insurance
premiums and a tax on health plan benefits, and they put a tax on
health savings accounts. They had already paid money on that that went
in it, but anyway.
So the Republican bill that President Obama vetoed, it would repeal
limitations on contributions to flexible spending accounts. You can put
as much as you want in there. It would repeal the tax on prescription
medication. ObamaCare actually put a tax on your precious prescription
medications that are saving people's lives.
[[Page H5428]]
Anybody who would have the gall after voting for all these taxes put
on the backs of poor people who can't even hardly afford their
prescriptions as they are, and, yes, they have been skyrocketing under
ObamaCare, and to say that Republicans are trying to harm people and
dishonor God, for Heaven's sake, read your own bill.
They put a tax on medical devices. Senior citizens who had to have
help moving or walking, you got to pay a tax on that, and we don't care
if you can't afford the tax and you can't move around anymore. We are
the government.
That was the ACA, ObamaCare, that put that tax in place, and another
health insurance tax in the bill, and it eliminated the deduction for
expenses allocatable to Medicare part D subsidies. It placed a tax
called a chronic care tax, there was a Medicare tax increase, there was
a tanning tax, there was a net investment tax, all kinds of taxes in
ObamaCare. They hammered the American people.
We were promised--President Obama stood right there and promised no
money would pay for abortions under his healthcare bill, under the
healthcare bill they were going to pass. That is what he said. He said
no people illegally in the United States were going to get their
healthcare on the backs of people in America legally. Both of those
were not true. It turns out Joe Wilson was prescient.
It is time to wake up. We were sent back into the majority because
ObamaCare was passed, and we are going to be sent back in the minority,
appropriately, if we don't repeal it.
President Trump has made clear in a recent tweet: Look, if you guys
can't pass the replacement now, at least pass the repeal, then we can
start moving together on a replacement.
Surely the Democrats will want to come and not be so obstructionist
once their precious ObamaCare has been struck down; then maybe they
will actually work with us to create a better system, but it is time to
wake up, it is time to repeal ObamaCare.
Now, I want to touch on one other subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is
involving all this mess, these allegations about Russia.
It was not Donald J. Trump nor any Republican who told the Russians--
the Russian leaders, actually: I will have a lot more flexibility after
the election.
That can only mean one thing: I am going to give away a lot more of
America's strength, helping you out in Russia. As you are trying to get
stronger, I am going to give away a lot more of our strength, maybe our
edge over your military. I will have more ability to give that away
after I am elected to a second term. Tell Vladimir.
It was not a Republican, certainly not anyone associated with Donald
Trump, who went to Russia with a supposed reset button, couldn't get
the translation right, but wanting to reset the relationship.
And for those who didn't follow history well back then, the reason
there was a strain in the relationship between the United States and
Russia was because George W. Bush as President of the United States
stood on principle, and when the country of Russia, under Putin,
attacked Georgia, President Bush, appropriately, was outraged, and he
pushed for sanctions to let Russia know that the United States does not
approve of Russia attacking sovereign countries.
So the message that President Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted to get
across to Putin and the Russians was, with a wink and lots of pats and
happy times: Look, George W. Bush as President, we think, overreacted
when you attacked Georgia, you know. So we want to let you know we want
a reset button, because under President Obama and me, Hillary Clinton,
we are not going to overreact when you attack neighboring sovereign
countries. We are okay with that, see, and we want things reset. We are
not going to get upset like Bush did when you attacked a neighboring
country.
That is the message that came across very loud and clear to Putin and
those around him.
I would like to think I learned during my summer as an exchange
student in the Soviet Union a little bit about the way a lot of
Russians think. I get surprised when people say: It is so hard to read
Putin. No, it is not. The man was part of the KGB. He wants the glory
days of the old Soviet Union back even though they were built on a
skeleton that could never maintain the weight that such a Socialist
country was putting on that frame.
So then we find out here, this was back in January, January 11, 2017,
an article in Politico of all places, surprise, surprise, by Kenneth P.
Vogel and David Stern, it says: ``Ukrainian government officials tried
to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his
fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top
Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's
allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a
Politico investigation found.
``A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the
Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top
campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct
knowledge of the situation.''
This is Politico reporting on the collusion between Hillary Clinton,
her campaign, and the country of Ukraine to stop and defeat Trump.
Now, where has the Politico reporting on this issue been since
January? I appreciate them pointing this out back in January, but
apparently at this point back in January, Politico had not yet gotten
the word from their friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: hey,
hey, kind of soft-pedal that stuff where we colluded with the
Ukrainians to try to take Trump out, because we are going to make that
a big allegation about Trump and the Russians, so kind of back off
that. Let's take the spotlight off that one.
The article goes on: ``The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the
race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the
narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe
to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally
directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic
emails.
``Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President
Vladimir Putin. . . . ''
So they go on and try to do what they can to help, you know, salvage
some respect for the Democrats here. There is little evidence of such a
top-down effort by Ukraine, but the fact is Ukraine did collude with
Hillary Clinton's campaign, and they were successful in helping the
Trump campaign, Manafort had to be fired, and they are still trying to
create clouds surrounding that. But anyway, how about that?
Well, it leads to one conclusion, and that is that it is part of the
evidence that we have got to have an independent counsel, and I don't
mean Robert Mueller. I am talking about an independent counsel, not one
that is bosom buddies with Comey; and not one that can't stand Trump;
and not one that is going to run out, not hire any Republicans for his
staff who love Trump, but just hire people who can't stand him and
wanted Hillary elected.
This is a guy who has been vindictive, who has worked closely with
Comey in the past, and he is in no position whatsoever to judge
anything about James Comey.
If you go back and look at what is required under 28 CFR 45.2, it
provides that a Department of Justice attorney should not participate
in investigations that may involve entities or individuals with whom
the attorney has a political or personal relationship.
Mueller and Comey are buddies. They have closely consulted on so many
things.
{time} 2100
For example, this story from June 7, 2017, by Josh Siegel, says:
``Former FBI Director Jim Comey `closely coordinated' with Special
Counsel Robert Mueller before his planned testimony before the Senate
Intelligence Committee about his interactions with President Trump.
``FOX News reported a source close to Comey said the former FBI
Director consulted with Mueller about how to approach Thursday's Senate
Intelligence Committee hearing. The Department of Justice appointed
Mueller
[[Page H5429]]
special counsel to lead the investigation of Russia's involvement in
the 2016 election, and any possible collusion with the Trump campaign.
Mueller and Comey were longtime colleagues at the Justice Department,
and legal experts say it would not be unusual for a special counsel to
be in contact with somebody who is a party to its investigation.''
Mueller and Comey were longtime colleagues at the Justice Department.
Well, anyway, there needs to be an independent counsel who will
investigate the goings-on between Robert Mueller and James Comey with
the recent revelations about Comey's very apparent release of
classified information.
Bob Mueller is not in a position to judge him. And a great piece of
evidence that Robert Mueller is not fit to be the special counsel
investigating this matter is the fact that he didn't recuse himself
because of his close relationship with Comey, and how Comey is a
critical witness in what he accuses Trump of, which doesn't seem to
really be a crime.
But, based on Comey's testimony before the Senate, it bears going
back and looking at a normal FBI employment agreement that says: I will
surrender upon demand by the FBI or upon my separation from the FBI all
materials containing FBI information in my possession.
They also have a breach of contract case there because the FBI
Director carried stuff with him, that he prepared on his government
time with his government equipment, saved with his government
equipment, and passed on, apparently, with his government equipment,
that appears to have been classified, according to the new releases
coming out now.
If you look at Comey's conduct in the past, as this article from
Mollie Hemingway on June 12, 2017, pointed out, he had pressured John
Ashcroft to recuse himself from the responsibility of investigating the
supposed, the alleged, leak of Valerie Plame's identity. It turns out
the prosecutor knew on day one who it was--Richard Armitage--but he
wasn't honest enough to say: ``We know. I don't need to spend millions
and millions of dollars of government tax dollars and waste thousands
and thousands of hours investigating. We know the answer.''
No, no, no. This was Comey's dear friend, Patrick Fitzgerald--not
just a close personal friend, but godfather to one of his children--and
Comey gave the role of special counsel into that leak on Valerie
Plame's identity. It was Comey who gave that to Patrick Fitzgerald, his
close friend.
What a travesty that turned out to be. That was a fraud upon the
American Government by Patrick Fitzgerald. He knew on day one the
answer to his investigation, but he wanted a scalp, so he wasted a
tremendous amount of time trying to get one. A 3-year investigation.
And what did he end up doing?
Fitzgerald ended up prosecuting ``Scooter Libby for''--as she says--
``wait for it, obstruction of justice. Comey was unconcerned about the
jailing of journalists and never threatened to resign over this
infringement on First Amendment freedoms.''
So, since Mueller did not have the moral sense to recuse himself when
he was offered this special counsel job because of his close personal
relationship with James Comey and who he has hired since then, it is
very clear, the President is not going to be able to fire him, because
there would be such screaming about the Saturday Night Massacre.
Mueller knew that, and this is part of his vindictiveness. When it
became clear from Comey's testimony that there was no conclusion with
Russia by President Trump, then he leaks out that: Oh, I am
investigating the President for obstruction of justice.
Why would he do that?
Because by leaking out that he was now investigating the President--
if the President fired him after he leaks out that he is investigating
the President, then you would have the allegations of the Saturday
Night Massacre and all this kind of stuff.
So the only way forward is the appointment by President Donald Trump
of an independent counsel that is truly independent.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need someone who has been contributing to
Hillary Clinton or to Barack Obama or to any major Democrat or to any
major Republican. We need somebody that is going to be a fair arbiter
in this pursuit of justice so that he can investigate Mueller fairly
and impartially. And the relationship, whether Comey and Mueller
consulted, as they did on so many things, like his Senate testimony,
about some of the things--well, like the leak that Comey testified to
that appears, potentially, to have been a crime.
We need to know what Mueller knew. Obviously, Robert Mueller is not
going to resign, so the President couldn't very well fire him. But we
have got to get to the bottom and find out what really happened so that
justice is done.
The projecting by one group of people on the Republican Party conduct
they engaged in and projecting it on the Republican Party as if it was
they that did what this group did, it is time to have all this
investigated. We are not going to get it with Mueller, a dear friend of
Comey. It is time to have a true independent counsel.
The only one way we can do that appropriately is if President Trump
finds somebody truly independent, truly not a political animal, who can
investigate. And that is not Rosenstein, that is for sure, as well.
Then we can get to the bottom and see that justice is done.
So here is our work. Let's stay here and work until we get ObamaCare
repealed, tax reform passed and signed into law, and let's encourage
the President to appoint independent counsel so that we can finally see
justice in this case, where currently all we have is what one friend
referred to as a big fraternity party among the Muellers and Comeys and
their buddies in that fraternity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________