[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 46 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2737-H2741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1115
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as most Members are heading back home, I
was reminded in the elevator of someone who said: Well, you know, you
guys are getting off this week. I have told friends and some of the
media that you guys take vacations all the time.
I explained: You don't want us in session every day. Every day we are
in session, we pass something that could be law restraining you in
furtherance of your freedoms.
It is a good thing when Members of Congress go home, as most of us
do. It is tougher for those on the West Coast, but most of us go home
each weekend during recesses or maybe a quick trip to speak here or
there just outside of the district. But it is a good thing for Members
of Congress to go home and to hear from people back home. That is good.
Anyway, sometimes the rigors at home are even more than we face here.
There are at least three things I want to address today. One of them
is information that has come out.
I was there for a number of the depositions that were taken behind
closed doors of witnesses--formerly from the Justice Department, some
still with the Justice Department--regarding what Gregg Jarrett called
``The Russia Hoax,'' and he documents why that sounds like an
appropriate title.
There is an article from FOX News about this by Gregg Re. This quoted
Lisa Page. She was an interesting witness. It was interesting watching
her testify.
As a former judge who has tried a tremendous number of cases in
Federal court, State court, and military court, it is interesting
watching people testify. Most you can get a little tell when they are
being dishonest, but it has been amazing to me, especially since I have
been in Congress, how many people can look you in the eye and lie. You
know they are lying; they know they are lying; and often you can see
they don't care. People like that are often able to pass polygraph
tests because you have got to have a conscience. You cannot have numbed
your conscience to the point that you are not affected by your own
lying anymore.
Lisa Page's presentation as she testified was tremendously different
from Peter Strzok as he testified behind closed doors. It was amazing
to watch that guy. Because of his answers, I knew he was lying. And it
appeared to me that there were no tells, that he just didn't seem to be
bothered by the fact and that he could sit there and lie under oath. I
thought perhaps he would be a great candidate to pass a lie detecter
test when he is lying.
But then somebody told me, actually, he failed two lie detecter tests
in the FBI, but somebody like Lisa Page removed those from his file. It
is great to have friends to help you out when you do wrong and they can
cover for you.
And I am being sarcastic, for friends who cannot figure that out.
But the article points out that former FBI lawyer, Lisa Page,
testified: ``The FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider
charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of
classified information.''
It goes on and says: ``Page's testimony was perhaps the most salient
evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the
FBI's supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton's criminal
culpability''--well, stating that that came from John Ratcliffe, a
colleague of ours from Texas, here in Congress. He was questioning her,
and he says: ``But when you say advice you got from the Department,
you're making it sound like it was the Department''--talking about the
Department of Justice--``that told you: You're not going to charge
gross negligence because we're the prosecutors and we're telling you
we're not going to--''
And Lisa Page interrupted and said: ``That is correct.''
Lisa Page also testified that ``the DOJ and FBI had multiple
conversations . . . about charging gross negligence,'' and the DOJ
decided that the term was ``constitutionally vague,'' which is really
interesting because as a judge, as a lawyer, I tried cases in which
gross negligence was alleged. I am not aware of any court case ever
indicating that gross negligence was unconstitutionally vague. Maybe
there is a case that says that. I am not aware of one.
But if there were to be one from the Supreme Court, then there would
be massive criminal and civil judgments that would be due to be undone
and be reversed because most lawyers who have done any research, tried
any
[[Page H2738]]
cases, or done adequate reading know that the term ``gross negligence''
is not unconstitutionally vague, nor is it negligence.
Now, different States in the Federal Government may have slightly
different definitions of negligence and gross negligence, but they are
substantially the same. It has just never been a problem with
constitutional vagueness from the term ``gross negligence.''
Understanding that, it would bring one to the conclusion, if Lisa
Page is correct, that the prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department
were saying Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent handling classified
material but gross negligence is too vague so we are not going to
charge her, then it shows one of two things: the Obama DOJ had some of
the most ignorant lawyers in the country working there, or the Obama
DOJ had some exceedingly dishonest lawyers working there. You choose.
Going back to the article, it says: ``In July 2016, then-FBI Director
James Comey''--parenthetically, I would insert, another real peach--
``publicly announced at a bombshell press conference that Clinton had
been `extremely careless' in handling classified information. . . .
Federal law states that gross negligence in handling the Nation's
intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines, and
there is no requirement that defendants act intentionally. . .
. Originally, Comey accused the former Secretary of State of being
`grossly negligent' ''--using that term ``grossly negligent''--``in
handling classified information in a draft dated May 2, 2016, but that
was modified to claim that Clinton had merely been `extremely careless'
in a draft dated June 10, 2016.''
Comey also said: ``Although there is evidence of potential violations
of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information''--I
mean, I am sure the guy from the Navy that snapped a few pictures on a
submarine and had absolutely no ill intent whatsoever, though he
apparently was acting recklessly and ended up doing prison time, I am
sure he would love to know that there was such a high standard applied
to Hillary Clinton while he, who put his life on the line, ended up
having to do prison time for far less mens rea than, according to
Comey, what Hillary Clinton had.
``Then-Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
spotted meeting secretly with former President Bill Clinton on an
airport tarmac as the probe into Hillary Clinton, which Lynch was
overseeing, continued.''
And that is pretty amazing: two planes just happen to sit down and
get over to where two people can get together. If it weren't for the
reporter who spotted a guy he thought to be Bill Clinton, we would
never have known about this.
I wonder how many DOJ officials would have lied about this if no one
had spotted it. I mean, they lied enough about other things, but they
got busted being seen out in a remote spot on the tarmac get-together
while the DOJ jury was still out on what they were going to do about
Hillary Clinton and she had not testified.
And then we find out, actually, they never had her testify. They gave
immunity to her lawyer, Cheryl Mills, and all these people who had
direct evidence of potential crimes.
And the prosecutors--and I have been one. You don't give immunity to
someone without knowing what they are going to say. If a lawyer comes
to you and says, ``My client wants immunity,'' then you say, ``Give us
a proffer. What is your client going to say?'' Because we are not just
handing out immunity and then there is nothing worth giving immunity to
get.
Yet the Obama Justice Department handed out immunity like candy to
anybody, it appeared, who was associated and had evidence of potential
crimes. They could have gotten a subpoena and gotten laptops of the
witnesses, but, instead, the Obama Justice Department said: Do you know
what? We will give you immunity not knowing what you are going to say
because we really don't want you to say anything.
That is my interpretation, after having read the immunity agreement.
And, look, the evidence you have got, we just want to look, but we
promise you we will never use any of it and we will give the stuff
back. We just want to look.
That is outrageous. Were these prosecutors that incompetent or were
they that dishonest? It is up to individuals to judge for themselves.
But to use a term coined by James Comey, no reasonable prosecutor would
have done what they did in that case. They sure didn't do it when they
were trying to chase down anything they possibly could regarding our
current President, Donald Trump.
It was revealed last month that FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought
Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were
mishandling `` `highly classified' information based on the obviously
sensitive nature of the emails' content sent through her private
server. And he believed''--this is the FBI's top lawyer--``that she''--
Hillary Clinton--``should have been prosecuted until `pretty late' in
the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door
testimony before congressional committees last October.''
{time} 1130
And, of course, being pretty late in the investigation, actually goes
along with what Lisa Page said; that DOJ prosecutors said, we are not
charging her.
And then that ties in nicely with the FBI lawyers saying, Okay, I
thought she should have been prosecuted. But then it ties in, by the
time the DOJ lawyers/prosecutors said ``we are not charging her,'' then
he decided, Okay, maybe she shouldn't be.
Among the texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok was one concerning
the so-called ``insurance policy.''
During her interview with the Judiciary Committee, July 2018, Page
was questioned at length about the texts, and essentially referred to
the Russia investigation, the insurance policy referred to the Russia
investigation, while explaining that officials were proceeding with
caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting
to go at a total breakneck speed and risk burning sources, as they
presumed Trump would be elected anyway.
Further, Lisa Page confirmed investigators only had a paucity of
evidence at the start.
Comey, last December, similarly acknowledged that when the FBI
initiated its counterintelligence probe and possible collusion between
Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government in July 2016,
investigators, ``didn't know whether we had anything,'' and that, ``in
fact, when I was fired as Director in May 2017, I still didn't know
whether there was anything to it.''
And that was from Comey.
Trey Gowdy had asked, ``I want to believe the path you threw out in
Andy McCabe's office, that there is no way he gets elected, but I am
afraid we can't take the risk. It is like an insurance policy in the
unlikely event you die before you are 40.'' And that was the quote from
the text sent from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page in August of 2016.
So clearly, they were talking about coming up with this bogus Russia
investigation as an insurance policy just in case Donald Trump got
elected, then they could try to take him out of office, basically, a
DOJ coup for the first time in the history of this country.
And, unfortunately, there is no George Washington around to stop this
attempted coup that continues today.
``So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation''--
which was the name that these DOJ officials who have been shown to have
acted totally inappropriately; that is the name they gave the
investigation into Donald Trump--it goes on to say ``we had a number of
the discussions up through and including the Director regularly in
which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which
is, is there somebody associated with the Trump campaign who is working
with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary
Clinton? And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed
and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.''
It is really amazing.
You see, the way our justice is supposed to work in the United
States, and in every State in the union, if you have probable cause to
believe a crime
[[Page H2739]]
was committed, then you can go after someone for that crime.
In the case of Donald Trump, his campaign, and those that worked with
him, they did just the opposite. They said, Here is Donald Trump, he
has got a chance of winning--though we don't think he will--so let's
try to find something.
And if you go back and look, you can find an Op Ed written by, I
believe, Bruce Ohr. And basically, it was from 2007 talking about
Russia collusion. And, of course, Donald Trump was not mentioned at
all. And then when they came up with this Russia hoax investigation
without any evidence at all, there are indications that somebody--
perhaps Brennan--had asked the British to spy on Americans so it
wouldn't be Americans spying on Americans, which is not supposed to
happen unless there is probable cause to believe they have engaged in a
crime or--under the Patriot Act--that they are conspiring with a known
foreign terrorist.
That is what we were sold when the Patriot Act was reauthorized.
But as we have come to find out that has been greatly loosened up by
the DOJ, CIA, NSA, and they pretty much go after everybody they want
to.
I found out--I had not been aware of it until this week--that clear
back in 2012, the Obama Justice Department made a motion to the FISA
court to allow them to unmask information about American citizens if--
under this new incredibly relaxed language--it might be of assistance
to someone outside the scope that is supposed to be allowed to see this
information, if it might assist them in assessing other information.
Well, it doesn't get much more vague than that. And I know from
having been on the Judiciary Committee for years, that until the Obama
Administration, I had a lot of colleagues on the other side of the
aisle that were extremely concerned with privacy issues and the
government gathering evidence without probable cause and the government
violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Somehow during those years, I lost my colleagues on the other side
that quit being as concerned about privacy invasions and Fourth and
Fifth Amendment violations, but I am not aware of anybody on our
Judiciary Committee that knew about this motion to just blow the door
wide open. And, I think, against the wording of the law, they came up
with a motion and got a judge to sign off, apparently, to say, Okay,
yes, you can unmask and spread information to anybody outside the
originally indicated circle, if it might help them assess other
information.
For Heaven's sake, that is an outrage. I couldn't believe it when I
was reading that motion.
And what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, it is not classified. It was
ordered declassified back years ago. But I haven't met anybody here in
Congress that was aware that in 2012, back at that time, the Obama DOJ
was going to blow the door open and start spreading information that
people should never have had it, making sure they got it.
And perhaps, that explains to some extent how somebody like Samantha
Power could have, I think it was hundreds of American citizens'
information unmasked. I mean, basically, they were running our
intelligence agency as a political operation to go after anyone that
they felt like might be a potential problem for a Democratic
administration.
Very, very alarming.
This article from Town Hall is really talking about the bill H.R. 1.
I love the idea of making information more public. It was called For
the People legislation. This article says that is really for the
government. I would submit it is really more for Democratic
politicians. The things in there that would degrade our election
process are phenomenal.
We really ought to be going back to paper ballots; that would be the
appropriate thing to do, and put proper safeguards on those ballots. I
think it would be a good thing to do.
I also like Ron Kind's bill--he has been filing ever since he has
been here--that would require each person seeking Federal elected
office to disclose the identity of anyone who donates anything. You
have got a $200 floor. And I like what Ron Kind, my colleague on the
other side of the aisle, his bill he has been pushing for years, you
know, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, we want to eliminate
this having people donate without knowing who is donating.
It leaves open the possibility--and surely, it has happened--that
somebody with a lot of money could give $50, $50, $150, over and over
and over.
And since you don't have to report it, who it came from, they could
be violating--and criminally violating--our election laws.
So I hope that we will have some cleanup of election laws, but not
the kind of thing that allows you to go out and harvest votes that
didn't happen until after the election.
We have an election day in this country. And to leave that election
open so that you could have a Lyndon Johnson style of finding votes
after the fact--whether they voted in alphabetical order or not--is
just not a good idea. It leaves an opening for stealing elections.
We have an election day, and there ought to be a cutoff; no ballots
accepted after this day, at this time. And don't come bringing in a
bunch of ballots the next day after you find out how many ballots it is
going to take to overturn the election that finished the day before.
I mean, it is third world-type activity with this election. If we
heard that a dictator somewhere had put into place some of the things
in H.R. 1, we would be outraged and say that is what a dictator does,
and it is not right. You are trying to manipulate the election, and it
is totally inappropriate.
Another topic that is, I think, very important, we took up in
Judiciary Committee a bill called the Violence Against Women Act; it
hadn't been reauthorized in a while. And there has been inequality in
the treatment of women compared to men in a number of ways that needed
to be addressed. And the Violence Against Women Act addresses some of
those.
But now this bill goes too far and does damage to so many of the
equality gains by women over the decades. And one of the problems
created in the new Violence Against Women Act involves what most people
call transgender, but the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual, Fifth
Edition--which in many ways the DSM-4, DSM-5--they begin to incorporate
a great deal of politics in some areas as much as they incorporated
medicine.
{time} 1145
The definition or the term given in DSM-5 for what is commonly called
transgender is someone who suffers from gender dysphoria. That is a bit
of a reclassification from where DSM-III and DSM-IV were.
The definition they give for gender dysphoria is ``distress that
accompanies the incongruence between one's experienced and expressed
gender and one's assigned or natal gender.''
Then it also defines dysphoria as a condition in which a person
experiences intense feelings of depression, discontent, and, in some
cases, indifference to the world around them.
Some have said, well, dysphoria is the opposite of euphoria, so it is
someone who has difficulty dealing with the gender with which they were
born. That is someone unhappy with, confused about, displeased with, or
depressed about the gender which they have.
We have made so much progress over the years. I saw it as a felony
judge. So often in cases involving domestic abuse, involving sexual
assault, the women have not been treated fairly, and they have been
demonized. Their victimization has not been properly considered.
Over the years, we have gotten better and our justice system has
gotten better. It certainly has in Texas.
Some people, including my old friend, former Congressman Ted Poe,
another former felony judge from Houston, saw the way women were not
always treated properly as victims of sexual assault.
Most D.A.'s offices were required to have victim's assistance that
could help, advise, counsel, and comfort victims of sexual assault. But
this Violence Against Women Act that was passed by the committee with
many of the Republicans voting ``no''--maybe all of us; I am not sure--
it sets women's rights back significantly.
I am pointing this out with a heart that has broken for women who I
have
[[Page H2740]]
seen so abused. Sometimes it was even harder on the women because they
would end up blaming themselves. There were many times when I would
call either a woman victim or a child victim up because I could tell
they had that mentality that ``I probably deserved what I got.''
After the trial was over, I would tell them: You need to understand,
this is not your fault. You didn't deserve this. This was a crime
committed against you. You had nothing to do with this. It was nothing
that you should have done. It was a crime being committed against you,
and you were not properly protected. For that, I am sorry.
Again, this Violence Against Women Act does not take into account
what has come to be known. As we have tried to be more sensitive and
caring, and appropriately so, for female victims of domestic abuse,
sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault, the crimes against women
can be, obviously, committed against men and have been. But most often,
it is against women and, therefore, deserves special consideration.
If you go to health.com, this site has information talking about
female victims of sexual assault. Most people are familiar with post-
traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for soldiers. But this points out:
``In some ways, the trauma from sexual assault may be worse than the
trauma from combat because, normally, soldiers are prepared and trained
for combat.'' It points out that PTSD affects about 3.5 percent of U.S.
adults, but women are twice as likely as men to have PTSD.
For those who are not aware, there is a difference between men and
women, and these kinds of statistics bear that out.
Another article from Lindsay Burgess in March of 2018 says: ``For
survivors of sexual assault, the odds of developing post-traumatic
stress disorder, PTSD, are high: Up to 94 percent,'' and it is talking
about women who experience or are victims of assault, ``experience
symptoms during the first 2 weeks after the incident, and up to 50
percent may struggle long term. For these survivors, day-to-day events
. . . can hit especially hard. And like any mental health issue, PTSD
can be debilitating.''
It also goes on to point out: ``PTSD is commonly associated with
combat veterans, but around 50 percent of PTSD cases in the U.S.
develop in the aftermath of sexual or physical violence. Despite the
high number, it is important to recognize that some sexual assault
survivors feel `okay' afterward, and that is equally valid.
`` `Being sexually assaulted or abused is such an invasion of our
body, personal space, and safety,' says Kandee Lewis, executive
director of The Positive Results Corporation. `People often can't move
past that point.'
``Psychotherapist Akiami McCoy, LCSW, LCSW-C, explains that PTSD is
more common among survivors who felt that their lives were in danger
during the assault. `The brain does not perform well for a victim
during a sexual assault,' says McCoy. She explains that this is because
the `fight or flight' response kicks in. `Unfortunately, most victims
are overpowered, and they can do neither. They may instead disassociate
themselves from the act, and that is where the mind escapes the body
until the assault is over.'
``Because dissociation is common among sexual assault survivors,
during and after the event, a 2015 study looked into and found strong
links between dissociation and PTSD.''
It goes on to say that most people who have lived through major
trauma don't develop PTSD. Unfortunately, survivors of sexual assault
and rape have particularly high chances of experiencing symptoms of the
disorder.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of rape victims experience at
least some PTSD symptoms within just 2 weeks. Almost a third of all
women continued to experience their symptoms 9 months after being
raped. Overall, more than two-thirds of all victims of sexual assault
and rape develop stress reactions that qualify as moderate or severe.
In a study published in 2005 in the journal ``Behaviour Research and
Therapy,'' a team of British researchers explored the connection
between unwanted memories in survivors of sexual assault and the
severity of PTSD symptoms. The researchers found that assault survivors
who are easily and frequently triggered by visual reminders of their
trauma can experience a sharp increase in their symptom's intensity.
Then this goes--I guess it is commonly reported--that one out of four
women will be victims of sexual assault. When you consider, if that is
accurate, those kinds of numbers, that you have that many women who
have been sexually assaulted, and they go into a public restroom that
is for women, in a confined space, having a biological man come walking
in because he indicates he feels like a woman that day, it can trigger
those experiences of sexual assault all over again.
Why would we do that? Women have made so much progress toward
equality. And I understand the hearts of my Democratic friends who
wanted to allow transgenders to go in any restroom they feel like they
should go into. I understand they want to help people who are often
victims of abuse themselves. I get the desire to help them, but why
traumatize women when it is unnecessary?
We had people in the community say, well, there is no indication
anybody has ever been bothered by having a biological man come into a
women's restroom or private facilities for women. I am sure they were
being sincere. They were not familiar, but they abound.
That is why there is a lawsuit in Fresno, California. This is a
homeless shelter. Who goes to homeless shelters? Often, very often--and
I have been there; I have talked to them--it is women who have been
sexually abused. Often, it is domestic abuse by a partner or a spouse
or a husband. They have nowhere else to go. They are afraid if they go
to a friend's home, that husband will find them. They do have to be
careful.
Right in Marshall, Texas, the inspiration for Kari's Law that we
passed in the last Congress, she was afraid of her husband. He was
abusive, but she was supposed to let him see the kids. He took them to
a hotel room, and he pulled her into the bathroom and beat her with his
fist for many minutes. Eventually, he took a knife and began stabbing
her over 20 times, ultimately killing her, while her young daughter was
trying to dial 911, not knowing she had to dial a prefix.
It was one event out of far too many events where a victim of
domestic abuse, just trying to hang on and not be abused further, they
go to a homeless shelter, having been abused, beaten, many times raped,
and they think, at a homeless shelter, they would be protected against
triggers that would make them relive the trauma of their aggravated
rape.
{time} 1200
When you talk to people who work in those facilities, they work there
because they care deeply about women who have been harmed. They have
immense hearts caring deeply. That is why they are there. Yet this law
will end up forcing these women to be cohabitating with biological men.
Whether they are honest about feeling like a woman or not, why should
we pass laws that force women victims of sexual assault to be further
traumatized?
That is not appropriate for a government role.
In this case from the ``Toronto Sun,'' a predator--who claimed to be
transgender--because of his sexual crimes had been declared to be a
dangerous sexual offender. Let's face it, like this guy in Toronto,
Canada, since you don't have to have any overt proof, Mr. Speaker, no
patent proof that you feel like a woman, you can just say it, and
people under the new Violence Against Women Act have to recognize it,
then this will not be an isolated incident.
I have seen it, I have prosecuted it, and I have sentenced it. These
predators look for any way they can to get a woman in a defensive
position--a woman or a child--someone whom they can render helpless. If
they will drill holes through walls so they can spy, do you think they
wouldn't go to the trouble of walking in?
Because if you drill a hole and spy, Mr. Speaker, you can be arrested
for being a Peeping Tom. But if you, under the new proposed laws,
simply say: ``I feel like a woman today,'' then you can go in and be a
voyeur all you want to,
[[Page H2741]]
and it opens the door to sexual deviants that should not have a door
available to them.
There is another here from ``The Courier'' in the U.K. The mom of a
supermarket sexual assault victim warns that her attacker will strike
again.
Regarding the lawsuit from the Eastern District of California about
the man who claimed to be transgender, why would we pass a law that
would undo the great appropriate advances that have occurred for
women's rights toward equality and toward not being victimized?
I know the intention is to try to help people who have gender
dysphoria, gender confusion, from being victims so they can walk into
any restroom they want to, but it is a mistake that will do far more
damage to women, and it is just tragic to have that kind of law
included in the Violence Against Women Act.
It was mentioned by a friend across the aisle--and I know his
motivation. He has a big heart and he cares about people who are
victims, and that includes people who have gender dysphoria--but he was
bragging about--apparently according to what he said--that equality law
was being passed yesterday that will open the door to equality for
transgender across sports and education and across the board.
We are already seeing something that is just incredible. Martina
Navratilova is probably one of the top five women tennis players of all
time and has been an icon for so many tennis players, especially for
liberal tennis players, liberal women, because she has fought so for
gay rights. Yet she is now being attacked because she dared to say that
she didn't think that someone who is a biological man with biological
advantages over a biological woman, in most cases, should be able to
compete in women's tennis.
How is that something to beat her up for verbally?
How is that something to abuse her for?
What will happen to the great progress of equality for women if that
bill becomes law will be it will eliminate women's sports. You may
occasionally have a woman who desires to compete as a man who is
extraordinary and can win some things. The doctors talk about the
potential for greater muscle mass, they are built differently, can do
better in some sports than women can, as a general rule. And, yes, I
know there are women that could kick the rear of many men, including
me, I know, I get that. But we are talking about competition at the
highest levels, and it is grossly unfair to allow a biological man to
compete in women's sports. No matter how gender dysphorically confused
the person is, it is unfair to the great progress of women's equality.
What that bill will do if it becomes the law is it will bring an end
to women's sports. You will be left with mainly men's sports and co-ed
sports--co-ed sports consisting of the women and the men who say they
are women, and it will end the equality, the fairness that has come to
be known in Title IX and through women's sports and women's
professional sports, that they will become co-ed sports. It is
tremendously unfair to women.
Now, the final thing I want to bring up is the resolution we took up
in here regarding hate last week. The reason that all came about were
specific comments by a Member of the House that most everyone here, not
all, but most believe were anti-Semitic. For those in Congress who
don't understand, anti-Semitic comments are not criticism of one person
for something they have said or done. That is not anti-Semitic, even if
that person happens to be Jewish. It is not. So when I criticized
George Soros for damage I believe he has done to my country by the
things that he has contributed to, by the damage he has done to
countries yearning to be free in Europe as he has pushed them toward
socialism--why would a billionaire push people toward socialism?
Because socialism means everybody is treated equally.
It is because he knows that in a Socialist country after you
eliminate the middle class, what you are left with, Mr. Speaker, is a
very thin veneer of a ruling class and everybody else who is ruled over
by the ruling class. That is where socialism goes. Some billionaires
think, oh, they will be there in that tiny, little, ruling class, not
understanding that historically if you go to full-bore socialism or
communism, you are going to end up killing off the billionaires and
taking their money. So it is an amazing thing to see that.
I am also aware that even Israel's defense ministry has pointed out
the damage that George Soros has done to Israel. Because I have
criticized George Soros, people say: Oh, you are anti-Semitic.
It is not anti-Semitic to criticize somebody for things they have
done, things they are paying for, or things they are contributing to
just because they happen to be Jewish. What makes it anti-Semitic is
when you slander or libel an entire race or group of people and smear
them as all having the same characteristics and belittle them as a
group.
So there was a resolution that was supposed to address specific anti-
Semitic remarks by a Member of Congress, and then we hear, well, there
were protests because they didn't want her condemned for anti-Semitic
remarks. So it got watered down.
I printed out the copy of the resolution as it was at 3 o'clock that
afternoon. I came over here ready to speak against that resolution
because it had been so watered down, and I was told: well, actually,
that one got pulled and they watered it down even further, and here is
the new one, as of about 3:20 that afternoon.
It kept being watered down until it basically said that we are
against all kinds of hate. Of course, they didn't mention the kind of
political hate that would cause a Democrat--and if it had been a
Republican who supported Donald Trump, that would have been what
everybody talked about, oh, gosh, this is what Trump inspires, but
since it was a Bernie Sanders supporter, I don't know of any
Republican, including me, who has blamed Bernie Sanders for the
criminal who shot Steve Scalise and tried to kill my baseball friends
and colleagues. He wanted to kill them all, but that wasn't singled
out.
In fact, when we were taking testimony on gun crime in Judiciary, the
majority would not even allow Steve Scalise to testify. Oh, well, if
he comes in and testifies, it might open the door to all kinds of other
Members of Congress.
Well, why don't you just say that we will restrict the testimony from
Members of Congress to those who have been shot by somebody who hates
them and their party?
How about that?
But Steve was not even allowed to come testify before our committee.
That kind of thing was not mentioned in what was, basically, we are
against all kinds of hate, except for that, and we are also not going
to call out the hate that causes the hate hoaxes which there seem to be
a rash of people saying they are the victim of some hate when actually
it is their hate that created a hoax.
But I have made loud and clear repetitiously, the reason I and 22
others voted against that resolution was because it did not do what it
should have done, and that is, call out specific anti-Semitic comments.
Now, some were bothered that I said that there is no moral
equivalence between the Holocaust and say the years of slavery, the
slavery that is continuing today. I was shocked to find out this year
that there are 40 million slaves in the world today, more than any time
in history. We ought to do all we can to stop it. It is horrendous. It
did so much damage to the core of this country for far too long. But
there is a special hatred that the Jewish people have experienced that
we need to stop when it starts. For those morons who didn't know, I
voted against the first anti-hate resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________