[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3243-H3249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  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, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Holding).


                    Congratulating Steven Kandarian

  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Steven 
Kandarian on his retirement from MetLife after serving as chairman of 
the board, president, and chief executive officer for the last 8 years.
  After Steve Kandarian earned his undergraduate degree from Clark 
University, his JD from Georgetown University, and his MBA from Harvard 
Business School, he began his career as an investment banker before 
founding and serving as managing partner of Orion Partners, a private 
equity firm based in Boston.
  Mr. Speaker, between 2001 and 2004, Mr. Kandarian was executive 
director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the PBGC. During 
his time at the PBGC, he made the case for comprehensive reform of the 
pension funding rules to put the defined benefit system and the PBGC on 
a sound financial footing. His efforts helped lay the

[[Page H3244]]

groundwork for the enactment of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.
  In 2005, Kandarian joined MetLife as executive vice president and 
chief investment officer. And from 2007 to 2012, he led MetLife's 
enterprise-wide strategy.
  Under Mr. Kandarian's leadership during this time, MetLife identified 
the housing bubble early and reduced its exposure to the 2008 financial 
crisis. His efforts helped MetLife emerge from the credit crisis with 
the financial strength to complete the company's $16.4 billion purchase 
of Alico from AIG. This cemented the company's position as a leading 
U.S.-based global life insurer.
  When Mr. Kandarian became President and CEO of MetLife in 2011, and 
later chairman of the board of directors in 2012, his leadership saw 
the company expand into North Carolina, my home State. And, in fact, 
MetLife expanded and became a leading company in my part of North 
Carolina because of Mr. Kandarian's efforts. With its growing presence 
in Cary, North Carolina, MetLife now employs many of my constituents at 
their Global Technology and Operations hub. In fact, over 2,000 North 
Carolinians go to work every day in MetLife in Cary, North Carolina.
  And MetLife also has had a long history of giving back to the 
community in North Carolina. Since they began hiring in Cary in 2013, 
employees have contributed thousands of volunteer hours to local 
service projects like Habitat for Humanity. And the MetLife Foundation 
has made grants exceeding $2 million to support a number of community 
programs, like those that serve disabled veterans, as well as serving 
emerging innovations with local technology engineers. None of that 
would have been possible without Steve Kandarian's leadership at 
MetLife.
  Mr. Kandarian has also been a leader in the policy realm, championing 
tax reform that resisted the status quo and in pursuing financial 
services regulation that targeted risky activities rather than 
entities. His successful challenge of MetLife's designation as a 
systemically important financial institution was emblematic of the 
worthwhile quest to find the right regulatory balance, not regulation 
at any cost.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Kandarian on his long and successful 
career, and I wish him and his family well in his retirement from 
MetLife.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from North 
Carolina's words.
  Today, we voted on a bill referred to as net neutrality. It is a 
position that was taken up by the Federal Communications Commission 
back during the Obama administration. It was quite interesting. During 
the Obama administration, President Obama had said he would not allow 
the FCC to take over control of the internet, and then apparently was 
convinced otherwise and eventually made clear to the FCC they would 
take over control of the internet.
  I know the bill is referred to as net neutrality, but it is anything 
but neutral. It is government control of the internet. And, yes, I 
realize that the internet has produced some billionaires who are 
tremendous contributors to the Democratic Party, but, to me and to my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, it is more an issue of 
independence of this incredible invention of the internet. If it 
creates more billionaires that happen to become Democrats, so be it. 
But let's leave the internet free.
  Net neutrality does not leave it free. It is government controlled. 
And that is what the new chairman, Chairman Pai, undid. He said: We are 
backing off. This is an executive position taken by the executive 
branch during the Obama administration and we are now, as an executive 
branch, taking our hands off of the internet so that people are free to 
become billionaires, but we are not going to pick and choose winners, 
which means the government chooses losers, as well.
  There was a good article by James Gattuso on March 11, 2019. He said:
  ``Just over 1 year ago, the Federal Communications Commission voted 
3-2 to repeal the network neutrality rules it adopted in 2015.''
  That is such a misnomer, net neutrality.
  ``However, the FCC regulation could make a comeback if House 
Democrats have their way.
  ``Lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation Thursday 
to restore the rule.''
  That is from last week.
  ``Sponsored by Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and 
Representative Mike Doyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, the 3-page 
bill makes no attempt to modify or improve the 2015 rule. It simply 
declares that the 2017 order repealing net neutrality `shall have no 
force or effect.'
  ``Formally titled the `Open Internet Order,' the FCC imposed the rule 
4 years ago under its Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler. But the 
political battle over net neutrality has gone on close to 17 years.
  ``A Columbia University law professor, Tim Wu, coined the term `net 
neutrality' in 2002. Wu argued that because internet service providers 
such as Comcast and AT&T enjoy near-bottleneck control over the traffic 
going to web users, they should be prohibited from favoring any web 
content over another.
  ``In other words, according to Wu, internet service providers should 
be required to treat content providers neutrally.
  ``But regulation can make problems of its own. Today's market for 
internet access is not perfectly competitive, but it is also clearly 
not a monopoly. Most Americans have the ability to choose from at least 
two service providers.''
  And this gets critical here. It says:
  ``In addition, net neutrality would do nothing to increase the number 
of companies that compete in the market for access. In fact, it could 
make it harder for new entrants to compete effectively with existing 
market leaders.
  ``That's because one of the best ways to get a foothold in a market 
is to differentiate your service.''
  It is called competition. This goes on to say:
  ``For instance, T-Mobile to differentiate itself in its struggle to 
compete with industry leaders AT&T and Verizon, pioneered `zero rating' 
pricing plans that allow free access to content from participating 
content providers without incurring a charge against your data cap.''

                              {time}  1230

  ``T-Mobile's free-data option has made wireless broadband available 
to millions at affordable rates. Zero-rating, nevertheless, has been 
condemned by many as a violation of net neutrality and could be banned, 
should Congress restore the rule.''
  Now, that is what is so amazing about this term, ``net neutrality.'' 
It means the government could, and probably would, say to somebody like 
T-Mobile--and I don't have their service. I don't have a dog in that 
fight. But they could say to an entity like T-Mobile: Look, we are not 
going to let you have a no-charge access to data through your plan, 
through your wireless plan. No, that won't work. You have to charge 
something.
  If this net neutrality--so-called, which, when you hear ``net 
neutrality,'' it ought to mean, in your mind, government-controlled, 
because it is actually antithetical to what it says it is. It is 
government-controlled.
  But that would say to somebody who is trying to break into the 
market, they would say: Okay. We would give you free access, no cost, 
no data cap, so that we could get into the market, develop customers. 
They would be loyal to us.
  No, the government wants net neutrality/government control to be back 
in place. They can say: You can't do that. We are not going to let you 
become competitive with the two companies that control the lion's share 
of the internet.
  The government shouldn't be in that business. Let it be competitive.
  It just seems every time the government gets its hands on something 
that has been as productive as the internet, it chokes it; it 
overwhelms it with regulation. That has been one of the beauties of the 
internet.
  So, as this article says: ``Net neutrality''--government-controlled--
``is not needed to save the internet but, in fact, could jeopardize it.
  ``The FCC was right to reject the net neutrality''--or government-
controlled--``rules completely. Congress should do the same.''
  Even though it has passed the House, 13 Democrats voted with the 
Republicans, who said: Look, let's at least

[[Page H3245]]

add a provision to this bill that forbids the government from taxing, 
just completely forbids it, so you can't tax the internet. For internet 
service, you're not going to tax internet service.
  And so that was bipartisan. We had 13 Democrats vote with us. We 
don't want to tax the internet service.
  But, unfortunately, it was narrowly defeated by a majority, being all 
Democrats voted to allow the potential to tax the internet.
  So that ought to tell you, basically, what you need to know about net 
neutrality. It is going to be a way, number one, for government control 
and, number two, to eventually get around to providing revenue--that 
means taxes--on what has not been taxed so far.
  Greg Walden, who is managing this bill, had a good article. He said: 
``Net neutrality is a bipartisan issue in Congress. Despite the 
overheated rhetoric and the political talking points, Democrats 
actually agree with me and my Republican colleagues on the key net 
neutrality parameters that protect a free and open internet for 
consumers.
  ``Democrats agree with Republicans that internet traffic should not 
be blocked. There is bipartisan support for prohibiting the blocking of 
illegal content on the internet.
  ``Democrats agree with Republicans that internet service providers 
should not be allowed to impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on 
the basis of content''--as long as it is legal--``a process known as 
throttling. There is bipartisan support for prohibiting the throttling 
of illegal content on the internet.''
  But it goes on to say: ``Democrats, however, believe that net 
neutrality can only be achieved by regulating the internet as if it 
were a utility under title II of the Communications Act, which was 
originally used to govern monopoly telephone companies in the 1930s. 
The `Save the Net Act,' imposes the heavy hand of Washington's 
regulatory bureaucracy over the single most important driver of 
economic growth, job creation, and a better quality of life for all 
Americans. This will do everything but save the internet.
  `` `Title II' sounds inconsequential, but layering this new national 
governance over the web''--over the internet--``would give the Federal 
Communications Commission unbridled regulatory authority'' over the 
internet. ``The government would have the power to tax the internet''--
because most of the Democrats voted to allow taxing the internet--and 
it would allow them to ``dictate where and when new broadband networks 
can be deployed and take over the management of private networks.''
  In a rural district like his in eastern Oregon, ``title II inhibited 
the ability of small internet service providers to expand broadband to 
underserved communities, saddling these small businesses with onerous 
reporting requirements that shifted their focus from their customers to 
new, expensive regulatory interference. Nationwide, title II had a 
chilling effect on internet investment, which declined for the first 
time since the dawn of the internet age, decreasing consumer choice and 
increasing the digital divide.''
  As   Greg Walden says: ``Fortunately, we do not need title II to 
achieve real net neutrality. Republicans have put forth serious 
proposals--a menu of options--that would keep the internet open and 
free, so it can continue to be a driver of opportunity for all.''
  But that means, since it just passed the House, we are going to need 
to count on the Senate not to take up more government control of the 
internet but, instead, to take up a bill that does keep things fair 
instead of having more government control and potentially taxing the 
internet usage.
  I shift to another topic, since Attorney General Barr testified this 
week, may be testifying again. It is interesting, as more information 
comes rolling out about the Muellergate.
  This article from the Daily Caller, from Chuck Ross, ``Cambridge 
Academic Reflects on Interactions with `Spygate' Figure.'' Her name is 
Svetlana Lokhova. She says she ``did not get along with Stefan Halper, 
which is what she says made a dinner invitation to the Cambridge 
University professor's home in January 2016 all the more peculiar.

  `` `Halper was a lurking presence with a horrible aura--I avoided 
him,' said Lokhova, a Cambridge postgraduate student who studies 
Soviet-era espionage.
  ``Lokhova dodged the invitation to Halper's home, which she said was 
sent to her by Christopher Andrew, a Cambridge professor and official 
historian for MI5, the British domestic intelligence service. But the 
past 3 years have revealed new details about Halper and other 
activities that went on at Cambridge that have caused Lokhova to 
question why she was asked to that dinner at Halper's.
  ``For one, a series of stories that appeared in the press in early 
2017 heavily implied Lokhova was a Russian agent who tried to suborn 
Michael Flynn at a dinner hosted at Cambridge on February 28, 2014. 
Flynn served at the time as Director of the Defense Intelligence 
Agency.
  ``A year after those stories appeared, The Daily Caller News 
Foundation reported Halper cozied up to three Trump campaign advisers: 
Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and George Papadopoulos.''
  Isn't that interesting? Those are the ones--particularly Carter Page 
and George Papadopoulos. Those are the people that the Department of 
Justice and FBI used to claim there were some kind of ties to Russia 
when, now, we are finding out it was Fusion GPS. It was Bruce Ohr at 
the FBI, his wife Nellie Ohr, working with Fusion GPS and working with 
foreign agents, former foreign agent, also, we know, from MI6.
  But, apparently, they are working with the British Government in 
trying to create reasons that the FBI could go before the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA's secret Star Chamber, and get 
warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
  It all started to come out. This is somebody who is now described--or 
has been, in the last 2 years: Oh, this was a Russian agent. It turns 
out, she was being manipulated by MI5 and by people, as we will be 
finding out, with the Justice Department, FBI, Clinton campaign, to try 
to set up so that they could go after the Trump campaign officials, spy 
on them, and potentially bring down the Trump campaign as an insurance 
policy just in case the unthinkable happened and Donald Trump were 
elected President.
  The article goes on: ``A year after those stories appeared,'' as it 
says, ``Halper cozied to three Trump campaign advisers. . . . In May 
2018, Halper was revealed as a longtime CIA and FBI informant, a 
revelation that led President Donald Trump to accuse the FBI of 
planting a spy in his campaign. The Republican coined the term 
`Spygate' to describe the alleged scandal.
  ``After Halper's links to American intelligence were revealed, The 
New York Times and The Washington Post reported he and another 
Cambridge luminary, former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove, raised concerns 
about Lokhova's contacts with Flynn that were subsequently passed to 
American and British intelligence.''
  Far bigger than Watergate, because Watergate concerned people hired 
by the committee to reelect Richard Nixon, when this involves the spies 
owned, controlled, and former spies of the British Government working 
in collusion with the FBI, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS.
  It says: ``Lokhova blames Halper for distorting her brief interaction 
with Flynn into, `an international espionage scandal' in which she 
wound up as collateral damage.
  ``What Halper staged is a textbook `black-op' to dirty up the 
reputation of a political opponent. He needed an innocuous social event 
to place Flynn in a room with a woman who was ethnically Russian''--I 
was unlucky to be picked.
  ``Lokhova, a dual Russian and British citizen, has spoken out before 
about Halper and the allegations about her in the media. She accused 
Halper of making `false' and `absurd' claims about her in 2018 
interviews with TheDCNF. She has also taken to Twitter to criticize the 
reporters who published allegations about her and Flynn.''

                              {time}  1245

  ``The Guardian's Luke Harding is one target of Lokhova's ire. She has 
criticized the British reporter for a March 31, 2017, story that 
contained thinly veiled allegations she tried to compromise Flynn.
  ``According to the report, which was based on anonymous sources, 
American

[[Page H3246]]

and British intelligence developed concerns about Lokhova's 
interactions with Flynn at the February 2014 dinner, which was hosted 
by the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Halper, Dearlove, and Andrew are 
co-conveners of the seminar, which hosts events for current and former 
spies.''
  Halper, Dearlove, and Andrew, they appear to be the ones who should 
have been spied on, but, instead, they are the ones being used by 
British intelligence, working together with the FBI, the Department of 
Justice, Fusion GPS, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and the Clinton campaign, 
to come after Donald Trump.
  ``The Wall Street Journal also published an innuendo-laden story 
March 18, 2017, about Flynn and Lokhova. The hook for the story was 
that Flynn had failed to report his contact with Lokhova to the Defense 
Intelligence Agency.
  ``Lokhova, who has lived in the U.K. since 1998, vehemently denies 
the insinuations in the articles that she is a Russian agent or that 
she tried to seduce Flynn. She has provided emails and photographs to 
TheDCNF to help back up her case. She also notes that all of the 
allegations about her have been made anonymously.
  ``Dan O'Brien, a Defense Intelligence Agency official who accompanied 
Flynn to the Cambridge event, told TheWSJ he saw nothing untoward 
involving Lokhova. Lokhova's partner, David North, has told TheDCNF he 
picked Lokhova up after the event.
  ``Since learning more about Halper, Lokhova has reflected back on the 
few interactions she had with him over the years at Cambridge.
  ``A veteran of three Republican administrations, Halper joined 
Cambridge in 2001. From his perch at the stories university, Halper 
wrote books about American politics and the geopolitical threat that 
China poses to the West. He also received over $1 million in contracts 
from the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment to write studies on 
Russia, China, and Afghanistan.''
  It is interesting, as an aside, but Adam Lovinger was working for the 
Defense Department, and his job was to look for improprieties within 
the Defense Department. He noticed these million-dollar contracts going 
to Stefan Halper and said: Wait a minute. We are paying this guy $1 
million? We are not getting anything for it. What is this about?
  And for that, the Obama administration crushed Adam Lovinger. He was 
an honest whistleblower. He wasn't even a whistleblower. He was doing 
his job, which was to look for improprieties. He found things that 
raised questions. He raised the questions about: Why is Stefan Halper 
being paid all of this money? We are not getting anything from this guy 
that helped the Pentagon. Why is he getting a million bucks from the 
Pentagon?
  Well, unfortunately, for Adam Lovinger, he stepped on a land mine, 
and the Obama administration set out to get him fired and to destroy 
him for noticing the impropriety--at least, it appeared to be an 
impropriety; that is why he brought it up--that involved Stefan Halper 
that was used by the Obama administration Justice Department, FBI, 
Fusion GPS to help them set up the Trump campaign.
  ``Lokhova says she first remembers seeing Halper in November 2013, 
when she gave a talk about her research on Soviet-era spy archives.''
  She said: `` `The guy looks at us like we're completely horrible 
people, and then gets up and sits across the room.'
  ``Lokhova also said she learned from a Cambridge faculty member that 
Halper was spreading rumors that she was linked to Russian 
intelligence.''
  Anyway, it just shows how outrageous the conduct has been that we are 
now beginning to find out about. And, certainly, it was high time, 
after 2 years of finding nothing for which the Mueller special counsel 
office was set up, hiring people who hated Trump, they couldn't find 
anything. They couldn't find evidence that they could take to a grand 
jury and get an indictment.
  And that is just probable cause. That is not beyond a reasonable 
doubt standard.
  And, certainly, because Mueller couldn't stand the man who--24 hours 
before Mueller was offered the special counsel job, he had been begging 
President Trump to make him the Director of the FBI again. President 
Trump turned him down. Twenty-four hours later, he jumps at the chance, 
although he certainly should have recused himself. He was conflicted in 
far too many ways to be a special counsel on something involving 
Russia. He jumped at the chance to investigate the guy who refused to 
hire him.
  Another article from Catherine Herridge. And Catherine Herridge has 
done extraordinary work looking into these different issues.
  She points out that: ``Russian woman claims she was manipulated into 
entrapping General Flynn.''
  ``A Russian-born academic who was at the center of attention in 2017 
for past contact with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn 
told FOX News in an exclusive interview that she is not a spy for 
Moscow--and, to the contrary, believes she was `used' to smear Flynn.''
  She said: ``I think there's a high chance that it was coordinated, 
and I believe it needs to be properly investigated.''
  So Catherine has done good work on that.
  And then an article from Jason Beale from The Federalist, entitled: 
``How Obama Holdover Sally Yates Helped Sink Michael Flynn.''
  And of course, we know Sally Yates was working as the Deputy Attorney 
General, and she refused to defend constitutional activity by the Trump 
administration, so she was fired. Unfortunately, there were people who 
were totally devoted to Sally Yates, couldn't stand Trump, some of whom 
are still at the Department of Justice undermining the Trump 
administration.
  But this goes on to say, `` . . . Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates 
made a couple of urgent trips from the Department of Justice building 
to the White House, carrying information she believed to be critical to 
U.S. national security.
  ``Yates was aware, likely through intercepts of Russian Ambassador 
Sergey Kislyak's communications, that the newly seated national 
security advisor, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, had 
discussed with Kislyak Russia's response to the Obama administration 
imposition of sanctions for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 
elections. According to news reports, Flynn had asked Kislyak to wait a 
few weeks and allow the incoming Trump administration a chance to 
review the issue before Russia retaliated. Flynn's conversations with 
Kislyak occurred on December 29, the day Obama announced the sanctions.
  ``Recall that this period between the election of Trump in early 
November and his inauguration in late January was characterized by a 
frenzy of questionable and as-yet unexplained actions taken by the 
Obama White House, intelligence agencies, and the State Department. The 
Steele dossier was in circulation at various levels of government and 
media officialdom; Carter Page's communications--and those of anyone 
with whom he communicated, and anyone with whom they communicated--were 
being monitored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National 
Security Agency.
  ``The great unmasking had also begun, with unprecedented numbers of 
requests forwarded from various Obama administration officials to the 
NSA to reveal the identities of American citizens otherwise protected 
in their reporting and transcribing of intercepts of foreign official 
communications. Distribution regulations were relaxed to allow wider 
access to these NSA intercepts, and the word went out throughout the 
halls of every government agency to get everything into the system, 
lest these barbarians coming into office destroy evidence and deny 
their roles as Russian agents.
  ``It was inevitable, then, that David Ignatius of The Washington Post 
would publish a column on January 12 describing Flynn's December 29 
phone calls with Kislyak, information he attributed to `a senior U.S. 
Government official.' Ignatius' column began thusly:
  `` `Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,' mutters Marcellus 
as ghosts and mad spirits haunt Elsinore castle in the first act of 
Shakespeare's `Hamlet.'
  ``After this past week of salacious leaks about foreign espionage 
plots and indignant denials, people must be wondering if something is 
rotten in the

[[Page H3247]]

state of our democracy. How can we dispel the dark rumors that, as 
Hamlet says, `shake our disposition'?
  ``The `senior U.S. Government official' who leaked both the name of a 
U.S. citizen captured in an intercept of a foreign government 
official's communications, and the fact that the foreign official was 
under NSA surveillance, has not been identified. Nor has there been any 
indication that a thorough investigation has been, or is being, carried 
out in search of his or her identity.''
  It is a crime. What happened to smear Flynn and the Trump campaign 
involved crimes by senior DOJ officials. Perhaps it was Sally Yeats who 
committed the crime, perhaps others, but it needs to be investigated, 
and there was no way in this world that Robert Mueller was going to 
investigate anything to do with corruption in the Obama administration.
  There it was, all of these leaks that were clear, most of them. Each 
of them would have been a crime. There is plenty of evidence there to 
support that. But, instead, Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued 
things and got indictments for things that made clear we didn't need a 
special counsel to do what Bob Mueller was doing.
  If you look back, there is nothing he did, nothing he produced that 
could not have been done without a special counsel's office. In fact, 
he ended up having to pass some stuff off to the U.S. attorney for the 
Southern District of New York.
  Even as badly compromised as Bob Mueller was from even being special 
counsel, he recognized he had gone beyond his limits, as broad as they 
were, and needed to pass some of those things off.
  There is another article here from Brooke Singman, ``DOJ Watchdog 
Reportedly Scrutinizing Role of FBI Informant in the Russia Probe.''
  It talks about: `` . . . Inspector General Michael Horwitz is looking 
into informant Stefan Halper's work during the Russia probe, as well as 
his work with the FBI prior to the start of that probe.''
  And the article goes on to talk about Halper. I mean, he was used to 
try to set up Michael Flynn. He was used to try to set up Papadopoulos. 
He was used to try to set up Sam Clovis.
  That was the insurance policy that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page texted, 
lovingly, back and forth about, although, to the ignorance of Peter 
Strzok's wife.
  Some people think, when I asked Peter Strzok in our Judiciary 
Committee hearing about him having that same smirk the hundreds of 
times he lied to his wife, that that was inappropriate; it violated the 
rules.
  Well, the rules in our committees are extremely relaxed compared to 
rules in a jury trial of which I have had many as a litigant and as a 
judge. I know the rules.

                              {time}  1300

  I know the rules, and I heard him in his deposition talk about how he 
never lies, he just always tells the truth. I knew he was lying when he 
said basically that he remembered Frank Rucker, the investigator for 
the intelligence inspector general, coming over and advising about 
something, but he didn't remember what it was about.
  I guarantee you, he was lying when he said that because Frank Rucker 
went over--and it is now public. I knew at the time, but it has now 
been made public. It was China, and the intelligence inspector general 
knew China was getting every email going in and out of Hillary 
Clinton's private server.
  Since Strzok and others apparently had protected information about 
what happened with her server, here comes the intelligence inspector 
general's investigator who discovered the fact that her private server 
had been compromised. He rushes over with Janette McMillan from the 
intelligence community. She was an attorney.
  They briefed Dean Chappell, who was the FBI liaison with intel, and 
the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, and he tells him: 
Look, we now have proof positive Hillary Clinton's private server was 
hacked. We found this anomaly in there.
  As I dug in to figure out what this thing is, it was an embedded 
placement in the server that directed every email coming in and every 
email going out of Hillary Clinton's private server, which we also know 
contained classified information, and directed it to go to a known 
front organization for the Chinese Government.
  Peter Strzok, after all the protection he tried to afford Hillary 
Clinton, is going to sit there and lie and say: Well, I remember Frank 
Rucker coming over and telling us something, but I don't really 
remember what it was.
  He remembered very well what Frank Rucker said. That was a lie. Since 
he has said previously that he told the truth, then any time he had 
ever told a lie, it would have been admissible in front of a jury. Even 
with the more restricted rules of evidence, you could have asked about 
every time he ever lied. I just chose to make one blanket question 
about the hundreds of times he lied to his wife. He does not always 
tell the truth. He is a liar, and he lied there under oath.
  That wasn't the only thing. Yes, David Ignatius participated as a 
recipient of criminal--of a crime, really--sending him leaked 
information from either the Justice Department, FBI, or NSA. Any one of 
them that submitted information to him committed a crime. We need to 
know who it was. We need to know how deep and how far these crimes 
committed by our people who are supposed to be investigating crimes, 
not committing them, how far this goes.
  Now that Mueller will be out of the picture, I think we have a chance 
to get those things determined. As long as he was there, then these 
folks were protected. But now that he is finished wasting America's 
money and time, we can start getting down to investigating the real 
crimes that occurred.
  I want to finish. I got a copy of a wonderful book, really 
interesting, called ``Dark Agenda'' by David Horowitz. I was in his 
presence once, and I introduced him as--he was a former socialist. 
David Horowitz turned 80 this year. He said: No, I was a communist. I 
was a complete communist. I was one of those rebelling in the sixties. 
I was part of the riots and all those things.
  He came to understand that communism doesn't work. It never has. 
Socialism doesn't work. Margaret Thatcher said that the reason it 
doesn't work is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money.
  I would submit that the answer I got at a Russian--well, Ukrainian--
collective farm back in the seventies. I said: Why aren't you out 
working in the field? It is midmorning.
  The farmer says: I make the same number of rubles if I am out there 
in the sun as I do in the shade, so I stay in the shade.
  Those who are crazy enough to work while others are getting paid the 
same as them eventually quit working, and the whole system falls. It 
always does.
  It sounds wonderful, share and share alike. Isn't that socialism and 
communism? Isn't that wonderful? Share and share alike.
  A Christian ought to be in favor of that, except it requires in this 
world a totalitarian government strong enough and powerful enough to 
take from those who earn and give to those who don't and strong enough 
to suppress anybody who objects.
  Eventually, it falls. It can't work. It never will work. It never has 
worked.
  But David Horowitz deals with another subject here in ``Dark 
Agenda,'' and I think it is worth hearing his words themselves.
  The first chapter is named ``Religion Must Die.''
  He starts: ``On Sunday morning, November 5, 2017, a gunman walked 
into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He wore 
tactical gear and a black face mask marked with a white skull, and he 
carried a semiautomatic rifle. He shot and killed two people outside 
the church, then went inside, walking up and down the aisle, cursing 
and shooting people in the pews. He reloaded again and again, emptying 
15 magazines of ammunition.
  ``When the gunman emerged from the church, he found an armed citizen 
facing him from across the street, a former NRA firearms instructor 
named Stephen Willeford. The two men exchanged fire, and Willeford hit 
the gunman in the leg and upper body. The wounded shooter limped to his 
car and sped away. He was later found at the wheel of his crashed car, 
killed by a self-inflicted gunshot to the head.
  ``The attack killed 26 people, ages 5 to 72, and wounded 20. The 
killer had been court-martialed in the Air Force for domestic violence. 
He had beaten his wife and cracked the skull of his infant stepson. The 
Air Force failed to

[[Page H3248]]

report his conviction to the FBI's crime information database.''
  Parenthetically, we didn't need new laws. We just needed for people 
to obey the laws we had. The Air Force violated the law, and this guy 
got his gun as a result. The Air Force failed to obey the law and 
report this to the FBI's crime information database. He got a gun and 
did destruction.

  Horowitz said: ``The slaughter of unarmed Christians in a church 
sanctuary was a cowardly attack on one church. But what happened after 
the church shooting was part of a wider war by the political left 
against Christians and Christianity.
  ``As news of the shooting broke, prominent Christians took to Twitter 
and urged fellow believers to pray. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a 
devout Roman Catholic, tweeted, `Reports out of Texas are devastating. 
The people of Sutherland Springs need our prayers right now.'
  ``From Hollywood to New York and Washington, the left responded with 
a chorus of jeers and insults. Former MSNBC political commentator Keith 
Olbermann suggested in a tweet that Speaker Ryan should proctologize 
himself with his prayers.
  ``Seattle Democrat Representative Pramila Jayapal tweeted, `They were 
praying when it happened. They don't need our prayers. They need us to 
address gun violence.' Comedian Paula Poundstone sneered, `If prayers 
were the answer' to mass shootings, `wouldn't people at a church 
service be safe?' Actor Wil Wheaton tweeted, `The murdered victims were 
in a church. If prayers did anything, they would still be alive, you 
worthless sack of. . . . '
  ``These and other comments from the secular left displayed not only a 
smug disdain for Christians but an amazing ignorance of how religious 
Christians view prayer.''
  Mr. Speaker, keep in mind that David Horowitz has been an atheist--he 
is Jewish--and he is writing this book. Amazing.
  ``Christians don't view prayer as a magic incantation to make 
themselves bulletproof. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ 
who warned them: `In the world ye shall have tribulation.' In the 
Garden of Gethsemane, Christ prayed to be delivered from the agony of 
the cross, but He ended His prayer, `Nevertheless not my will, but 
Thine, be done.' The answer to Christ's prayer was silence, and He was 
later crucified on a Roman cross.
  ``In her commentary on the church shooting, MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid 
tweeted that `when Jesus of Nazareth came upon thousands of hungry 
people,' He didn't pray. He fed the people.''
  Horowitz said: ``She is simply wrong. Matthew 14:19 records that, 
before Jesus fed the people, He looked heavenward and prayed. Jesus 
prayed and He acted. That is how His followers still view prayer. They 
pray and they act.
  ``At around the same time Joy-Ann Reid was tweeting, the Billy Graham 
Rapid Response Team was already in action, rolling into Sutherland 
Springs with 16 chaplains to comfort grieving families and help meet 
their material needs. Two days after the shooting, the Southern Baptist 
Convention announced it would pay all funeral expenses for the 26 slain 
churchgoers.
  ``Because this is a world made by flawed human beings, it will 
continue to be a world of tribulations. There will be more shootings, 
attacks, fires, floods, earthquakes, and other tragedies. Christians 
will call for prayer, and leftists will mock them for it, imagining 
there are solutions that can perfect this life and regarding Christians 
as the enemies of that perfection.
  ``Since its birth in the fires of the French Revolution, the 
political left has been at war with religion and with the Christian 
religion in particular.''
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is really interesting coming from an atheist 
Jewish individual.
  Horowitz said: ``In a symbolic revolutionary act, the Jacobin leaders 
of the French Revolution changed the name of the Cathedral of Notre 
Dame to the `Temple of Reason.' Then, in the name of `reason,' they 
proceeded to massacre the inhabitants of the Vendee region of west-
central France because its citizens were Catholics.
  ``This has been called the first modern genocide, but it was far from 
the last. Karl Marx famously described religion as `the opium of the 
people' and `the sigh of the oppressed.' Inspired by his hatred ever 
since, revolutionaries have regarded religion as the enemy of progress 
and the mask of oppression.
  ``In Russia, Marx's disciples removed religious teaching from the 
schools, outlawed criticism of atheists and agnostics, and burned 
100,000 churches. When priests demanded freedom of religion, they were 
sentenced to death. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Russian Orthodox 
priests were arrested, 95,000 of whom were executed by firing squad.
  ``Radicals in America today don't have the political power to execute 
religious people and destroy their houses of worship. Yet they openly 
declare their desire to obliterate religion. In their own minds, their 
intentions are noble. They want to save the human race from the social 
injustice and oppression that religion allegedly inflicts on humanity.
  ``'Religion must die in order for mankind to live,' proclaimed left-
wing commentator and comedian Bill Maher in `Religulous,' the most-
watched documentary feature of 2008. Both title and script were 
transparent attempts to stigmatize religious people as dangerous morons 
whose views could not be taken seriously.
  ``Throughout the film, Maher travels to Jerusalem, the Vatican, and 
Salt Lake City, as well as other centers of religion, interviewing 
believers and making them appear foolish. How did he gain interviews 
with his victims? He lied to them, saying he was making a film called 
`A Spiritual Journey.'
  ``According to Maher, `The irony of religion is that because of its 
power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually 
come to an end.' He predicts the destruction of the human race as a 
result of `religion-inspired nuclear terrorism.' Hence the need for 
religion to die if mankind is to live.
  ``Maher's views accurately reflect the attitudes of a movement called 
the `New Atheism,' whose leaders are prominent scientists and best-
selling authors, far superior in intellect to Maher but equally 
contemptuous of religion and religious believers.''

                              {time}  1315

  ``Like Maher's film, the New Atheism movement seeks to discredit all 
religious belief by caricaturing its adherents as simpletons, and 
worse. The stated goal of the New Atheism is to delegitimize and 
extinguish the religious point of view.
  ``Maher's suggestion that religion--and evidently religion alone--
threatens the existence of the human race is simply malicious. Both he 
and the New Atheists are blind to all the positive influences religion 
has had on human behavior, and they ignore all the atheist-inspired 
genocides of the last 250 years. In the 20th century alone, Communist 
atheists slaughtered more than 100 million people in Russia, China, and 
Indochina. Not even the bloodthirsty jihadists of radical Islam have 
killed innocents on anything close to such a scale.
  ``It's striking that Maher and the New Atheists ignore the appalling 
body count of Marxism--an ideology that is explicitly atheistic, whose 
atrocities were committed in the name of social justice. According to 
Maher, it is religious people who are `irrationalists,' and dangerous 
because they `steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the 
equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.' Yet civilization was 
built and improved by such irrationalists--believers like Locke, 
Newton, Washington, Wilberforce, Sojourner Truth, and Abraham Lincoln. 
For the five millennia of recorded history, with few exceptions the 
most rational, compassionate, and successful decision-makers, both 
military and civilian, have been people guided by a belief in God, 
including some whose spiritual compass took the form of reading the 
entrails of a chicken.''
  That is David Horowitz' sense of humor.
  ``Near the end of Maher's rant, he pauses to address any religionist 
who may have unwittingly strayed into the cinema where `Religulous' was 
playing: `Look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort 
that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you 
belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much 
bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as 
religion is, you'd resign in protest.'''

[[Page H3249]]

  Horowitz says: ``How myopic. And the crimes and horrors committed by 
atheism? From the French Revolution to the Bolshevik, from the Vendee 
to Vietnam, the bigotries and atrocities committed by the forces of 
godlessness match and even outweigh those committed by the forces of 
godliness. If a history of violence, persecution, and murder serves to 
discredit an ideology, why hasn't Maher resigned in protest from the 
party of atheism?''
  I appreciate those brilliant, insightful observations by an atheist 
Jew, who is a friend. Amazing from a man who is an overt, unapologetic, 
rebellious communist, to now having written a good account of the war 
to destroy Christian America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________