[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3432-H3437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           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. Madam Speaker, we had an interesting debate and 
interesting vote today regarding the Paris climate change agreement 
that is a treaty. It hasn't been properly treated like a treaty, just 
like the Iran treaty was a treaty.
  No matter whether the House or the Senate agreed to violate the 
Constitution and treat the Iran treaty in exactly the opposite format 
as required by the Constitution, it doesn't matter. It was treaty. It 
was never properly ratified.
  It doesn't matter whether it was a Republican or a Democrat who came 
up with the bill. A Republican Senator or House Member cannot come up 
with a bill that changes the Constitution and say: Do you know what? We 
are going to take this treaty and act like you have to have two-thirds 
to vote it down instead of two-thirds to ratify it.
  But that is what they did, so the President did exactly the right 
thing. It was time to stop giving billions of dollars in both direct 
money aid to the largest sponsor of terrorism, Iran.
  It was also time to reimpose the sanctions that had basically brought 
Iran to its knees begging for help. Well, the Obama administration 
helped them in two ways: number one, allowing them to pursue nuclear 
capabilities, just doing it privately.
  I am one of three people who met with the two main inspectors from 
the IAEA over in Europe, and they would issue the statement each time 
that they had seen no evidence that Iran was developing nukes. They 
were asked the question: Did you see the military facilities that they 
keep so hidden in secret and where their nuclear development would be 
occurring?
  In response, they said: No. Gee, they gave us a video that they said 
came from there, but we had never been allowed to examine the 
facilities.
  So the IAEA was not allowed to examine the facilities where nuclear 
weapons would have been developed, probably were being developed.
  From Iran's standpoint, based on how ridiculous the agreement was and 
knowing their mentality of cheating, certainly they would have been 
pursuing nuclear weapons, whether or not

[[Page H3433]]

they would wait for 10 years before actually going public with actually 
having nuclear weapons.

  But I even asked: Okay. The Obama administration sent them $150 
billion in cash. Say, hypothetically, Iran decided, ``We will just take 
some of that $150 billion and buy us one, two, three, four, five nukes 
from North Korea or from Pakistan.''
  We know that during those final years of the Obama administration 
that Iran had met with Pakistani officials and with North Korean 
officials, so that was certainly a possibility, but I wondered if the 
IAEA had a capability of noting and discovering if Iran were to import 
a nuclear weapon from, say, North Korea or Russia or Pakistan. 
Apparently, unless the Iranians brought their new nuclear weapons 
immediately near the detection equipment, there would be no way to know 
that Iran bought nuclear weapons.
  So, to anyone who used reason in dealing with the largest supporter 
of terrorism in the world, responsible for killing so many precious 
American military members and others, President Trump did a great 
thing. He did the right thing. It was a great thing to do for America's 
future safety; it was a great thing to do for the world's safety; and 
it was absolutely a helpful thing to do for the nation of Israel. So 
that was smart.
  We have had these different climate accords, and what so many of them 
have in common, basically, was, gee, we will pay the world lots of 
money, supposedly some type of guilt money, even though we have been 
more philanthropic than any other country in the history of the world.
  To any astute eye examining the state of the world and world history, 
it becomes very clear that the only countries that are able to do 
anything about pollution on the planet are countries that have a 
strong, vibrant economy. Countries that are struggling are doing all 
they can to put people to work and to survive. They just can't spare 
the money to clean up the environment.
  You have got countries like China and India, massive polluters, and 
under these accords, heck, China wouldn't even have requirements for 
them to clean things up until 2030, and by then, there would be all new 
agreements that would probably give China even more time.
  These accords appear to be geared to do one thing: do damage to the 
economy of the one country that is doing so much to clean up carbon 
emissions and to clean up pollution.
  I have an article here from Forbes. This is back in the fall of 2017. 
Yes, the U.S. leads all countries in reducing carbon emissions--and 
that was 10 months into the Obama administration--but, as the 
Environmental Protection Agency announced, we are leading the world 
with respect to our CO2 footprint in reductions.
  The Washington Post fact-checked this claim and rated it three 
Pinocchios, which means they rate the claim mostly false.
  They further wrote that Pruitt's usage of data appeared to be a 
deliberate effort to mislead the public. But the data mostly supports 
Pruitt's claim. You have to consider the source, Madam Speaker.
  Just like during my days on the bench as a felony judge, major civil 
litigation, it was all about the credibility of the witness.
  As we have seen, The Washington Post is exceedingly biased and 
slanted in their reporting, so we need a source that gives Pinocchios 
to The Washington Post.
  If you look at the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 
2005, annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million 
metric tons. That is, by far, the largest decline of any country in the 
world over that time span, and it is nearly as large as the 770 million 
metric ton decline for the entire European Union.
  By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was 
registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric 
ton decline. So we had a 758 million metric ton decline in carbon 
emissions in that year, and the U.K. was second. They were not quite up 
to our 758 million metric tons. They were at 170 million metric ton 
decline.
  But, at the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew--that is 
grew--by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric 
tons.
  So we are over here in the United States trying not to destroy our 
economy and yet cleaning up the environment more than anybody else in 
the world, and this ridiculous accord--really, a treaty--allows the 
biggest polluters in the world to keep polluting much more, just either 
one of those, than the rest of the world.

                              {time}  1300

  It is just phenomenal.
  The article goes on: ``The Washington Post gets into per capita 
emissions, and indeed despite the decline, U.S. per capita emissions 
are still among the highest in the world. However, The Washington Post 
story claimed: `The United States may have had the largest decrease in 
carbon emissions, but it is still the largest per capita emitter.'
  ``That's not accurate either.
  ``According to World Bank data, U.S. per capita carbon dioxide 
emissions rank 11th among countries. So, we are not the largest per 
capita emitter, but we do emit 2.2 times as much on a per capita basis 
as China. But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters 
from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon 
dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population, so 
China emits over 70 percent more carbon dioxide annually than the 
U.S.''
  So, there is a lot of manipulation as to what is going on, but it is 
ridiculous for the United States to be part of a treaty in which the 
United States is punished, and our economy punished and the American 
people punished even though we are cutting the rate of carbon dioxide 
emissions more than anyone else.
  Another article from Liz Peek on The Hill: ``China's rising emissions 
prove Trump right on Paris Agreement.''
  This article is from last year: ``Nothing horrifies the 
intelligentsia more than President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris 
Agreement on climate change. But, based on new information on China's 
emissions, it increasingly looks like the President made the right 
call.
  ``Just last week, an analysis from Greenpeace indicated that China's 
2018''--and the numbers we were quoting before were from the year 
before--``carbon emissions were on track to grow at the fastest rate in 
6 years. The study, based on government data regarding the use of coal 
and other energy sources, shows carbon output rising 4 percent in the 
first quarter of this year. Analysts are projecting similar gains over 
the next several quarters.
  ``The weakness of the Paris Agreement was that it was lopsided, 
requiring little from China and a great deal from the U.S. President 
Obama committed the United States to reducing carbon emissions in 2025 
by 26 to 28 percent, which would have meant a substantial jump in 
electricity costs.
  ``By contrast, China committed to boosting nonfossil fuels to around 
20 percent of its overall energy mix by 2030 and a `hope' that 
emissions might peak at that time. As one analyst commented in The New 
York Times, `What China is pledging to do here is not a lot different 
from what China's policies are on track to deliver.'''
  So, the President really did do the right thing for the American 
public.
  We lost a great man, a former Member of this body, in John Dingell. 
He and I had disagreements over some issues, but I knew John Dingell--I 
knew, and I know--was an honest man. He was an honorable man. He was a 
very decent man. He was a genuine asset to this legislative body.
  He followed the rules. He made others follow the rules. Yet, he was 
removed as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, even 
though he was looking forward to working diligently on a healthcare 
bill.
  He was removed as chairman of the committee because he made a 
statement that can still be found on YouTube. Like I said, he was an 
honest man. He did not want to move the cap and trade bill out of his 
committee. As he said, that cap and trade bill was basically--the big 
thing in it was a carbon tax. He said that cap and trade bill is not 
only a tax; it is a great big one.
  And he had talked about how, when you skyrocket the costs of energy, 
you know, the rich people are inconvenienced, but it is the poor in the 
Nation, it is the lower middle class, it is the

[[Page H3434]]

senior citizens on a fixed income, on Social Security, where they may 
go for years without getting a cost-of-living increase, and, even if 
they get one, it doesn't keep up with skyrocketing energy costs.
  And he could not abide hurting poor people--hardworking, lower middle 
class people--with skyrocketing energy that they couldn't afford to pay 
for.
  And that is where so many of these things lead. If we are going to 
have compassion for the people that are the working poor, for heaven's 
sake, the last thing you want to do to them is skyrocket the cost of 
what they absolutely have to have just to exist.
  In America today, you have got to have energy, whether it is electric 
energy, whether it is natural gas energy, gasoline, diesel. You have 
got to have energy. Even a wood-burning stove. You have got to have 
energy.
  These kinds of bills that push for these kinds of efforts devastate 
the working poor in this country.
  Here is an article from Justin Sykes--it also is from 2017--analyzing 
Obama's Paris Agreement. The title says, ``All Cost and No Benefit for 
the U.S.''
  So, I am pleased that President Trump withdrew us from the treaty 
that was never properly ratified and that would continue to send jobs 
to China and India from the United States.
  We have a President who understands, before America can continue to 
be the most philanthropic country in the world, helping those less 
fortunate, you need a vibrant economy. And simply bringing the U.S. 
economy down to the almost no rate of growth during the Obama years is 
not going to help us help other countries.
  So, the economy, as some may recall--you can go back and see 
President Obama talking in terms of basically the 3 percent growth is a 
thing of the past; the economy can't grow past that; we need to get 
used to the new normal.
  Well, under this President, the new normal is over 3 percent growth, 
and the only chance we have to overcome our massive deficit and growing 
deficit is to get the economy going so strongly that it grows in enough 
sufficient manner that we are able to start paying down our deficit, if 
we will just quit the massive overspending.
  Now, we have had quite a show--really, more of a circus--in our 
Judiciary Committee the last couple of days. It has really been 
outrageous. The Judiciary Committee ought to be, if anything the last 
bastion of civility in this town.

  The Judiciary Committee should be the committee from which good rules 
emanate that inspire others in the country and around the world that we 
have a model that can be followed. What occurred in our Judiciary 
Committee in the last 2 days has made a mockery of the legislative 
process.
  And something that our committee, under our new majority, Democrat 
majority, has not been willing to focus on that is a threat to our 
First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights is the overreach by 
the Department of Justice, by the FBI, and potentially by the Intel 
community, in taking away Americans' right to have privacy in their 
phone conversations, in their emails; their right to have a court 
system in which the judges are not closer to being a prosecutor than 
they are actual even-handed judges.
  And one of the things that is a huge concern for me and should be a 
huge concern for all Americans--I know it used to be a big concern with 
our now Chairman Nadler. My first term here in '05 and '06, at that 
time Congressman Nadler was a great stalwart in pushing for privacy 
rights and civil liberties to make sure the government under the Bush 
administration didn't overreach.
  But an interesting thing happened on the way to their majority and 
having the Obama administration in charge, which seemed to be a 
complete loss of interest in protecting civil liberties of people whom 
the Obama administration chose to spy on.
  And I know that the Attorney General has said he is going to be 
following up with critically important investigations now, but I would 
hope--and maybe the majority just really doesn't want to protect 
Americans' rights, is more focused on trying to destroy the current 
President.
  But there are things that have now arisen. Evidence is clear: 
massive, widespread abuse at the top of the FBI, top of the DOJ, 
potentially in the Intel area. And even to the point that we would have 
a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, who, in the words of Wilford 
Brimley: Last time we had a leak like this, Noah built himself an ark.
  That seems to be what has happened under Mueller's watch, when he was 
at the FBI, under Mueller's watch as a special counsel.
  And a good example is in this article from BuzzFeed. They are 
certainly no fan of mine, but the News Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith has 
this article from April 18, 2019. In this article he says: ``Our 
reporters''--talking about the BuzzFeed reporters--``went back to the 
two senior law enforcement sources who had told them, as the article 
put it, that `Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen 
to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, 
according to two Federal law enforcement officials involved in an 
investigation of the matter.'''
  That means there has got to be a couple of people on the Mueller team 
leaking information that turns out was not accurate, but leaking 
information. For one reason, obviously, since it turned out not to be 
accurate: to do harm to the President of the United States. That is not 
the job of the Department of Justice or the FBI.

                              {time}  1315

  Further down in the article it says--and this is a news editor-in-
chief talking at BuzzFeed--``Our story was based on detailed 
information from senior law enforcement sources. That reporting 
included documents specifically''--and get this--``specifically pages 
of notes that were taken during an interview of Cohen by the FBI.''
  Now, we got to looking at this issue back--regarding witness 
statements that are taken down by the FBI, and it is really time that 
the FBI came on up into the 20th century, the latter half of the 20th 
century. I am not even asking them to come to the 21st century.
  But a practice of the FBI has been--and it is advantageous to law 
enforcement that does this, it is not really honorable, but it is 
advantageous--they don't like to film, or record statements made by 
witnesses. They prefer to have an FBI agent take notes of their 
interpretation of what the witness is saying. If they recorded it, by 
video, or audio tape, then, when there was a question, Well, which is 
right; the FBI agent's notes, or the actual words coming from the 
witness's mouth? Then you could go to the tape and find out which was 
actually accurate.
  But when there is no recording, then, advantage goes strictly, inures 
strictly, to the benefit of the government agent, because, gee, they 
have got no convictions; they come into court. I saw so many felonies 
being tried in my court. I have tried felonies many times. But you know 
which way the jury is normally going to go? They are going to believe 
the law enforcement officers, especially prior to the last few years, 
back when the FBI had a much higher, well-thought of reputation. It has 
been devastated in recent years.
  But they come in and testify and the witness says, that is not what I 
said. You don't get to see a video. You don't get to hear the audio of 
what the witness actually said. What you have to decide between is this 
FBI agent that has never been convicted and looks good on the stand, 
sounds good on the stand, and this defendant, that probably has a 
criminal record. So that usually goes in the direction of the FBI 
agent.
  But now, most State and local law enforcement offices have done more 
and more to record statements, to record what happens, so that juries 
can see for themselves; so they don't have to judge between the 
credibility of law enforcement or a defendant. They see for themselves. 
They hear for themselves what was said or done.
  The FBI doesn't like to do that. They much prefer to have agents make 
their notes of their interpretation of what the defendant said. And 
Mueller particularly loved that during his 12 years as Director of the 
FBI, because his people always got the benefit of the doubt, and they 
were able to convict people because the FBI agent, who may have 
completely misinterpreted what was

[[Page H3435]]

said in his or her notes, they get the benefit, and the defendant gets 
convicted. So that has been a great strategy for law enforcement.
  Some people felt like I was a hang-'em-high-type felony judge, but I 
wanted fairness. We have got to have fairness. And because of the 
credibility issues of the FBI, I feel comfortable Christopher Wray 
won't do it. He is more interested in trying to rebuild the image of 
the FBI without actually correcting anything.
  So I am sure he is correcting some things, but certainly, he is not 
changing 302, witness statements taken down in writing as the FBI 
agents' interpretation.
  And there are other indications he is more interested in trying to 
have a good front, making it look like the FBI is better now. But there 
are actions that do need to be taken.
  But this story, going back to it; that reporting included documents, 
specifically, pages of notes that were taken during an interview of 
Cohen by the FBI. ``In those notes, one law enforcement source wrote 
that: `DJT personally asked Cohen to say negotiations ended in January, 
and White House Counsel office knew Cohen would give false testimony to 
Congress. Sanctioned by DJT. Joint lawyer team reviewed letter Cohen 
sent to SSCI about his testimony about Trump Tower Moscow, et al, 
knowing it contained lies.' ''
  Well, it turns out, those notes that were taken by FBI agents were 
not accurate, which, again, causes problems for credibility.
  But the real problem is the fact that you had investigators, which 
must have been FBI, working for the Mueller team, and they are turning 
over documents that, at least, were law-enforcement sensitive, and they 
are probably classified to some level.
  And as we know, as people looked into it after former FBI Director 
Comey basically admitted a crime, that he had leaked information that 
he had taken down or typed up in a memo based on his conversation with 
the President--well, under the FBI rules and regulations, that is not 
his property. It is not to be leaked. And yet, he leaked it to a 
professor friend so that the professor friend could get it out to the 
press. I think it was the New York Times.
  But regardless, get it out to the press for the sole purpose of 
trying to get a special counsel appointed to harass President Trump.
  So you have got the former FBI Director--what kind of example is 
that? Comey is knowingly leaking information that was potentially 
criminal to leak. And so when you have the FBI Director potentially 
committing overt crimes himself, what kind of example--what do you 
expect that to do inside the FBI?
  As an example, I know from talking to FBI agents from all over the 
country, they were, and still are, amazed at the things that top people 
in the FBI in Washington did to destroy FBI credibility. Of course, I 
think part of that was a result of Robert Mueller's 5 year up-or-out 
policy. He used it to eliminate people in the FBI that had more law 
enforcement experience than him. He ran off thousands and thousands of 
years of experienced, ethical, moral, upstanding FBI agents.
  I wonder why would an FBI agent, director, run off their most 
experienced agents from all over the country? And really, the only 
reason I can think of that you would do that, you know young guys 
coming right out of school that are patriotic; they come in; they take 
their orders. They don't have the experience to know when it is a 
stupid order or maybe an improper order, and so they are not going to 
talk back. They are going to salute Mueller and go do what he said; 
whereas, he knew that people that are longer in the tooth, that have 
been around, when he ordered one of his ridiculous policies into effect 
that he would later have to repeal, he didn't want the experienced FBI 
agent saying, sir, I know it seems like a good idea, but 15 years ago 
we tried that and here was the result. It doesn't work out like you 
think it is going to.

  Mueller didn't want anybody there that would do that kind of thing. 
He didn't want anybody that knew more than he did. He ran off thousands 
of years of experience.
  I cannot help personally but think, if Mueller had not run off so 
many thousands of years of FBI experience, there would have been people 
around inside the FBI who could have nudged an FBI director like Comey 
to avoid committing crimes; could have encouraged an idiot like Peter 
Strzok, maybe a great law enforcement officer at one time, but clearly 
immoral, illegal in his conduct, and a disgrace to the FBI, and a guy 
that can lie with a smirk on his face. That was pretty impressive.
  But there would have been people around to say, you can't do that, 
and if you don't stop, I am going to report you. Well, Mueller ran 
those guys off. He didn't want people like that.
  A good example is the FBI agent that--after Ted Stevens, under the 
Mueller FBI, was tried and convicted of a crime that he did not commit 
right before the election--so he lost his seat in the U.S. Senate--we 
had an FBI agent come forward, he filed an affidavit that he swore to 
that the FBI had, in effect, manufactured a case against Ted Stevens 
that did not exist; that he did not accept hundreds of thousands of 
dollars' worth of improvements to his home. He paid for them. He 
overpaid for them.
  But the FBI did their raids. They hid evidence that he needed to--it 
would have exonerated him, not just raised a reasonable doubt, but 
completely exonerated himself, and the FBI agent identified his 
superior that participated in manufacturing that crime.
  So what happened with Mueller as director of the FBI when he finds 
out, if he didn't already know, that he had a supervisor agent who 
manufactured a case to convict an innocent man?
  Well, the Mueller FBI ran off the guy that filed the affidavit 
because he had a conscience, and Mueller didn't want people of 
conscience in the FBI under him. He wanted people that would salute 
Mueller, salute the flag, and do whatever he wanted done.
  And apparently, in that case, it was manufacturing a criminal case 
against a U.S. Senator, the longest serving Republican in the Senate at 
that time.
  And, of course, you have the case of Dr. Steven Hatfill. Mueller had 
no evidence whatsoever that Steven Hatfill was guilty of the anthrax 
crime that killed and harmed people after 9/11. And at one point, the 
nonexistence of any evidence caused, apparently from reports, President 
George W. Bush to call Mueller in and say, hey, it doesn't look like 
there is any evidence here. Are you really sure that Dr. Hatfill is the 
anthrax defendant, the guy? And Mueller reportedly said, I am 100 
percent certain.
  There was no evidence. None. He just had a feeling. He basically 
framed an innocent man and ultimately, the U.S. Government had to pay 
over $6 million in settlement to Dr. Hatfill.
  He didn't really get his life back. We still talk about him in terms 
of anthrax.
  But when Mueller was asked if he had any regrets, apologies, he said, 
absolutely not. He had no apologies. He didn't care if he ruined an 
innocent man's life.
  He never apologized about Ted Stevens and, of course, Ted Stevens was 
killed in a plane he would never have been on if the Mueller FBI had 
not manufactured a case against him.

                              {time}  1330

  So it shouldn't come as a big surprise here that you have a Mueller 
team--it has got to be Mueller investigators; they were the ones that 
were doing this investigation--and they are leaking their own documents 
that are not to be leaked, well, unless they are directed to by 
Mueller, so I guess that is a possibility. But anyway, leaking this to 
the press.
  And it wasn't just one FBI agent, according to the BuzzFeed news 
editor in chief, because he says, in the story he wrote, that they had 
``senior law enforcement sources.''
  And they gave BuzzFeed--it is a liberal news organization, being kind 
here. They gave them the FBI notes to try to bring pressure on Cohen. 
That is the reason normally that law enforcement does this, to build up 
public hysteria against somebody and hatred for someone so that they 
ultimately give up and agree to testify however they are asked to 
testify.
  Now, this BuzzFeed editor also says: ``At the time, the sources asked 
reporters to keep the information confidential, but with the 
publication of Mueller's report, they have permitted its release.''

[[Page H3436]]

  That is so outrageous. I mean, was nothing learned from the FBI 
framing the wrong person in the Atlanta bombing case? Apparently not.
  And then what happened to Curt Weldon. He used to come speak from 
this very podium multiple times in my first term--I think it was mainly 
in 2006--and he kept alleging that the FBI had information that they 
knew there was going to be a terrorist attack, just like what happened 
on 9/11.
  I didn't know how Congressman Weldon knew what he was talking about. 
He sure seemed to. He kept making these allegations that the FBI didn't 
do their job. They could have saved 3,000 American lives on 9/11.
  Anyway, they were very tough allegations against the FBI, and as a 
freshman, I am thinking: Wow, Mueller has got to come back and respond 
to this. This looks bad for the FBI. Even though he only took over 
shortly before 9/11, it still makes his FBI look bad. Mueller has got 
to come out and address this.
  Apparently, Director Mueller, FBI Director Mueller, did address the 
allegations of Congressman Curt Weldon, because 2 weeks before his 
election that year, in 2006, there was a raid of the Weldon office, his 
daughter's law office, and it was early morning, and the press was all 
there.
  Gee, had to have been the FBI. They are doing the raid. They got the 
press all there.
  And in no time at all, there were protestors with already-made signs 
at Curt Weldon's office calling him all kinds of names, thief and 
different things. And that, occurring 2 weeks before the election, 
caused him to narrowly lose.
  Then some months later, they were notified by the FBI: Oh, by the 
way, you can come get all that stuff we seized during our raid. We 
didn't really use it for grand jury or anything.
  They apparently used it to defeat Curt Weldon as a Member of 
Congress, who made them feel bad.
  An intelligent person might ask: Well, look, if that is what the FBI 
has done to people in the past, whether Hatfield or Weldon or Stevens, 
aren't you concerned about doing just what Curt Weldon did?
  And the fact is it should be a matter of concern. We are seeing, even 
from BuzzFeed, how the FBI will disclose information that is not even 
accurate to bring down public opinion against both a witness and, in 
that case, the President himself just to smear somebody's name even 
when it is not accurate.
  So it should be a matter of concern. But if people don't stand up in 
this body--actually, the way Jerry Nadler used to years ago--about 
concerns with Federal law enforcement activities, if we don't stand up 
here, nobody is going to, and it isn't going to get better.
  So it is a risk we have got to take, because somebody has got to 
speak up about these outrageous abuses. And they truly are abuses.
  Now, as the evidence continues to come out, what appears to be quite 
clear was not that there was collusion or conspiracy between the Trump 
campaign to bring down Hilary Clinton as a candidate, but the Russian 
effort has not changed, not when they were the Soviet Union and now 
that it is an independent country of Russia. They want to cause as much 
problem and division in the United States as they can, and, boy, did it 
work this time.
  Just a little over a week ago, apparently, former MI6 agent, secret 
agent--he is no 007, that is for sure. Christopher Steele was hired by 
Fusion GPS, that also hired Nellie Ohr, who is the wife of a top FBI 
official named Bruce Ohr. She was digging up dirt, whatever she could 
find--that was why she was hired--on Donald Trump; and Christopher 
Steele, who hated candidate Donald Trump was hired to dig up dirt on 
Donald Trump.
  As I understand it, he didn't even go to Russia. He is calling, 
emailing, whatever he needs to do to communicate, and word gets out 
around Russia this British agent now working for the Clinton campaign 
through Fusion GPS and working with at least one FBI top official, he 
is looking for dirt on Donald Trump in Russia.
  Steele has now basically admitted: You know what? It could well be 
that the people that gave me this dirt about prostitutes and Donald 
Trump that has now turned out to be 100 percent fabricated, it is 
possible that those could be agents for Vladimir Putin.
  You think? You bet.
  Russia was able to divide this country and had plenty of willing 
accomplices in what turned out to be an outrageously corrupt top in the 
FBI and some in the DOJ.
  You know, I know Mr. Rosenstein has said, oh, he was joking when he 
said he would wear a wire into the Oval Office to try to trap Donald 
Trump as President so they could try to remove him as President. I 
mean, they were working on a coup.
  But from what I understand, we know he was not joking, because there 
was a second meeting in which Andy McCabe and another person, at least 
one more person, were there when Rosenstein brought it up on his own 
again: Hey, I wasn't kidding. I really am a team player. I know you are 
mad at me for the memo about Comey that allowed him to be fired, but I 
am a team player. I want to be part of the team. I will wear a wire 
into the Oval Office to try to trap the President. I am really willing 
to do that.''

  And McCabe, apparently just blown away that Rosenstein would offer to 
do that again, goes back and has a meeting with his subordinates and 
says: You won't believe Rosenstein just brought up again he is willing 
to wear a wire into the Oval Office. I don't know what is wrong with 
that guy.
  Well, there is a massive stench that has existed. It came about 
during the Obama administration. It came about when Robert Mueller ran 
off so many of our incredibly qualified, upstanding FBI agents.
  I was hoping that when Christopher Wray came in, he would help clean 
up the mess, get rid of the bad actors, but he has been more of hold 
what you have got and try to make the picture look rosier.
  Why would I say that? Because I know from having talked to the 
individuals who found the information. They knew that Hillary Clinton's 
private server was hacked by a foreign country, and it was not Russia.
  I knew at the time I was asking Peter Strzok questions, but I didn't 
mention the country. But now it has come out that a Chinese 
intelligence agency had embedded instructions in her private server 
that every email coming in and every email going out was to go to this 
Chinese intelligence agency, and it happened.
  We also now know there was classified information that came and went 
through her private server.
  But the inspector general for our intelligence community was so 
concerned, he told his investigator, Frank Rucker: Frank, you have got 
to get over there and tell the FBI. They don't know that her private 
server was hacked. You have got to go tell them.
  This didn't come out in the hearing. I didn't bring it up. But I did 
ask Strzok, because we know from his private texting that he was doing 
everything he could to exonerate Hillary Clinton and doing everything 
he could to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President.
  So it had to come as an incredible blow to Peter Strzok when the 
intelligence community's investigator, their IG investigator, comes 
over to the FBI, as directed by the IG, and he has to tell Peter Strzok 
because he is director of counterintelligence at the FBI. And they have 
their liaison there, Dean Chappell, and they have another person there; 
and the IG also sent over one of their top lawyers, Janet Mitchell.
  Rucker says: I needed to get you this information, and you weren't 
responding, so here it is. We now have proof positive that Hillary 
Clinton's private server was hacked, and it was hacked by China, and 
every email coming in, going out is going to their intelligence agency.
  And this didn't come out in the hearing, but the fact is he was 
shocked at the response by Peter Strzok, because he just looked at him. 
He showed no surprise. And Chappell and Strzok thanked Frank Rucker for 
the information, shook his hand, and sent him on his way as if it were 
no big deal.
  So where does Christopher Wray come in there? After that came out 
that our United States intelligence IG had proof positive that Hillary 
Clinton's private server had been hacked and after it was exposed what 
a detriment it was, possibly criminal activity by Peter Strzok, and 
after it came

[[Page H3437]]

out that they were instructed that her private server was hacked, what 
does Christopher Wray's FBI do? They release an official statement that 
the FBI still has not seen any evidence that Hillary Clinton's private 
server was hacked.
  That was despicably dishonest. All they had to do was contact the 
intelligence community IG's office. They could have gotten the 
information.
  But Christopher Wray was more interested in trying to preserve the 
old reputation of the FBI, so he continued with the facade: Well, yeah, 
we put on our blinders. We see no evil. We hear no evil. We don't know 
about any evil. We are not going to go look at the evidence that 
absolutely, unequivocally shows her private server was hacked. We will 
just ignorantly and intentionally mislead the American people and say 
we haven't seen any evidence that her private server was hacked.

                              {time}  1345

  This is a dangerous, dangerous time in our history. People can throw 
all the rocks at Bill Barr. I didn't know the guy. I don't think I ever 
met the man. I had concerns because he was a private friend of Bob 
Mueller, and his wife was a friend of Mrs. Mueller. I had concerns.
  Now that he is trying to get to the bottom of all the corruption 
within the FBI and at the top of the DOJ, the rocks are being hurled.
  This should be a time when we come together to try to root out the 
corruption. If they can attempt a coup of a duly-elected President, 
whether you like the electoral college or not, if they can do it to a 
Republican, then the day can come when we have conservative people who 
disagree with a liberal President and decide to take him out the way 
they made so many inroads into almost taking out Donald Trump.
  This is a scary time in our history. I literally hope and pray, and I 
know there are people who make fun of the prayers, but I truly believe 
prayers have brought about God's blessing on this country.
  We have a chance to fix things here, but it is going to take courage 
by people who are willing to stand up to an FBI, some corruption at the 
top.
  There are still some people at the FBI who do not like Donald Trump. 
They are still there. They still would like to cover for people who 
were helping try to effectuate this attempted coup on Donald Trump. 
They need to go.
  It used to be--and I know personally--assistant U.S. attorneys who 
were career, or FBI agents who were career. Most times, you don't even 
know how they voted. You don't know if they did vote because they had 
one interest, getting to the truth of whether or not there was probable 
cause a crime was committed and, if so, who probably committed it. That 
gets them an indictment, and then they can go for a conviction. That is 
what they were interested in, enforcing the law.
  The FBI under Robert Mueller and then James Comey became an 
instrument to abuse enemies, and it has to be cleaned up.
  I have seen no indication that Christopher Wray is interested in 
doing that. He is covering for the guys who created the problem. Maybe 
he is doing some things internally that I am not seeing, but he is not 
the answer.
  For the sake of continuing this little experiment in self-government, 
we need to clean up the mess at the FBI in Washington, D.C., and the 
mess that still exists at the top of the Justice Department. Then we 
can have a chance to keep this little experiment of self-government 
going.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________