[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 99 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4687-H4692]
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. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process we have for 
appropriating money. Some people are wondering why there were so many 
requests for a recorded vote, because normally most will go by a voice 
vote. We don't have to gather everybody together to vote. I think it is 
important. I know Members are not supposed to mention this when they 
are asking for a recorded vote, but we have a crisis on our southern 
border.
  Last month, there were over 144,000 individuals that came into the 
United States across our southern border illegally. That would seem to 
be a crisis. As I mentioned early this morning, around 9 o'clock, in my 
1-minute speech, some of us had just returned from being at Normandy 
for the 75th anniversary of D-day.
  What an incredible thing that is to contemplate. And, of course, for 
those who know history thoroughly, World War II, be aware that there 
was even a dress rehearsal for D-day. There were no live rounds that 
were utilized, and yet, the Allied forces lost hundreds of military 
members during that fiasco of a practice for D-Day, which some 
attributed as being partly the reason that General Eisenhower, as the 
Supreme Allied Commander, had written out a resignation letter and 
given it to his subordinate that tendered his resignation with 
instructions that if D-Day went poorly, to please submit his 
resignation to his superiors.

  He didn't know how it was going to come out. They tried to prepare, 
but there are different estimates: 150,000, some up to 170,000, some 
158,000 were involved in the D-Day landing at Normandy in France.
  Those courageous individuals that came ashore--some tried to come 
ashore and didn't make it that were dropped off too far out. Some had 
landing crafts that were sunk, but they were trying to come ashore, and 
did come ashore, and there were thousands of casualties as a result.
  Some of the stories bring tears to your eyes as a person contemplates 
what they went through. I had not been to Normandy before this weekend, 
and I am very grateful to Speaker Pelosi for inviting former members of 
the military to accompany her to Normandy. It was amazing.
  I have never been to Pointe du Hoc, but having attended Texas A&M 
University, I knew all about, at that time, Colonel Earl Rudder's 
heroic actions as he took the first group of what were then called 
Rangers--and have been called Rangers since--who trained at Fort 
Benning, Georgia, for most of that training, where I spent 4 years.
  He took them up the cliffs. Their goal, their job, their order was to 
take out the big cannons that were doing so much damage to the Allied 
forces. They fought their way up the cliffs, got to the top, and found 
out those big guns had been pulled back down the hill, so then they had 
to fight their way down the hill. But they did eventually take out 
those guns.
  There were a lot of mistakes made, as there are in any conflict, but 
the determination was to try to soften the German forces before our 
troops came

[[Page H4688]]

ashore there at Normandy. So planes were loaded with thousands of tons 
of munitions that were to be dropped on those outposts, those bunkers 
all along the beaches.
  As they taught us in military science, you want to have good crossing 
fields of fire so that you can, unfortunately, kill more people with 
different lines of fire from different directions, and Rudder had 
directed those placements very carefully and did an extraordinary job.
  That was one of the things the planes were going to soften up with 
their tons of munitions, but there was significant cloud cover that 
day, so they were to delay dropping the bombs, and at a given point, 
start counting up to three, four, five, and then drop their payload of 
bombs.
  Unfortunately, so many of those bombs ended up 3 miles past the 
bunkers they needed to take out. So around 150,000 or so Allied forces, 
a big part of those being American troops, came ashore. They invaded a 
Nazis-controlled France. They fought valiantly, and as a result, France 
was able to go back to being France.
  As a result of the ongoing actions, the rest of Europe, at least 
Western Europe, was able to go about being the countries they had 
been--even better once they built back up--largely, or at least with 
great help from the Marshall Plan.
  It was amazing. I was not aware that so many of the French people 
still held what the Americans and the Allies did in such high regard.
  So as our bus got near to--and this was actually on Sunday--there 
were going to be thousands of paratroopers reenacting their 
parachuting. Fortunately, nobody landed with their chute on a church 
spire and got killed as they hung there. That didn't happen.

                              {time}  1600

  But the chutes were actually more modernized chutes, so they could 
control their descent more easily than those poor guys did back on June 
6 and the succeeding days in 1944. But we got off the bus, the Members 
of Congress, and were proceeding to where we were going to be watching 
from in this little valley area. And there were thousands and thousands 
and thousands of people who were walking in the same direction, and 
most of them had something to indicate United States, whether it was a 
little American flag or scarves that indicated something to do with the 
Stars and Stripes.
  At first, I thought: Wow, all of these thousands of Americans made it 
over here for the D-Day 75th anniversary? This is incredible.
  But then I quickly realized the huge majority of those people were 
not Americans; they were French. Though many of them were children, 
young adults, adults with young families, they knew what America had 
done to help save their freedom and their country.
  So it was a very moving experience, especially when you go down, 
like, to Omaha Beach and you think about those poor guys, Mr. Speaker, 
so dedicated to liberty and to ending the evil that the Nazis posed. 
And to think about them having friends on either side being killed, 
they were at risk, some were being shot, but still moving forward and 
making their way up through concertina wire. In some places they would 
blow holes through the wire, so they could start getting through and 
not be sitting ducks out on the beach. It is very moving to be there 
where so many, as Lincoln said, ``gave the last full measure of 
devotion.''
  But we get back home, and we see the report from May that across our 
southern border we had at least a minimum of 144,000 individuals come 
across our southern border illegally. I don't know how you don't call 
that an invasion, Mr. Speaker. The huge majority didn't carry weapons, 
most did not at all. They just wanted to get into the country. But as 
we have seen repeatedly, there are gang members who come in.
  In fact, an article came out June 7 by Samantha Lock, titled ``ISIS 
plotted to smuggle terrorists into the US over the Mexico border to 
launch terror attacks, captured jihadi reveals.''
  This article tells us: ``A captured ISIS fighter has made a chilling 
confession detailing how the terrorist group planned on exploiting 
vulnerabilities in the U.S. border with Mexico to take advantage of 
smuggling routes and to target financial institutions.
  ``Abu Henricki, a Canadian with dual Trinidadian citizenship, said 
that he was sought out to attack the U.S. from a route starting in 
Central America.
  ``ISIS allegedly had plans to exploit vulnerabilities in the U.S. 
border with Mexico.
  ``The ISIS fighter was interviewed last month--together with over 160 
ISIS defectors and returnees--by research group the International 
Center for the Study of Violent Extremism.
  ``The study, published in Homeland Security Today, concluded: `We 
have learned . . . about multiple individuals who knew of, or were 
themselves offered, or pressured by the ISIS emni--intelligence--to 
return to Europe to mount attacks at home.
  `` `We learned that, indeed, there was at least one ISIS plot for 
their cadres to travel from Syria to penetrate the U.S. southern border 
by infiltrating migration routes.'
  ``Henricki was detained by the SDF in Rojava, Syria, and spoke with 
researchers for more than an hour on May 12, giving his firsthand 
account of being attracted to, traveling, joining and serving in the 
Islamic State caliphate, first as a fighter and then later unable to 
fight due to chronic illness.
  ``In video footage of Henricki's confession, he opens up about a plot 
in which he says he and other Trinidadians were invited in late 2016 to 
attempt to penetrate the U.S. borders to mount financial attacks.
  ``He explains: `The emni--ISIS intelligence arm--was inviting us.
  `` `They, what they will have, what they wanted to do, basically, is 
they wanted to do financial attacks. Financial attacks to cripple the 
U.S. economy.
  `` `Apparently, they have the contacts or whatever papers they can 
get to a false ID, false passports to send me out for this kind of 
attack.
  `` `They have their system of doing it. So that's maybe the way that 
I could have gone out with other individuals.'
  ``He adds: `It wasn't me alone. They were sending you to Puerto Rico 
and from Puerto Rico to Mexico.
  `` `They were going to move me to the Mexican side of the U.S. 
southern border via Puerto Rico.
  `` `This was masterminded by a guy in America. Where he is, I do not 
know.
  `` `That information, the plan, came from someone from the New Jersey 
State from America.
  `` `I was going to take a boat from Puerto Rico into Mexico. He was 
going to smuggle me in. I don't know where I'd end up.'
  ``Henricki detailed how he and his Canadian wife were imprisoned by 
ISIS.
  ``He recounts: `I was asked to leave ISIS to go to America because 
I'm from that area. `Cause they wanted and planned to do something, and 
I refused. I refused to do it. That is why also I'm put into ISIS 
prison and been tortured.
  `` `They beat me a lot. I was suspended from the back, standing on my 
toes, given no food for a few days, waterboarded--while blindfolded, 
and they put a bag over your head.
  `` `I knew I went to prison because I said no to their offer of an 
external attack mission.'
  ``Anne Speckhard, director of the International Center for the Study 
of Violent Extremism, told FOX News: `ISIS has organized plots in 
Europe with returnees, so it seems entirely plausible that they wanted 
to send guys out to attack.
  `` `The issue that makes a North American attack harder is the travel 
is more difficult from Syria.
  ```So the idea that they would instead use people who were not known 
to their own governments as having joined ISIS might make it possible 
for them to board airplanes.'

  ``However, Ms. Speckhard reasoned: `This plot is likely dead as those 
who were pressured to join it are, according to Abu Henricki, now all 
dead and ISIS is in retreat as we know.
  `` `That doesn't mean we should disregard that it was a plot.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, I would also state, when we have indications of ISIS 
plots to invade our country, have attacks on financial institutions to 
kill Americans, we should take them seriously. If they have made one 
plot, as we have seen around the country, there are bound to be many 
plots.

[[Page H4689]]

  There is now a discredited FBI Director named Comey who at one time 
testified--it used to mean something when an FBI Director testified 
before Congress. Comey has hurt that a great deal because of so many 
falsehoods that have been spoken while under oath here on Capitol Hill. 
But he had indicated that we have ISIS investigations and ISIS cells in 
every State in the Union, at one time, basically to that affect. That 
would tell us that this plot recently discovered is not inconsistent 
with what a former FBI Director was concerned about some years back.
  So it is important to control our borders and to know who is coming 
in because we know people want to take down the United States of 
America. People who have evil intentions know if you take down the 
United States of America as a power, then evil can prevail throughout 
the world.
  I had mentioned to a few Australians here a year or so ago, one of 
the other Members of Congress said that it seems like we keep losing 
liberties here, free speech, they wanted to take away our Second 
Amendment rights. Well, if we lose our liberties, then we may just all 
need to go to Australia.
  None of the three smiled or laughed at all. I thought they would find 
it amusing. One of them said, Do you not understand? If the United 
States loses its liberty, China will take over Australia before anybody 
could get there from the United States.
  We simply need the United States to stay strong.
  I heard that in Africa, from some Christians there--and they know a 
lot about being under assault as Boko Haram had got so powerful there. 
When I was there in Nigeria trying to help some folks there, I was told 
that the Obama administration had given them word, Look, we will help 
you and give you more help with Boko Haram, but first you have got to 
legalize abortion and same-sex marriage. Until you do that, we are not 
going to be able to be as much help as we could.
  As one Catholic Bishop in Nigeria notably proclaimed:
  The President of the United States should know our religious beliefs 
are not for sale to anyone, including the United States.
  Other expressions from other African leaders who were Christians were 
similar.
  So this information about ISIS having plots that include crossing our 
border and attacks on our country is not really new.
  I became the brunt of Democratic scoffers. One comedian was making 
fun, and none of them bothered to mention that I was quoting the FBI 
Director in testimony from here on Capitol Hill. Like I say, back then, 
an FBI Director testifying under oath had more credibility than what an 
FBI Director under oath has now.
  But it was the FBI Director who indicated that we know that there are 
people from the Middle East who have changed their names to sound 
Hispanic. They have come to Mexico and tried to blend in with Hispanics 
coming across our border.
  I was belittled and made fun of, but it didn't change the facts of 
what had been testified to under oath by somebody who the Democrats 
used to love.
  It is a threat, and we have been told year after year how the threat 
increases and all the different plots. There are very few people I am 
aware of on the other side of the aisle who haven't at some point in 
the last 10, 12 years talked about the need to secure our border.
  Many of my Democratic friends have talked about the need for a wall 
or something to stop the flood of illegal immigration. Having done so 
much contemplation about the 150,000 or so who invaded Nazi-occupied 
France in 1944, heck, we had virtually that in 1 month. They didn't all 
come to shore with weapons, but it is an invasion when that many people 
are trying successfully to come into your country.
  As we heard, again, through testimony this week, 90 to 95 percent of 
the people claiming asylum are not allowed if they are not legitimate 
claims, but, unfortunately, the big bulk of those who claim asylum are 
given hearing dates. Some during the Obama administration would be 4 
years or so away, and 90 percent or so do not show up for those 
hearings.
  That tells the world we are a broken country and that the rule of law 
that has meant so much in this country and that has given other 
countries hope that there is at least one place in the world where 
people are not above the law--nobody is--and where the law really 
matters. Sure, there are exceptions and there are mistakes, but they 
really do try to enforce the law across the board.

                              {time}  1615

  I mean, the world has seen, with the huge invasion coming across our 
border--and, for this year, the estimates now are that certainly over a 
million people will flood in, invade the United States illegally.
  And how tragic that any little children would ever be sent 
unaccompanied to our border, risking snakes, risking the elements, 
risking all kinds of things.
  To a lesser extent, little boys, apparently, are being raped; but 
girls, we are told about 25 percent, will be raped on the way through 
Mexico into the United States.
  How tragic that we lured them to America with hopes that we are going 
to continue to allow violation of our own laws unimpeded, that we are 
going to allow this country to be overwhelmed with people who have 
never been educated to what it means to keep and nourish a self-
governing country.
  It is not natural in the world to have a people who effectively self-
govern. That is why we see the U.N. composed of so many countries that 
are ruled by dictators.
  Even now, 230 years after our Constitution was ratified, we still 
have dictators all over the world. The Founders were hoping that, if we 
got this little experiment right, then it would become a new order of 
things. Novus ordo seclorum. That is why that is part of our great 
seal, the two-sided great seal. If we get this right, countries around 
the world will want to emulate what we have done so they can self-
govern.
  But, as Ben Franklin said there in the Constitutional Convention: 
``If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it 
probable an empire could rise without His concurring aid?''
  We have been assured in the Sacred Scripture that, unless the Lord 
build the house, they labor in vain that build it. He said: I firmly 
believe this. I also believe without His--God's--concurring aid, we 
shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of 
Babel. We will be confounded by our local partial interests, and we, 
ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages.
  The reason he knew that was because this was a chance to go beyond 
anything the Greeks, the Athenians had done in the way of trying to 
self-govern. This was beyond anything anybody had ever done.
  Sure, there was a senate in Rome. Sure, there was a parliament in 
England. But this was going to be true self-government through 
representation, chosen by the people.
  And he knew, if we get it right, everybody is going to want to follow 
this example. But, if we get it wrong, people, for the rest of history, 
will look back and point and say: They had the best chance of ever 
making self-government work, and they blew it.
  So, when the Convention was over and the lady there in Philadelphia 
asked Franklin, ``What have you given us?'' as most people hopefully 
know, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.''
  Because he knew, this is not something that is eternal. No 
government, no country, no form of government ever lasts forever. They 
are only temporary.
  And thank God, literally, we have been allowed to self-govern for 230 
years under our Constitution, 230 years this year.
  But we are in real danger. In order to preserve this form of 
government under our Constitution--as John Adams said, this 
Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people; it is wholly 
inadequate for the government of any other.
  So, for too long, too many schools have been teaching there is no 
real right or wrong, so much is relative. The most important thing is 
that we are tolerant of everybody and everything.
  But the fact is, if you are tolerant of everybody and everything, 
then there really are no criminal laws, and you quickly descend into 
anarchy.
  You have to be intolerant of those who break the law. You have to be 
intolerant of those who hurt others. But

[[Page H4690]]

most of us were taught, growing up: ``Sticks and stones may break my 
bones, but words will never hurt me.'' Well, the truth is words do 
hurt. The Bible talks about the damage that a tongue can do.
  But only in recent years have we degenerated from the time of the 
Revolution's great proclamation, usually quoting Voltaire, though there 
is some indication he may not have been the origination of the phrase: 
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right 
to say it.
  Now, that has degenerated, basically, in today's society to: I 
disagree with what you say. I am going to get you fired. I want to make 
your family so miserable that they all want to die. I am going to try 
to keep your family from ever being employed. I am going to make you 
miserable living in your house. I am going to just create chaos. You 
are going to regret the day you ever disagreed with me.
  Wow. What a degeneration from what spurred a revolution: I disagree 
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  Now we have come to a place in America where the only people who are 
allowed to be intolerant are those who say they are tolerant. But they 
are allowed to be intolerant toward Christians who truly follow the 
teachings of Moses, whose bust is up above the middle door in the 
gallery.
  He had some absolute laws that he set down. And the reason that he is 
the most prominent lawgiver, according to the time that this House 
floor was built, was because it was thought his Ten Commandments were 
the greatest law gift ever in history.
  Now, Hammurabi, his profile is up there. Even though the federally 
mandated test does not have significant history required anymore, those 
who have had some history may have learned about the Code of Hammurabi 
and the Justinian Code. His profile is next to Hammurabi.
  And you come clear around to Napoleon. Yes, there is a Napoleonic 
Code, and it is still the basis for laws in Louisiana.
  But laws used to mean something, and we could disagree and not be 
disagreeable. And, even to this day, there are Democrats I care very 
deeply about as individual human beings, and we can disagree and still 
like each other and we can find some common things to work on. But, for 
heaven's sake, we have got to get beyond this business of destroying 
people who just disagree with us, not letting them eat in a public 
restaurant, not letting them go out in public to games or to shows 
without trying to make their lives miserable.
  The most intolerant people in the country these days are the ones who 
say, ``We are the tolerant ones,'' when they have become anti-Semitic, 
many have become anti-Christian.
  Oh, they will say, ``We are Christian,'' but, as Jesus said: You will 
know them by their fruits, and their fruits are not particularly sweet.
  But this is a crucial time, and there is an invasion going on, and we 
need to do something about it.
  The President is doing all he can to try to secure our southern 
border. But, as we saw last week, we passed another bill through the 
House--at least the majority did--that was basically a flashing neon 
sign to those who want to come into the United States illegally: You 
better come on now because we just passed a bill in the House that will 
legalize people.
  So the thought of some around the world who just want to come here 
and have a better way of life is: Gee, if I can get there, maybe I can 
claim that I was there before whatever the cutoff date is.
  We have seen that happen before. And others like ISIS are thinking: 
Gee, thank goodness there are people in Congress who don't want the 
borders secure. They don't want President Trump to have a victory, so 
they are leaving it open so we can keep pouring in. Let's take 
advantage. Let's get over there and come through.
  And then, as if it is not enough of a crisis with an invasion coming 
in every month through our southern border, coming illegally, we keep 
getting more and more information about the illegality, even 
criminality, within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even, 
potentially, the intel community. More to follow in days ahead on the 
intel community.
  But there is a release here from the Office of the Inspector General, 
the Department of Justice. This was dated May 29, 2019. It says:

       The Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 
     initiated this investigation upon receipt of information from 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation alleging that a then-FBI 
     Deputy Assistant Director had numerous contacts with members 
     of the media in violation of FBI policy.

  Now, that is a violation of policy, not necessarily a violation of 
the law. But the report goes on:

       Additionally, it was alleged that the Deputy Assistant 
     Director of the FBI may have disclosed law enforcement or 
     other sensitive information to the media without 
     authorization. This matter is among the Office of Inspector 
     General investigations referenced on page 430 of the OIG's 
     ``Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the 
     Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Advance 
     of the 2016 Election.''
       The OIG investigation concluded that the Deputy Assistant 
     Director engaged in misconduct when he: 1--and it could be 
     she--disclosed to the media the existence of information that 
     had been filed under seal in Federal court, in violation of 
     18 U.S.C. section 401, Contempt of Court; 2, provided without 
     authorization FBI law enforcement sensitive information to 
     reporters on multiple occasions; and, 3, had dozens of 
     official contacts with the media without authorization, in 
     violation of FBI policy.
       The OIG also found that the Deputy Assistant Director of 
     the FBI engaged in misconduct when the DAD accepted a ticket, 
     valued at approximately $225, to attend a media-sponsored 
     dinner, as a gift from a member of the media, in violation of 
     Federal regulations and FBI policy.

  Then, here is a single line, from a single paragraph:

       Prosecution of the Deputy Assistant Director was declined.

                              {time}  1630

  The OIG has completed this investigation and is providing support to 
the FBI for appropriate action.
  Having questioned Inspector General Horowitz, I know that as 
inspector general of the DOJ, Michael Horowitz did a lot of work in 
compiling the report that he provided to Congress, to our Judiciary 
Committee. He had about 500 pages, most of which included evidence of 
outrageous bias, prejudice, hatred against candidate Donald Trump and 
then against elected President Donald Trump.
  The bias and prejudice that were documented were astounding, 
especially for some of us who have had very good friends, Republican, 
Democrat, many of them I don't even know what party affiliation they 
are because they are about enforcing the law, right and wrong, and they 
do a great job. That includes people in the FBI, ATF, and the 
Department of Justice, specifically.
  Because they are humans, there are always going to be some problems 
here and there, some people who are problems. It is always going to 
happen.
  But to have top people in the FBI, the DOJ, who are so flagrantly 
using their power to go after and try to destroy a candidate's 
election, and then try to use their power as an insurance policy to 
take him out if he were to get elected, is absolutely astounding.
  Ever since the first report came out, and we had 500 pages of 
horrific bias and prejudice, meanness, hatred toward Donald Trump and 
those who worked with him, the Democrat-appointed inspector general, 
Michael Horowitz, after accumulating all of that overwhelming evidence, 
comes to the mind-boggling conclusion that there is no indication it 
affected any investigation.
  As I told him, you gathered the evidence, apparently did a good job, 
and you, as a Democrat appointee, with lots of Democrat friends, you 
realized that: Gee, this really looks bad for my friends, and I have 
thrown them no bone in this whole investigation. I will do that so they 
don't get too mad at me in my conclusion. So, ergo, I conclude there is 
no indication that bias affected any investigation.
  Are you kidding me? With all the evidence he gathered, and you see 
how the investigation into Hillary Clinton's alleged violations--and 
now we know, actual violations of the law--how they were swept under 
the rug and disregarded, and you have the nerve to say the bias didn't 
affect that?
  Having a conference between the Attorney General herself and the 
husband of the person being investigated on a tarmac that they thought 
nobody would ever find out about, but some reporter sees Clinton and 
realizes: Whoa, what have we got going on here?

[[Page H4691]]

  He wasn't going to play golf in 100-plus degree weather in Arizona. 
They didn't meet out on the tarmac to talk about grandchildren. That is 
ridiculous.
  Immediately after that is when Hillary Clinton made herself 
available. And what did the FBI do? Unlike anything they do in a 
regular investigation, they didn't have notes. They didn't record the 
statements.
  They were basically spying on Flynn and had transcripts of his 
information before they asked him questions.
  That is what you call a perjury trap. They don't tell you they have 
transcripts of your prior conversations, and they ask you what was 
said. When you don't remember exactly word for word specifically, or 
you don't remember something that may or may not have come up, then 
they have you. You just lied to the FBI.
  They can prosecute you, which they did with Michael Flynn, even 
though the two investigating officers or agents of the FBI said: We do 
not believe that he intended any deception. He thought he was being 
honest.
  Well, they prosecuted him anyway. That was their effort to get at 
Donald Trump. It didn't work.
  They have done everything they possibly can. After 2 years of 
investigation, after basically trying to extort friends, family, 
anybody who had contact with Donald Trump, they got nothing.
  It appeared pretty obvious. Cohen wanted to give them something if he 
could, but he didn't have anything legitimate. And he has lied too much 
under oath to be a significant witness.
  We have seen what has happened with a weaponized FBI and Department 
of Justice.
  I didn't know Christopher Wray when he took over as FBI Director, and 
I had hopes that he would clean up the FBI and help restore it back to 
being an agency that was known worldwide for its honesty and integrity. 
Unfortunately, whatever personal reasons he has, personally, I think he 
is just trying to sweep as much under the rug as he can, hoping that 
the FBI will get beyond all the lies and criminality involved at the 
top of the FBI, and then maybe it will get better, instead of just 
facing up to the facts.
  One of the clear indications that he is not willing to do that is the 
fact that he continued, even in August of last year, to have reports 
come out from the FBI saying they have seen no evidence that Hillary 
Clinton's private server was ever hacked.
  Well, that is true. They have not. The reason they have not is 
because they did not want to see the evidence that the intel 
community's inspector general found showing beyond any reasonable 
doubt, 100 percent certainty, that Hillary Clinton's private server was 
hacked.
  I didn't want to use the country at the time I asked Peter Strzok 
about it, and he lied about that. But Frank Rucker, as the investigator 
for the intel community IG, went hurriedly to the FBI. He talked to the 
director of their counterintelligence, a guy named Peter Strzok, and 
their liaison at the FBI, Dean Chappell.
  Frank Rucker had an attorney from the IG intel, Jeanette Mitchell, I 
believe. He said: Hey, I know you guys said you found no evidence that 
her private server was hacked, but we now know there is no question her 
private server was hacked. It was hacked by China.
  There were embedded instructions in that private server from the 
Chinese intelligence. It directed every email coming in and out of her 
private server to go to this Chinese intelligence agency in the United 
States.
  There was a glitch with four emails. But over 30,000 others, going in 
and out, they went straight to Chinese intelligence. We know that.
  Frank Rucker was surprised that Peter Strzok and Dean Chappell didn't 
look surprised. They just said, basically: Okay, thank you.
  He thought they would be blown away: Wow, really? Are you serious? Do 
you really have this evidence? Maybe we should see it.
  No, they didn't ask to see the evidence. They didn't ask to review 
it. They didn't ask for a report. They shook his hand and sent him on 
his way. Well, he wasn't sure if they shook hands or not, but they sent 
him on his way.
  For Christopher Wray to continue to come out and have statements come 
from the FBI saying they have never seen any evidence that Hillary 
Clinton's personal server was ever hacked continues a fraud being put 
out at the top of the FBI.
  I don't know, I haven't talked to the President about Christopher 
Wray. But I believe we need a different FBI Director who is not going 
to continue frauds that were perpetrated by people like Peter Strzok.
  I know there are a lot of Republicans that keep saying: Oh, yeah, but 
when Michael Horowitz comes out with his next report, it is going to be 
devastating.
  Oh, yeah, well, we have already seen in the last couple of weeks that 
he gets information that somebody has committed crimes, and the FBI, 
the DOJ, haven't learned anything. They still have too many Obama 
administration and Sally Yates subordinates working over there with 
their own agenda. They are deciding: Let's don't prosecute people.
  If history is any indication, and Horowitz does what did he before, 
he will come out with a report that has devastating information about 
crimes committed by FBI agents and people in the Department of Justice. 
Most of us will think it is horrific, and the conclusion will be: But 
it really didn't infect anything that the FBI or the DOJ was doing, so 
there is no reason to prosecute anybody.
  If history is an indication of the future, that is what we can expect 
from Horowitz's next IG report: Sure, there was a lot of criminality, 
but nothing worth prosecuting. Nothing to see here, move along.
  We have real trouble. But John Solomon wrote about this matter on 
June 13. ``Feds Gone Wild: DOJ's Stunning Inability to Prosecute Its 
Own Bad Actors.''
  ``One was caught red-handed engaged in nepotism. Another, a lawyer no 
less, admitted to shoplifting at a Marine barracks store. A third 
leaked sealed court information to the news media. And a fourth engaged 
in fraud by turning a government garage into a personal repair shop. 
Four cases, all solved in the last month, with suspects who cost 
taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and significant breaches of 
public trust.
  ``But these weren't your everyday perps. All were U.S. Department of 
Justice employees who are supposed to catch other criminals while 
working for the FBI, the DEA, and U.S. attorneys' offices. Instead, 
they broke the law or violated the rules. And all managed to escape 
prosecution, despite their proven transgressions.
  ``Recent Justice Department disciplinary files tell an undeniable 
story.''
  On down, it said: ``DOJ is doing a poor job of punishing its own. In 
cases closed in the past month, more than a half dozen FBI, DEA, U.S. 
attorney and U.S. marshal officials were allowed to retire, do 
volunteer work, or keep their jobs as they escaped criminal charges 
that everyday Americans probably would not.
  ``In most instances, the decisions were made by Federal prosecutors 
who work with the very figures impacted by or committing the bad 
conduct. In local law enforcement, that go-easy phenomenon is known as 
the `thin blue line.' ''
  I would differ with that. I don't believe that is what most of us 
think of as the thin blue line.
  Nonetheless, it concludes: ``Even before the recent spate of closed 
IG investigations, questions surfaced about DOJ's willingness to punish 
its own. That is because fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe was 
recommended for prosecution more than 15 months ago for lying about 
news leaks and, so far, has faced no criminal charges.''
  The article also points out that there was the FBI lawyer who got 
caught in an embarrassing criminal act at the Marine Corps barracks 
commissary at Quantico. ``The FBI attorney admitted to placing numerous 
cosmetic items, valued at $257.99 and belonging to the MCB Quantico 
Exchange, in her purse without the intention to pay for them and did 
not pay for them before leaving the store. The FBI attorney further 
admitted that between February 2016 and her arrest in February 2018, 
she had shoplifted at the MCB Quantico Exchange one to two additional 
times and at other private retailers in the area on two to three 
occasions.''

[[Page H4692]]

  


                              {time}  1645

  ``The investigation concluded her conduct violated Federal criminal 
law and FBI policy regarding unprofessional conduct. But here was the 
outcome: `Criminal prosecution was deferred pending the FBI attorney's 
completion of 125 hours of community service, after which all charges 
were dismissed.' ''
  A few weeks community service, she was still at her job at the time 
the IG issued the report.
  I mean, this is serious stuff.
  The article also goes on: ``One of the internal affairs that stunned 
Members of Congress this month directly grew out of the interwoven 
Hillary Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations in 2016, 
during then-FBI Director James Comey's tenure.
  ``The IG concluded that an FBI Deputy Assistant Director engaged in 
multiple improper news media leaks while those investigations were 
ongoing, including one that violated a sealed court order, and accepted 
an improper gratuity from the news media. But prosecution was declined, 
yet again. FBI officials say they are considering discipline against 
the supervisor.''
  The author, John Solomon, says: ``Records I reviewed indicate that 
more misconduct eerily similar to that already uncovered is being 
investigated. For example, the IG fraud unit opened a case in March and 
began interviewing whistleblowers about a new contract fraud matter 
inside the DEA, emails show.
  ``It used to be that those who were entrusted to enforce the law were 
held to the highest standards.
  ``Today, however, there is a troubling pattern of officers being held 
to a lower standard inside a Department where critics fear there is a 
dual system of justice.''
  So this is a dangerous time in our history. We know that no country 
lasts forever, no form of government lasts forever. We have had 230 
years since 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as President, 
John Adams as Vice President, and the Congress was sworn in there at 
Federal Hall in New York City, after which, a couple minutes of 
speeches, they walked down Wall Street to St. Peters Chapel and they 
had a prayer service to pray for this new country.
  When was the last time every elected Member of Congress, the 
President of the United States, and the Vice President of the United 
States, regardless of political beliefs, came together in one accord 
and prayed in consecrating our country to God Almighty?
  We do have a Presidential Prayer Breakfast every year, but wouldn't 
it be nice if we could do something like get us started off on a foot 
that eventually led to the end of slavery, eventually led to true civil 
rights?
  But now it has led to the kind of arrogance that leads to the end of 
the Republic that we may not keep much longer if we don't come back to 
the basics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________