[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19480-19483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of big things going on. 
More things will be coming out. We have had an interesting day of it 
today.
  Hopefully, the House and Senate--I think we are going to get a tax 
cut bill done. I think it is unfair to just call it a tax reform 
because it doesn't explain. We did tax cuts for everybody. We didn't 
change the percentage on the wealthiest Americans.
  And I understand the thinking. Look, if we, as Republicans, change, 
we lower all the tax rates, then the Democrats will say: See, you're 
doing a big tax cut for the wealthy.
  So I get it. But as the old saying in Washington goes: No matter how 
cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up; not in Washington.
  Okay, so we didn't change the top percentage rate of tax on the 
wealthiest Americans. That is the only one we didn't change. And so 
what has happened?
  Our friends across the aisle have said: See, this is a tax cut to 
help the rich. That is the one tax rate we didn't change, so it 
wouldn't have mattered.
  I would love to have just seen--all right, we are getting rid of all 
of these tax rates. We are going to have one tax rate, and I would love 
it to be the tax rate that the Bible suggests in the synagogue or 
church; and that is 10 percent of your firstfruits. And why not 10 
percent to the government after 10 percent of the firstfruits to the 
church or synagogue, if those are your religious beliefs?
  Let's see. I forget which candidate, one of the candidates used to 
say: Hey, if 10 percent is good enough for God, why shouldn't it be 
good enough for the government?
  But anyway, it was a nice thought. But we are still doing a little 
bit of social engineering by trying, apparently, in the tax bill, to 
give a lot of help to the folks who need it. There are some things that 
I hope will return.
  I have heard from folks in my district, some accountants who have 
clients that, they do pay enough in medical expenses. If they don't get 
to deduct that, they are going to be bankrupt so, hopefully, that will 
be something that comes back and gets put in our version.
  The last people we need to harm are the people who have got no other 
place to go. They are on Social Security, they are heading toward the 
end of life on this planet, and then the government stabs them in the 
back. I mean, that is what Bill Clinton did back in 1993. Not only did 
he put a tax on their Social Security in 1993, he made it retroactive. 
So it wasn't just taxing Social Security for the future, it made it 
retroactive, and that was terribly tragic.
  I wish we were making our tax cuts retroactive so that the working 
poor would get the help much quicker. But everybody in America is going 
to get some help with reduction, massive reduction of the largest 
tariff that any industrialized nation puts on its own goods when they 
are produced. It is called the corporate tax.
  They make you think, oh, these greedy corporations, they are paying 
that tax. They don't pay that tax.
  Just like Warren Barnett--Warren Buffett. Warren Barnett was a great 
trial lawyer. I don't know if he is still alive or not. I have heard 
him; he is an amazing guy, Democrat, amazing lawyer, really amazing 
trial lawyer.
  But Warren Buffett, although he keeps saying publicly he wouldn't 
mind paying more taxes, his actions seem to indicate that they are 
paying massive amounts of money to lawyers to keep his company from 
paying the billions of dollars that I am told is owed. But

[[Page 19481]]

anyway, we will see what happens there.
  I am very hopeful that we are going to get a tax deal done, and we 
are going to bring it to the floor of this House, and we are going to 
pass it, and we will sing God bless Kevin Brady and the Ways and Means 
Committee, at least those who made it possible, made it happen. Paul 
Ryan has been very helpful in moving that direction on the tax bill, so 
that will be a great thing if we can get it done.
  I am also grateful to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee today 
for the hearing that he required that we have. We had the FBI Director, 
Director Wray, come over and testify in front of us, and I am 
optimistic, with Director Wray. Of course, I was optimistic with 
Director Comey when I first got to question him because I saw Comey, 
oh, this is great. Finally, we have gotten rid of Mueller and all the 
damage he has done to the FBI.
  As I pointed out to Director Wray today, he took over a very weakened 
FBI from the one that he took over as FBI Director under Bush, because 
when Director Mueller took over as FBI Director--I have tried to figure 
out why he would do this, and the only thing I can figure is he wanted 
a bunch of young, ``yes people'' working for him; because it goes 
pretty common sense that people with the most experience are going to 
be in a position to tell you, as the new FBI Director, when you are 
choosing to go down a road that is going to create problems; because 
FBI agents who have been there for 25 years, like so many of ours were, 
had been, they are an oddity now, but that was because Mueller wanted 
young, fresh, saluting ``yes men'' who would salute the flag, salute 
him, and not be in a position to say: Well, Director, could I make a 
suggestion, sir? You know, we did exactly what you were suggesting back 
in 1996, or 1993, or 1988, or 1986. We did that back then, and here is 
what happened. So if you would allow me, sir, I would recommend that we 
look at this, that, or the other.
  Apparently, Director Mueller didn't want those kind of people in the 
FBI, so he started a 5-year, up-or-out program. So our thousands of FBI 
agents across the country, in the hundreds of offices that are 
apparently around--the 5-year, up-or-out program is basically this: if 
you are in a supervisory position anywhere in the world for 5 years, at 
the end of the 5 years, you either must get out of the FBI, or, the way 
it was interpreted by so many FBI agents, you are going to have to come 
ride a cubicle up here in Washington.
  People all over the country and world who were working for the FBI 
said: I'm not taking my family to Washington, D.C., and, with all my 
training and experience, going to ride a cubicle somewhere. I need to 
be out protecting people, helping people.
  As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in an article that wasn't--
didn't seem like it was all that far into his 10 years--actually, it 
turned into 12, I believe, Director Mueller had, in devastating the 
FBI.
  He made some huge mistakes, cost millions of dollars. Whether it was 
a software program, this program, that program, he had all these ideas, 
and there were plenty of people who had had enough experience in the 
different areas that, if he hadn't run them off, could have said: This 
is not a good idea, sir, if I could suggest--
  He didn't want to hear from those people. He ran them off; thousands 
and thousands of years of law enforcement experience. He ran them off.
  It would be interesting to see what the average age of the FBI agents 
were when he left, compared to when he started. And I realize, there 
are so many old goats that get long in the tooth, but you don't run 
them off because they are older. Those are some of the most valuable 
people you could have. The only reason you should run anybody off is if 
they have just been so cantankerous that it is a problem, they are not 
doing their job.
  But he ran them off because they had been in a supervisory position 
for 5 years.
  So you would see offices that had an agent in charge, 20, 25, 26 
years of experience, and they would finish their 5 years and say: I'm 
getting out. I didn't want to get out. I wanted to serve my country, 
even though I make a lot less in the FBI. But you are forcing me out, 
so I will go make a whole lot more money. Wish I could still be here.
  But FBI Director Mueller had other ideas. Director Mueller severely 
hampered the FBI. There was a lot of damage that was done. And perhaps 
if he hadn't run off so many good, experienced people, all those 
thousands and thousands of years of experience, perhaps there would 
have been more elder statesmen in the FBI when he was allowing FBI 
agents to manufacture, fabricate evidence, hide evidence, and just 
fabricate a case out of whole cloth against Senator Ted Stevens.
  I have met him. He was kind of short with me, but that is no reason 
to prosecute somebody. But it was for the FBI, as Director Mueller 
created it, the way he wanted it.
  But there was, apparently, nobody who would step up. The people who 
had enough experience and enough confidence in their positions to say: 
Director Mueller, you have got a grave injustice going on here. You are 
creating a case where there was none. You hammered this guy. You took 
all his evidence. You took his computer, all his documents. You raided 
his bank, got his bank records. You got all his records. He has got 
nothing except what you allow him to have back. You took everything.
  And all of the evidence is pretty clear. He overpaid by hundreds of 
thousands of dollars for the improvement. There is no case here for 
saying he got $600,000, $700,000 improvements, whatever it was, to his 
home for free. He overpaid dramatically more than the improvements were 
worth or cost anybody else.
  Supposedly, there was even a message that the contractor said: You 
are overpaying. And the Senator made clear: They watch me like a hawk. 
Just cash the check. I'd rather overpay than have them come after me 
someday.

                              {time}  1830

  And what happened?
  You had an FBI that had run off too much experience--well, Director 
Mueller did--and there was nobody before the verdict that would step up 
and say: The FBI is doing the wrong thing here. This is injustice. We 
have rogue FBI agents that have got to be reined in. At least one.
  Fortunately, there were FBI agents with consciences, unlike the lead 
agent that Mueller allowed to stay on, even after he got rid of the 
whistleblower. Mueller didn't want a whistleblower around; not somebody 
that would be honest, not somebody that would step forward and say: You 
created a case against a U.S. Senator when there was no case. He had 
done nothing wrong, and you tried it the week before his election, and 
he lost by, what, 1,000 or so votes?
  And he would have won but for the FBI, under Director Mueller, 
destroying a man and robbing him of his finances, destroying his 
reputation, and Director Mueller, as FBI Director, got this man fired 
for nothing. Because the truth was he overpaid. He should have gotten 
adoration for what he did. But not in Mueller's FBI.
  I haven't seen anything to indicate the prosecutors knew of the 
fabrication and the fraud by the lead FBI agent. If that ever 
materializes, then I would want to find out where those prosecutors are 
and make sure the world knows of the injustice that they participated 
in--actually, crime. It is a crime when you fraudulently charge and 
convict somebody of a crime and you know there is no crime. You know 
you fabricated the case, but such was Director Mueller's FBI.
  I had great hope for James Comey coming in. Some things were asked 
today in our hearing about: Well, did President Trump ask for a loyalty 
oath from you?
  Something like that.
  I mean, there is nothing wrong with a President saying to a person 
that he has the power to remove or put in office: Now, I expect you to 
be loyal to me. What that would mean for a normal person is I expect 
you to come tell me if there is a problem. And I expect you to be loyal 
to me so that if there

[[Page 19482]]

is some problem I am creating, you come tell me, and you don't go do a 
memo and twist the memo around to try to make it look like I did 
something wrong. I expect you to be loyal to me and not do anything to 
me different than you would any other President; that you would serve 
your country and the President with distinction and just not go leaking 
things to try to hurt me. You know, just be loyal. That is not asking 
for anybody to commit a crime. It is not asking for anybody to obstruct 
justice. It is asking that you just be fair to me as your boss. Will 
you do that?
  It makes sense to ask a question like that when you have already seen 
so much injustice done to you by the Justice Department.
  We didn't even know when President Trump took office just how 
horrendous the injustices were that were lurking behind the closed 
doors at the Justice Department because it wasn't a Justice Department. 
It was a ``Just Us'' department. The way it sounds like it was going 
is: We will protect the people who we think will be in the next 
administration, and heaven help the people if they knock our chosen out 
of the executive office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, because we will 
perform a coup, we will get them out. We will use the Justice 
Department because, let's face it, after all, there is just a very thin 
veneer at the top of political appointments. We are just under that 
level. We will still really control things.
  That is kind of the way it sounds like it was going.
  When you have got a guy like Andrew McCabe--you know, the Bible says, 
when you are married, the two become one--his wife running for office, 
getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to what we 
understand from Donna Brazile, you know, Hillary Clinton basically took 
over the Democratic National Committee. So if the DNC was giving money 
to McCabe's wife, they all knew who to thank. Let's face it, they knew 
Hillary Clinton deserved a thank-you note.
  And the one who owed the thank-you note to Hillary Clinton has a 
husband who is going to prosecute her?
  Probably not. Probably not.
  Those are the kinds of things we are finding.
  Today, in our hearing, FBI Director Wray was asked a series of 
questions about Peter Strzok. I thought about asking some questions 
about Strzok, but I figured so many people would have questions, I 
would go a different direction.
  But Strzok was a former number two for counterintelligence. He was 
removed from Mueller's investigation team this summer after an 
inspector general discovered he was exchanging politically charged 
messages with a mistress, Lisa Page, who is an FBI Attorney in the 
Office of the General Counsel.
  We heard from Director Wray today that: Though many of us think of 
the FBI and think of ``Federal Bureau of Investigation,'' that many FBI 
agents think the F doesn't stand for ``Federal,'' but stands for 
``fidelity.''
  But apparently in the case of the number two person in 
counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, that fidelity was not an F; it was 
an I, ``infidelity,'' because he was being unfaithful. He was engaged 
in infidelity and not fidelity. Nobody is selling that to us. He was 
engaged in infidelity and was enjoying, in the course of his 
infidelity, being disloyal to the man who would be and ultimately was 
his boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump.
  But instead of being fired for his improprieties, for his bias that 
was clearly affecting his job, Director Mueller, the man who did so 
much damage, ran off thousands of years of experience that could step 
forward and guide younger agents away from pitfalls. He ran them off. 
You are going to have younger agents without the proper guidance from 
the white hairs or no hairs. He ran them off. He didn't want people 
with too much experience and might question something that he ordered.
  And when there is no accountability, there is nobody with more 
experience that can come alongside and say: Look, I have been here. I 
have seen a lot of things. Let me tell you, I see how you are going in 
this direction. Let me encourage you. Don't go there. I have seen too 
many people go that way.
  No. Mueller made sure the consciences of the FBI, at least as many as 
he could run off, were gone. So instead of being fired, though, when 
they found out that Strzok hated President Trump's guts and worshipped 
Hillary Clinton and skewed the case--I mean, Strzok knew that if FBI 
Director Comey went out and said that Hillary Clinton had been grossly 
negligent, then he would have been stating on the record that Hillary 
Clinton had committed a crime. And since he wanted to protect Hillary 
Clinton so she could be President, he changed the language. So that 
Director Comey would not implicate Hillary Clinton in committing a 
crime, he changed the words ``grossly negligent'' to ``excessively 
careless,'' as I understand it, and that wasn't necessarily a crime.
  He was covering up. The man should have been gone.
  So what do they do?
  Well, he was reassigned to the FBI's HR department. It is unclear 
what Strzok's job duties were in his new position, but when he was 
asked about the nature of that move today, Director Wray stated that he 
did not consider it to be a demotion. It wasn't a disciplinary action. 
Director Wray did not want to discipline the guy for covering up for 
Hillary Clinton, for skewing the case, for mishandling the case to make 
sure that Hillary Clinton wasn't implicated. No, no, no. Clearly, he 
has a bias. Clearly, he hates Donald Trump before and after he is 
President, but that is no problem.
  We sure don't want to lose a guy just because he hates Donald Trump 
and loves Hillary Clinton and excuses the Justice Department to suit 
his love for Hillary Clinton and his hate for Donald Trump. No, let's 
not demote him, let's not fire him. Let's just have a move here, maybe 
even make his life easier, I guess.
  But in quoting from the response of Director Wray to a question posed 
by my friend Andy Biggs from Arizona, Mr. Biggs said: ``Okay. Mr. 
Strzok was reassigned. It seems it was an odd lateral move. Are you 
saying that was a lateral move for him?''
  Director Wray said: ``Reassigned away from the special counsel 
investigation to the human resources department. I understand that may 
sound to some of you like a demotion, but I can assure you that in a 
37,000-person organization with a $9 billion budget and offices all 
around the country and in 80 countries around the world, that I think 
our human resources department is extremely important, and a lot of 
what they do is cutting edge, best practice stuff. So it is a very 
different kind of assignment, certainly, but that is why I don't 
consider it disciplinary or a demotion.''
  So based on what Director Wray said, Peter Strzok was neither 
punished nor demoted after the IG discovered him engaging in 
politically biased conduct during the course of a key investigation 
that was of a political nature.
  Look, nobody is demanding that our FBI agents not go vote on election 
day. They have that right. In some cases, they have an obligation 
because they know so much about what is going on. It is just very 
unfortunate when they know so much of what is going on and they know 
the people they are voting for appear to have committed crimes so we 
have got to change language and cover for them.
  Not only was he not punished nor fired, but Peter Strzok was put into 
a position that Director Wray described as extremely important.
  Strzok was sending these messages to a fellow FBI agent that he was 
having an extramarital affair with.
  Why on Earth would you give someone who was caught sleeping around on 
his wife with a fellow employee an extremely important position? Why 
would you give them an extremely important position in the human 
resources department if you are Director of the FBI?

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I want to start fresh with a great FBI Director, but I 
am a

[[Page 19483]]

little concerned here. Do you think it is a good qualification when 
someone is caught being engaged in infidelity--not the fidelity you 
talked about the F in FBI standing for, but engaged in infidelity.
  They broke their marriage oath, their marriage vow, and that is who 
you want handling your human resources? Because that is an extremely 
important position. So we need the guy who was skewing justice, that is 
who we need? It is kind of ridiculous. Strzok wasn't punished.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________