[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10933-10935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            DOUBLE STANDARDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my two colleagues 
refused to yield any time when they are talking, especially when they 
are using phrases like naked partisanship. That is very interesting, 
isn't it? We could have had a nice dialog here. I was asking for a 
chance to go into a dialogue so the American people could understand 
what was being said rather than this incredible naked partisanship of 
people who disagree, but I won't yield my time to have a dialogue about 
it.
  I am afraid that doesn't cut it. This is yet another example of what 
we have seen of people using sinister-sounding descriptions in order to 
basically distract us from some of the corruption and, I might add, 
questionable activities of their own Presidential candidate in the last 
election who was defeated because the American people did not trust 
that candidate.
  By the way, I would like to have asked--I am sorry that my friends 
have left and wouldn't yield any time for a question--whether or not 
they believe that Hillary Clinton's activities in Russia while she was 
a government official, was she involved in money raising from Russian 
oligarchs to the tune of millions--tens of millions--of dollars?
  Was her husband involved in raising this money while she was 
Secretary of State or while she was a candidate for President of the 
United States over in Russia, millions of dollars to the Clinton 
Foundation? I understand even hundreds of thousands of dollars were put 
in her husband's pocket for a speech that he gave in Russia.

[[Page 10934]]



                              {time}  1315

  These things need to be looked at. Instead, what we are hearing about 
is sinister-sounding words about a meeting where someone said they had 
some information that would help, yes, the campaign, but the reason it 
would help the campaign is there was supposedly information that showed 
that Hillary Clinton was involved in some activity that was contrary to 
the interests of the United States or contrary to the law.
  Yes, if someone says to you that they want to give you information, 
there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would hope that my 
colleagues who just said what is happening on our side of the aisle is 
naked partisanship, I wonder if the Democratic Party and my other 
colleagues in this body are calling for Hillary to release all of her 
emails and to make sure that we have under oath an explanation of these 
transactions to the Clinton Foundation. Instead, we are hearing all 
sorts of sinister descriptions of a meeting that was going to give 
information.
  I will tell you right now, everybody in this body, if they think that 
there could be information that is important for our country to know 
from any foreigner, we should talk to them and find out what it is. It 
is not illegal to receive information from someone, especially if you 
are engaged in an activity that is aimed at trying to secure 
understanding for policies that you plan to implement as a leader in 
the United States as an elected leader. There absolutely is nothing 
wrong.
  By the way, I am the chairman of the Europe, Eurasia and Emerging 
Threats Subcommittee. Russia is in my jurisdiction. Should I ever turn 
down a chance to talk to somebody who has information for me, negative 
or positive, about Russia?
  No, I shouldn't. And neither should the Trump campaign have ignored 
any community to receive more information about what was being done by 
Hillary, perhaps, and the raising of the millions of dollars for the 
foundation.
  So that was a legitimate thing to ask. Then you determine: Is the 
information accurate or is it not accurate? If it is not accurate, you 
don't want to touch it.
  But many people were disturbed that there had been a release of 
emails during the campaign, and a lot of the questions about this whole 
Russia issue is whether Russia or somebody else actually hacked into 
the system and released those emails.
  I think what is important is only whether truth was revealed. If 
someone was talking about releasing negative and false information, the 
public should be upset about that. But they should not be upset if they 
are being given a chance to see more information that is accurate 
information on this issue.
  I would hope and trust that the American people are smart enough to 
see a diversionary tactic using sinister words over and over again to 
describe something that is perfectly legal. In some cases, as I say, 
talking to anybody to get more information to help you make your 
decisions is a good thing and not a bad thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much my very good friend 
from California, with whom I have traveled abroad and had some amazing 
meetings with representatives of countries around the world.
  As I listened to our friends on the other side talk about this issue, 
it appears very clear what they are saying is that every Member of the 
House who has ever met with someone from a foreign country and asked 
questions, whether they believe what they were given or not, is guilty 
of a crime and should be damned to hell for all eternity.
  Basically, is that my friend's impression?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that is what is 
being said: because those people are so sinister, you don't listen to 
them; or, the whole act is sinister, it may be legal.
  In reality, we are talking about one person meeting with another who 
may have information. We in Congress and anyone running for public 
office should be listening and seeing if there is information that is 
imparted that is important for our country to know.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman 
from California and I have met with the then-leader of Iraq. Neither 
the gentleman from California nor I cared for the man. He was the Prime 
Minister of Iraq. He did a great deal of damage to Iraq. He, along with 
President Obama, dramatically weakened Iraq.
  I know my friend recalls our conversation with Prime Minister Maliki. 
We were asking for answers to questions that we considered very 
serious.
  For example, I was asking about his commitment to protect the 
refugees from Iran that he had pledged to protect. My friend from 
California was asking about the Iraqi pledge to help pay us back for 
some of our costs in making Iraq free.
  Those two issues so infuriated Prime Minister Maliki that we got word 
later when we were on the C-130 that we were being banned from Iraq by 
the Prime Minister.
  But to hear our friends across the aisle talk, every time one of them 
and every time one of us on this side of the aisle have asked even 
people we consider to be despicable and have done terrible things and 
we wanted answers, we were committing a crime in demanding those 
answers.
  I also know my friend from California got similar treatment from a 
man we believed was corrupt as the leader of Afghanistan at the time.
  I don't find any crime or any harm in asking questions and getting 
answers, even from people for whom we have no respect. So I think it is 
a good thing. If anybody has got information, even if you don't care 
for them, try to get the answers to those questions.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, well, we know now people are trying to 
frighten us and others not to meet with people and not to talk to 
people. I wonder why.
  As far as I am concerned, I don't have just a blind trust in whatever 
our intelligence agencies give us. Let me note that many of the things 
that are being quoted aren't even being quoted from our intelligence 
agencies during this whole national discussion on what Russia's 
interaction with us has been for the last couple of years.
  The fact is that these intelligence reports are filled with weasel 
words. A weasel word is making it sound like you are saying something, 
but you put a phrase in that actually doesn't commit you to defending 
that particular position as being factual.
  With that said, I would hope that the American people pay close 
attention to the sinister words, but also the weasel words, and pay 
attention to the basic nonsense in telling us that: Oh, a horrible 
crime has been committed now, because someone in the Trump campaign--
whoever it was; I don't care if it was Donald Trump's relatives or his 
son or whoever it was, anybody in the campaign whatsoever--wants to 
talk to anybody in the world to get information, I think that is a good 
thing.
  Whether or not at that point it has to be determined whether it is 
accurate information, to move forward with accurate information is 
wrong, but your job, too, is to verify what somebody is telling you 
before you let it influence your policymaking or the decisions that you 
are making at that moment.
  With that said, I would like to change the subject at this point, 
because I had another issue that I really would like to talk about 
today.


                                Bitcoin

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman, as I mentioned, of 
the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. I am a 
senior member also of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I 
am here, basically, to discuss emerging technology that is unleashing a 
new economic dynamic, but it could also be negatively impacting on our 
national security.
  I have long considered myself a proponent of freedom. Instead of 
government controls, I have trusted free people and free markets with 
optimism that technology and innovation would deal with the perplexing 
challenges to our security and our prosperity.
  In recent years, one of the more exciting innovations helping reshape 
the

[[Page 10935]]

way we live is the introduction of digital currency here and globally.
  Thanks to this leap in technology, times are changing right before 
our eyes. Americans have new ways of fighting inflation and handling 
their personal business obligations. People with bitcoins living under 
despotic regimes throughout the world now have the opportunity to 
protect their assets from abusive and corrupt government. Indeed, the 
security of the blockchain technology will enable a new wave of 
societal advances that should invigorate our markets and improve lives.
  However, with all that potential benefit of digital currency, there 
is also danger. It empowers the good people of the world, but it also 
can be used by those who have goals that are malevolent and evil.
  Radical Islamic terrorism is now a horrendous threat that hangs over 
all the free people in the world, in the United States, and elsewhere. 
Law enforcement throughout the world is now aware that bitcoin is 
available for use for terrorists in accomplishing their gruesome 
missions.
  What makes it a good deal for terrorists?
  It is anonymous. They can transfer funds using a digital currency 
platform without any of the usual safeguards that thwart terrorists and 
criminal activity.
  Anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards have worked to 
deal with criminals in recent decades, but now that approach can be 
technologically undermined by the use of the bitcoin instead of 
traditional currency.
  Since digital currencies such as the bitcoin offer a free ability to 
transfer funds, some of our neighbors, such as Sweden, Thailand, 
Vietnam, and India, have banned their use.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that is a necessary or practical 
response. Banning digital currencies will not prevent terrorists from 
using them any more than banning guns will prevent criminals from using 
them.
  Instead of banning all the digital currencies because some lack 
standards, I believe we should encourage digital currencies to 
implement full anti-money laundering and know-your-customer standards.
  These protections should empower both our law enforcement and 
national security professionals to keep terrorist and criminal 
financing under control while preserving for the rest of us the freedom 
to use digital currencies.
  Thus, with the proper type of regulatory look and seeing what options 
are available to us, we can prevent terrorists and criminals under 
control from financing their operations with bitcoins, but the rest of 
us will still be free to use these new digital currencies and enable 
America to keep the lead in the world in this enthusiastic 
technological advance.
  In light of my chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, 
and Emerging Threats, and my experience in the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee, I look forward to joining with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to encourage economic innovation brought by the 
bitcoins, but also to see to it that digital currencies will have 
strong standards that will thwart the exploration of this new economic 
function by terrorists and criminals and other evil forces in the 
world.

                              {time}  1330

  So I look forward to working with my colleagues. I think this is a 
bipartisan issue. I won't try to make it sound sinister at all, because 
this is something we can work on, and we must keep America always in 
the forefront of technological development.
  We know with each step forward in technology, there is a potential 
harm that can be done, but we need to make sure that is taken into 
consideration, while at the same time that we do not thwart Americans 
from using the ultimate technologies of the day to secure prosperity 
and secure freedom and to secure our national security with these new 
technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________