By these firearms. And i would concur that that is unacceptable. I certainly support the bill. But having served in the United States army as a leader of soldiers on deployment, all of whom were issued at least one weapon, i wonder if it literally requires an act of congress to suggest that d. H. S. Promulgate regulations to oversee the loss or theft of d. H. S. Supplied weapons. Yes. Over 200 weapons is horrible. Yes, one life lost is horrible. But should there be an act of congress . Because as i recall, as a leader in the army while deployed overseas, we had protocol for dealing with lost weapons, with lost sense of item, with lost things. We didnt need an act of congress to tell us to promulgate it. So while i support this bill, it began to make me wonder, and then think of a bible verse, matthew. Why do you look at the speck of saw dust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own . So, certainly its unacceptable that over 200 weapons should be lost or stolen from d. H. S. Employees in a period of two years. T it is quite literally 1 10 of the scale of the weaponry that our government intentionally put into the stream of commerce to be used by those who would visit harm, not only on their neighbors and family members south of our border, but right here on our own soil. So weapons like this, to the quantity of over 200, were lost or stolen from members of d. H. S. Eanwhile seven years ago put into ke this were the stream of commerce by our very government. Weapons like this took the lives of at least one person. Weapons like this put into the stream of commerce by our very government have taken at the very least 70 times as many lives. And yesterday the committee on Homeland Security promulgated a bill, an act of congress, to address 200 and some weapons like this that have cost at least one human life. And seven years after brian terry set out on patrol that fateful night in arizona, days before he was to fly home to michigan to see his family for christmas, nobodys talking about the weapons like this that our government intentionally placed into the stream of commerce, where we knew to a met physical certainty they would go to those who would do harm to their neighbors and their families and americans. Seven years on weve seen justice to the killers of brian terry. Theyve been arrested. E first man arrested for having shot mr. Terry in the back with a militarystyle rifle, leaving him to bleed to death on the medical chopper that flew him out in an effort to save his life, had, i think, ironically already been deported from this country seven times. The night that brian terry set out to protect not only the borders of this nation, but the people who seek to enter it, because we will not uphold our responsibility, the man who killed him was about robbing the very people who were coming here because we allowed it by not doing our jobs. And hed already been deported seven times. Now, we know that close to 70 people have died because we intentionally as a nation put into the stream of commerce militarystyle weapons. In fact, weve lost track of over 1,400 of the over 2,000 weapons that the Obama Administration thought it would be a good idea to intentionally et go to mexico. The weapon pictured next to me is a barrett m82. 50 caliber antipersonnel and material rifle. There are members of this body who have spoken on how this weapon should be illegal. Because conceivably it can take down an airplane. Why do i digress . Because that weapon was recovered in a hideout known to be used by the most notorious murderer in north america in the last 100 years, el chapo guzman. The United States government watched while a weapon that some members of this body would suggest can take down an irplane was trafficed to a man who was trafficed in death to the point where the next slide i show will blow any thinking ersons minds. Many, many of the 160,000, roughly, deaths of civilians in mexico can be traced directly ack to this man. And we know because it was recovered that at least one of the militarystyle weapons that e received came from us. So seven years ago today an American Hero named brian terry, who had served as a Law Enforcement professional and as a marine in iraq, and on the lite border tactical squadron, set out to protect america. But to also protect those who sought to enter it, whether legally or illegally. And when he did so, he did so understanding fully, as those who take an oath to defend this nation do, that some things in this world are worth standing and fighting and dying for. And tragically seven years ago tonight brian terry made that sacrifice. And i had no intention of standing and speaking on this today until h. R. 4433, securing d. H. S. Firearms act of 2017, came before the Homeland Security committee yesterday. Ut it struck me as ironic. Not only did i serve in uniform as a combat arms officer for nearly six years, i spent just under 10 years as a prosecutor and i have a passion for a number of things. But foremost among these is justice. And so while it gives my heart some condolence, i cant begin to imagine the feelings on this seventh anniversary of the family members of this American Hero, knowing that while the people who pulled the trigger have been convicted, the eapons that they used were provided to him by the very nation provide provided to them by the very nation that he died to protect. So, mr. Speaker, with that i would submit this. I have faith that in life or after life there will always ultimately be justice. But in the case of those who with intent put the firearms into the hands of the individuals who took the life of this American Hero, ill tell you this, i hope that justice comes in this life and not the next. So while we move about our business of promulgating laws to dictate to d. H. S. That they should have a policy to address the loss of firearms, i hope we dont take our eye off the ball of the very firearms that we intentionally trafficked. Like the two that were recovered from the scene of the rder of brian terry and that we will continue until we find it to seek justice for this man and act in a manner such that there are no more brian terry tragedies Going Forward. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Raskin mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Im delighted to be here on behalf of the minority. And im here to discuss a very serious issue, which are the mounting threats and criticism of Robert Muellers investigation into criminality taking place in the course of the president ial election, with interference by the russians and possible collusion with various americans working with him. But i want to start by putting this into a general context, mr. Speaker. Tom payne said that in the monarchies, the king is law. But in the democracies, the law is king. And we place everything on the rule of law here in the United States of america. Its how we control the people who occupy the highest offices of government. And control vast amounts of resources that belong to the people of the United States. In the monarchies, in the dictatorships, the people have no control over those who occupy government, but in the democracies, in the constitutional societies, we exercise control over the people who lead the government, to make sure that they dont abuse their power for improper purposes, for private gain, for the enrichment of particular classes or for the per pet situation of their own plit per pet perpetuation of their own political power. When we took office at the beginning of the year, mr. Speaker, we received an Intelligence Committee report signed by 18 intelligence agencies. The f. B. I. And the c. I. A. And the n. S. A. And the Defense Intelligence agency and on and on. And they all told us the same thing. Which is that Vladimir Putin had attempted to interfere and had interfered in the american election. Through cyberespionage and cybersabotage. In an effort to determine the outcome of our election. That took place. We knew that way back when we first took office. Now, in the House Committee on oversight and government reform, which i serve on, and in the House Judiciary Committee, which i serve on, we were told, and weve been told for months, going all the way back to the golf swing of the year, that we dont need going back all the way to the beginning of the year, that we dont need to investigate this assault on the sovereignty of the American People in our own election, because theres an excellent lawyer and Law Enforcement official in charge of the special counsel investigation, Robert Mueller. And indeed Robert Mueller is a man of extraordinary and perhaps singular qualification. Hes a decorated war hero from the vietnam war. A u. S. Attorney who had been the u. S. Attorney for both the commonwealth of massachusetts and the state of california. A former director of the f. B. I. And, you know what, hes a registered republican. And he was named as special counsel by another registered epublican and another widely heralded and highly qualified Law Enforcement official, Rod Rosenstein, who had been a career attorney in the department of justice and then the u. S. Attorney, appointed by president bush in the great state, my home state, of maryland. Hes presently the Deputy Attorney general of the United States. Appointed by another republican, attorney general sessions. So attorney general sessions appointed Rod Rosenstein, who is the Deputy Attorney general, a republican, and he appointed another republican. And widelied a mired and highly qualified widelied a mired and highly qualified widely ed a mired and highly qualified widely admired and highly qualified official. With republicans saying, no, we wont do any investigations of our own, despite past practice, we have to ask why special counsel Robert Mueller this week has suddenly come under withering fire by our g. O. P. Colleagues. In the most ferocious, organized attack on a federal prosecution and prosecutor ive ever seen. Well, the answer, alas, is obvious. Theyre attacking special counsel Robert Mueller and his fine team of lawyers and investigators because mueller and his team are doing their jobs and justice is being done. There have already been two guilty pleas arising from this investigation. One from President Trumps former National Security advisor, general flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the f. B. I. About trumprussia. And another criminal confession and guilty plea from former Foreign Policy assistant george papadopoulos, who also took full responsibility for his criminal conduct. In lying about trumprussia to the f. B. I. And there have been sweeping criminal indictments handed down by the mueller team, the special counsel, against paul manafort, trumps former Campaign Manager and his associate, rick gates. Now for all we know this might be the end of it. The special counsel isnt talking. Hes not leaking. Hes doing his job. But its also possible that the investigation is just getting started. And that they are closing in on even higher targets. Perhaps jared kushner, the allpurpose trump aide and president s soninlay, perhaps hes within the scopes of this investigation. Perhaps donald trump jr. And perhaps the president of the United States himself. Donald trump. And so the white house has issued its apparently desperate and cornered animal orders. The president cries kay kaye yoss and lets slip the dogs of war against special counsel mueller and the rule of law. This week, trump has called the Mueller Investigation an investigation led by a republican who is named by a who was named by a republican, who was named by a republican , he calls this investigation, quote, the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in american history. And i dont want to hear from any of my colleagues, either g. O. P. Or other, who say, you cant take seriously what the president says because hes disconnecting from reality or hes paranoid or hes delusional unless youre willing to try to activate the provisions of the 25th amendment. We must take the president s word seriously. In the meantime of course our friends across the aisle, mr. Speaker, are going along with everything the president says and everything that he does and they are enabling his attempt to counsel, mr. Cial mueller and attack the work of the f. B. I. The president calls the f. B. I. An agency in tatters. Followed inught has the media on fox news, a fullscale campaign against the f. B. I. Has arisen with lots of people comparing it to the k. G. B. The f. B. I. To the k. G. B. Which is amusing because if true they would like the f. B. I. Donald trumps best buddy in Foreign Relations and fox news beloved kleptocrat authoritarian dictator abroad is Vladimir Putin, the former chief of the k. G. B. But they compare our f. B. I. , the tins of thousands of men and women who have given their lives to Law Enforcement in america, they compare our f. B. I. To the k. G. B. Newt gingrich calls mueller corrupt. Newt gingrich who was officially disciplined and reprimanded right here, mr. Speaker, right where we stand today, by this body in a vote of 39528. He was reprimanded and disciplined for violating the rules of this body and he calls the former f. B. I. Director, the special counsel mueller, corrupt in an effort to undermine an discredit the special counsel investigation. And now this Propaganda Campaign comes to the official exanls of the house of representatives. Yesterday, Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing. And i was appalled and i was amazed at the way our g. O. P. Colleagues attacked him with a series of completely phony, overblown, and misleading accusations. They are in full scale assault mode now. They are in a frenzied wild goose chase to find Anything Possible to discredit special counsel mueller and his investigators and his team. Guess what . They finally found their villain this week, they found their villain and pounced on him. Its an f. B. I. Agent named peter strzok, who is working on the who was working on the investigation but was removed this summer when it was discovered he sent a bunch of Text Messages to his apparent girlfriend criticizing a number of politicians, including donald trump, who he he called an idiot, mr. Speaker. I think it was watching one though president ial debates where he sent a text message to his girlfriend, writing o. M. G. , hes an idiot. Thats the way im reading the texts that were revealed to us yesterday. Now he was probably one of millions of people to send that exact same text across the country. Wasnt a very nice thing to say but he said it. He also called Bernie Sanders, the democratic candidate for president , the vermont u. S. Senator, an idiot he called trump and idiot, called sanders an idiot and had even more choice and unspeakable words for my friend, the former governor of maryland, Martin Omalley, which i dont think i can repeat on the floor, mr. Speaker. All right, mr. Strzok was speaking his mind in these private texts. But it raised the potentiality of bias in one of the agents working on the team and so what did mr. Mueller do when he learned of it . He fired him. Immediately. He he got him off the investigation, removed from if him the information and put him into a different part of the f. B. I. He removed him immediately. From the investigation. Unlike President Trump, for example, who took 18 days to fire general flynn after learning that flynn was a serial liar about his connections with russia. Took President Trump 18 days. Mr. Mueller fired the guy immediately because people make mistakes they do the wrong thing and mueller said, i dont want him on my team. Removed him. They put him somewhere else. Now, that should have been the end of the matter. Right . Sounds like the end of the story. Its not a big deal. But, on the eve of our hearing yesterday, we received a dump of hundreds of these private Text Messages between mr. Strzok and his friend, ms. Paige. And they make no doubt for titillate, fascinating, engrossing reading as these two people make their observations about the president ial campaign. Karenina or house of cards. Its the kind of trivial gossip people get into sometimes in this town. I was amazed to learn that the department of justice itself, not mueller, not his team, but the department of justice, the formal Public Affairs channel, had actually orchestrated this dump of Text Messages that were revealed in the course of an Ongoing Department of justice investigation. Inspector general investigation. They took this material from the middle of an investigation, called up a whole bunch of reporters and brought them in to show them these texts. Why . Well, nobody could really explain itism asked mr. Rosenstein yesterday and he couldnt explain what really he said, it had been approved. Was there any precedent for it . I said. Was there precedent for the department of justice revealing material that turned up in the middle of an Ongoing Investigation to reporters . He couldnt name any. It wasnt even in a press conference. So that took place, that strikes me as very odd that there are people in the department of justice who apparently are cooperating with this effort to undermine the integrity and the strength of this special counsel investigation. To the key thing understand is that all of those Text Messages are totally irrelevant. The great text message love story saga which was dumped on us is an irrelevant distraction. Mr. Mueller got rid of mr. Strzok, removed him from the team, end of story. Of course, f. B. I. Agents, prosecutors, are allowed to have a political party. Muellers got one, its republican. Rosenstein got one, hes a republican. Thats fine. You can be a republican, you can be democrat. Youre not allowed to have your political ideas affect your work to the point that youre biased. So i take it, mr. Mueller figured that those Text Messages suggested the possibility of bias, not just against Bernie Sanders and Martin Omalley but also against donald trump and said, well remove him from the team, hes gone. Yesterday, thats all the republicans wanted to talk about his great trumped up fake text message scandal. Totally irrelevant. The only one who, to his credit, tried to make it relevant was a republican colleague who said, this is fruit of the poisonous tree. And he repeated it numerous times he intoned the words, fruit of the poisonous tree. Im a law professor so i know what fruit of the poisonous tree means. Its a Fourth Amendment doctrine which says that if youve got an illegal search or seizure by the government, you cannot use evidence that is obtained by virtue of an illegal search or an illegal seizure against someone in court. And if the government tries to use it, then the socalled exclusionary rule is activated and you exclude evidence that is rerive derived from an illegal search or seizure. Theres no illegal search or seizure or allegation of illegal search or seizure. All theyve got is Text Messages between two lovebirds. Thats itism asked mr. Rosenstein yesterday, i said, was there an illegal search or seizure . Is there an allegation of illegal search or seizure . No, none at all. Whats the relevance of that stuff . Nothing. They found one f. B. I. Agent who was removed during the summertime for trashing a bunch of politicians on both sides of the aisle, they find that guy they talk only about the fact that he called the president of the United States an idiot, which we must concede hardly makes him an original critic of the president , ok. They find that one guy and then suddenly they want to use that to claim that bias infects the whole operation. The whole investigation. Why are they doing that . Well, look. If they want to put up a propaganda smoke screen, thats within their First Amendment rights to do so. Within their rights under the speech and debate clause. The problem is, there is mounting fear and anxiety that this is trying to set the stage for President Trump to fire obert mueller. Perhaps the most admired Law Enforcement official in the country, they are setting the stage to fire him with all this trumped up stuff about a bunch of teches between some lovebirds. Thats it. Thats all theyve got. After all this time thats what theyre using to try to discredit Robert Mueller. And his chief. Who at the time of his appointment they described as unimpeachable, beyond reproach, and so on. But now that hes doing his job and it looks like the momentum of the investigation is leading to the very top of the u. S. Government, they may be looking for a reason to fire him. Well, this is an emergency, a constitutional emergency, if this is going to happen. This is why were blowing the whistle on it. Im delighted to be joined by a great ledge lator, someone whose career is woven into the fabric of the u. S. House of representatives, the minority whip of this body. Im just delighted to yield time now to steny hoyer of maryland. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for taking this time on the special order because as an aside, i need to apologize to him for making him wait so long for this special order. I also want to tell the American People, mr. Speaker, that the gentleman who has take then special order, who is taking this specialed orer is probably the constitutional expert not only in this body but one of the constitutional experts in our country. He is a great legislator himself, although new to this body, not new to being a legislative leader at all. A legislative leader in our state for many years. Wonderful teacher. And somebody who has great political courage and is willing to stand and say the emperor has no clothes. Is willing to call attention to the fact that our democracy is at risk. That our due process is at risk. He used the phrase trumpedup. What an interesting phrase that is that we have used for many years. I dont know its had as much relevance in years past as it now may have. Mr. Speaker, i thank my friend, mr. Raskin, for leading this special order. Our system of government, as he has pointed out, is based on the rule of law. We are a government of laws, not of men. What that means is, it is not personalities, not dictators, not kings that rule our land. It is the law. The law of our constitution, the law of our legislators, and the common law that we pursue. As interrupted by our court systems. Its foundation is the constitutional principle that all are equal under the law. No one is exempt. The appointment of a special prosecutor earlier this year to look into the possibility of the administration or Trump Campaign officials colluding with foreign adversary or obstructing justice falls into a long tradition in our country of using independent counsel to investigate those in the most senior offices of our government. Our Founding Fathers would say that is a check and balance. That is a protection against the ewe surpation of democrat usurpation of democrat sifment the choice of bob mueller to be that independent investigator was an extraordinary wise one democracy. The choice of bob mueller to be that independent investigator was an extraordinary wise one. Precisely because mr. Mueller is so widely respected for his independence and his commitment to the law above all else. And parenthetically, although it is not necessarily relevant, hes a republican. He is not, however, driven by the politics of left or right or republican or democrat. He is a man of the law. A man who seeks the truth. A man who has dedicated his career to assuring that we remain a land of liberty under law. We have already seen a demonstration of that commitment in the prompt firing of a subordinate investigator for an act that was not illegal, as the gentleman from maryland, our constitutional scholar, has pointed out. But, however, threatened to impugn the objecttivity of the investigation. In other words, he removed somebody who he thought might undermine the credibility of this investigation. Because he is so committed to this investigation being objective and unquestionably fair. Mr. Mueller has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate any hint of bias in this investigation. So far it appears that his investigation is bearing fruit. Having uncovered serious crimes and secured three indictments as well as guilty pleas from two key subjects. Guilty pleas. This was not a question of having a trial and somebody convinced 12 people that he was guilty. This was a case where the individual said, i am guilty. I did what was alleged. I know that it is illegal. And i should bear the consequences. That included, of course, the National Security advisor who was National Security advisor, i think, for 25 days. Or close to that number. Mr. Flynn. As the investigation has advanced, mr. Speaker, weve seen troubling statements from the president. And his advisors. Seeking to sow uncertainty about the legitimacy of the special counsels activities and undermine confidence in him. But its not so much the confidence in him that is critical. Its confidence in the law. Its confidence in the process. Its confidence that in fact we are a nation of laws and whether we are president or peasant we will be held accountable. If in fact we break the laws. What is being done to undermine this process threatens the independence of the investigation and those who are undertaking it. It is dangerous to our democracy. And to our freedom. Now in recent days weve heard calls by the president and his allies to launch a counterinvestigation of the special prosecutors investigation. Those of us who know history know that that is so often the defense of those who seek authoritarian power. Of those who believe they are above the law. Of those who believe they can intimidate others so that they will never be held accountable for wrongdoing. This preposterous suggestion has but one purpose. To cast a shadow of doubt over the findings of mr. Muellers inquiry by attempting to frame it in a partisan way. In fact, mr. Mueller was appointed by a republican appointed Deputy Attorney general. It is tactics like this one that we see so often overseas in countries ruled by dictators and those seeking to become dictators. This willful effort to erode confidence in any institution, that must be seen as impartial, is harmful. Because if nobody and nothing is impartial, if everyone and everything is tainted by politics and interest, then no one, no one can possess the moral authority to hold accountable one who wishes to be entirely unaccountable. That, mr. Speaker, is the reason, i think, that the president has also attacked the fourth estate, the newspapers, the broadcasters, people whose duty it is to bring facts to the people. So that they, the people, can make a rational judgment in a democracy. For it is in their hands that the power ultimately resides. And if you undermine those who give them the facts, then you undermine their ability to make decisions. This ultimately is what the special prosecutors work is all about. Accountability. Ensuring that every person is held to the same High Standard of behavior under the laws of our nation. So, mr. Speaker, i urge my colleagues in both parties, this is not about party, this is about country. This is about patriotism. This is about the rule of law. If we lose that respect for law, we will lose our country. It will be a different, lesser country. I urge my colleagues from both parties, from every ideological corner, let us not forget the most fundamental principle that binds us together as american and as public americans and as public servants. That all are created equal. That all of us, and all americans, are equal under the law. That doesnt mean were the same. But it means in the eyes of the law we are equal as we stand to on to be ountable held innocent or to be held innocent or not involved or not owing somebody else for wrongdoing. We need to uphold by our words , the special ds prosecutors work must continue unimpeded and it must continue to be respected. Yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, that was not the ase. Defend the indefensible undermines respect for law. I want to thank my friend again , mr. Raskin from montgomery county, maryland, as i said, a great constitutional scholar and teacher. A great legislator. But more importantly than that, an individual who loves his country. And throughout his life has fought to make the country all that the Founding Fathers meant it to be. I thank him for coming to this floor and for his efforts to ensure that mr. Muellers investigation can continue to be seen as impartial and with its objective unquestioned. Nd that is accountability. Accountability and justice. Equal justice under the law. That is our bedrock. That is our touch stone. That is our guiding star. That is what professor raskin, congressman raskin, citizen raskin is talking about today. And we all ought to thank him for that. And i yield back the time to my friend, jamie raskin of maryland. Mr. Raskin mr. Hoyer, thank you very much for your kind words and thank you for your patriotism and thank you for also pointing out the critical importance of civic equality to this discussion. Because civic equality implies that none of us is above the law. Of the many Dangerous Things ive heard uttered over the last couple of weeks with respect to this investigation, perhaps none is more sinister or disturbing than the suggestion that the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because the president himself oversees the whole government. Well, at that point we may as well hang it all up and go back to monarchy. Because the governing principle of our constitution is we have no kings here. We have no kings here. So, mr. Hoyer, i wanted to thank you for that. James madison wrote that the very definition of tyranny is the collapsele is the collapse of all powers into one. Were trying to defend the separation of powersance were trying to defend the powers and were trying to defend the rule of law, against all of it being drowned in a political agenda. We are joined now by a very distinguished colleague, and my colleague on the House Judiciary Committee, steve cohen of tennessee, and i would like to yield to him at this point, mr. Speaker. Mr. Cohen thank you, mr. Raskin. I appreciate it. Im a little late and dont know exactly whats been discussed but i serve on Judiciary Committee with you. What wive seen in Judiciary Committee is what weve seen in Judiciary Committee is scary. Im honored to be a member of the United States congress. Honored to be an american citizen. And i see a threat to the independence of the United States congress and upholding its oath and looking out for the best interest of its people and to our country. I have republican friends, as you do, on the other side of the aisle. D i know that they and the represent that they and their constituents are not fobbed of the totalitarian russian government and philosophy that threatens nato countries like lithuania and estonia and latvia and ukraine. Georgia. With the power of the russian military. They do not like democracy. They dont like america. They dont like what we represent. They dont like freedom of the press. Ey dont like the freedom of religion. They dont like freedoms of elections. They say they have elections but they kill their opponents and they put them in jail on trumpedup charges and they count the voights. Theres nothing votes. Theres nothing good about russia in regards of democracy and even whats in their constitution after they formed a country after the soviet union fell apart. And our republican colleagues are like sheep following the president , attacking the f. B. I. And attacking the Justice Department and attacking heroic americans who have risked their lives in the f. B. I. And heroic americans like Robert Mueller who served in vietnam and risked his life and was wounded there, i believe. And they threatened them and talk to them as if they are complicit with the Clinton Campaign in trying to do something to harm President Trump. Mr. Mueller is a republican appointed first by president bush and then later by democrat obama. He is as fine a human being as ive come in contact with in my 11 years in the congress. And maybe the finest human being ive come in contact with in my 68 years on earth. Mr. Rosenstein said glowing things about him yesterday. And how heroic he is, how strong he is, how dedicated he is, how patriotic he is, how honest he is. And for the republicans to be trying to take this man down and to take down others that serve in the f. B. I. , the only reason theyre doing this is because they are finding information in their charge that implicate the president of the United States in activities that are questionable as far as his oath of office and border on treason. Because of that, they attack the f. B. I. , the top layer, the cream of the crop of Law Enforcement. The president talks about our wonderful first responders, but the top of the line hes against because they question him. Thats when your country no longer exists, when its all about the leader. Not about institutions. And not about other individuals who are doing their jobs in a proper manner. F. B. I. Director ray said nothing but good things about dr. Mueller. Jeopardy job is in from path who like to fire people, which is what he did before he was president. And this is all performance art, hes the act and to fire mueller is part of the show. To question what hes done in arresting manna forth and gates mmbing anafort and gates, guilty pleas from one of the men he arrested, was it pop pop mr. Raskin george papadopoulos. Mr. Cohen and then a guilty plea from flynn. Muler is doing his job and i think hes man of the year. I think hell be man of the year next year. Hes the one person between us d a kleptocracy a group of oligarches, kleptocr tambings s who are using positions in government to build up themselves and their wealth, and this tax bill is the same thing. Oligarches no inhrtance tax. They get hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of malls of of millions of dollars. And the president goes and says to a middle class family earning 75,000, youll have 2,000 you can spend any way you want or you can even save it. 2,000 is tip change at Orange Julius to those people. The big money, hundreds of millions, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollar the inheritance tax being repealed, the a. M. T. Being repealed and other changes. Then they said we only reduced the tax on the wealthiest from 39 to 37 because they werent going to get to deduct as much of their state and local taxes, it was going to hurt them more. There are people not in the top bracket who arent going to get to reduce their state and local taxes and they gave them nada, gave it all to the wealthiest. This is what its all about. This is about the wealthiest people taking this country over in an oligarchy. Trump is representative of them. Its about him. Its not about the institutions, not about the constitution, its not about people, its not about the First Amendment. So many people who support him are good, hardwork, decent American People who dont want to be in bed with russia, dont want to give up our democracy, dont want to give up our free elections to hacking and to internet social media games. Thats what weve had. So i thank you for having this special order. I have a bill i took over with mr. Conyers work mr. Walters jones, a republican that says you cant fire mr. Mueller without cause and gives redress in court. Sheila jackson lee has another. We have to be aware and alert. If this happens, the people have to let their representatives know and particularly the republican representatives know, they wont stand for it, they wont let another saturday night miss car, because rosenstein said mr. Mueller has done nothing to be fired, probably would not fire him. Which means rosenstein will be fired. And that is the end of the rule of law and thats what makes us different from other countries. Makes us different from dictators. And autocrats. Thank you, mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin thank you for your leadership, thank you for invoking the critical watergate analogy, the saturday night miss car massacre with the firing of Archibald Cox and others who refused to cover up for the president s crimes and misdeeds. Thank you for your legislation hat would try to empower the special counsel not to be fired without a courts sayso, at least. So to build another check and balance. Thank you also for invoking whats also taking place in washington right now, this massive assault on the american middle class through this tax socalled tax cut bill which tax scam, which would raise taxes for tens of millions of americans while transmitting billions of dollars up the income and wealth ladder and ever since weve arrived here, the whole government has felt like a money making operation for a person a family a small group of billionaires in the cabinet a handful of people in the country like the Koch Brothers and the mersers. And we cannot allow either this assault on the basic middle class economics of the country to go through, or this assault on the constitution and the rule of law which we reasons sod vividly yesterday in the how Judiciary Committee. I want to thank you for your service and being one of the first to blow the whistle about what was taking place here. Mr. Cohen thank you, sir, and carry on. Mr. Raskin with that, i would just like to seek the opportunity for us to revise and extend over the next several days, mr. Speaker and im going to yield finally to my friend mr. Mcgovern from massachusetts. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Members are remined to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president and members of the Senate Whether originated as the members own words or being reiterated from another source. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Mcgovern, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Mcgovern mr. Speaker, this week people all around the world are commemorating human rights day. The annual celebration of the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights. Article 13 of the declaration affirms that everyone has the right to lead any leave any country, including his own, and return to his country. I have that right as a citizen of the United States i can leave my country wherever i choose and i have the right to return whenever i like. For me, this right is not theoretical. I exercise it every time i travel abroad and every time i return home. But mr. Speaker, his holiness dalai h da lambings llama lama has not seen his home since he was forced into exile in 1949. He describes himself as a simple buddhist monk. He was recognized as the reincarnation of the previous dalai lama when he was 2 years old and he dwan his monastic studies when he was 6. Well before he began his studies, he was called upon to finish his study, he was called upon to assume leadership. For the next nine years he worked to preservity bets autonomy and culture. But after years of growing resentment against restrictions imposed by the chinese communists, a fullscale revolt broke out in march, 1959, and the dalai lama was forced to flee as the uprising was crushed by chinese troops. On march 31, 1959, he began a permanent exile in india, settling in daram salat in northern india. Since then hes not returned toity bet, or more rack ratly, hes never been permitted to return. He has spent more than 60 years in exile. Today, the dalai lama is 8 years old a man renowned all over the world for his commitment to peace. Hes consistently advocated for policies of nonviolence, even in the face of extreme aggression. In 1989, he won the noble peace prize in recognition of what was then his nearly 3046 year Nonviolent Campaign his nearly 30year Nonviolent Campaign to end chinas domination of his homeland. In 1987, he was awarded the congressional gold medal and thenpresident george bush called him a man of faith, sincerity and peace. Dalai ong believed the lama is an parent part of achievingity bet tan peace. Sthins 1970s, the dalai lama has been looking for a way to resolve the situation they havity bet tan people through negotiation he proposed the middle way approach as a path towardity bet tan autonomy within china. His commitment to nonviolence and recognition as the spiritual leader ofity bet tans worldwide confers on him an undeniable legitimacy that would be of great benefit were china willing to restart the dialogue thats been suspended since 2010. But china has not recognized this or taken advantage of this opportunity to achee a peaceful solution. Instead, chinese authorities continue to view the dalai lama with suspicion, disparage him and accuse of him of fomenting separatism. They seem to believe with his eventual inevitable death they will be assured of consolidating their hold onity bet. I would not be so sure. Today around the world we are seing the consequences of repression of religious and ethnic minorities. For the chinese, theres still time to recognize that inclusion and respect for human rights ofity bet tans offers the best path to security. So today, i call on china to follow a different path. I call on the chinese authorities to affirm the right of the 14th dalai lama to return to his homeland, whether to visit or to stay. I call on them to welcome him home, afford him the respect he deserves as a man of peace and sit down with him to resolvity bet tan grievances to prevent the deeping of tensions and eruption of conflict. Were china to take such a step, i believe the International Reaction would be positive. I would be among the first to recognize and congratulate an important gesture. We need to be in the business of preventing and transforming conflicts. Instead of being forced to respond to their consequence after the fact. So i urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the chinese authorities to allow the dalai lama to return to his homeland. The Chinese Government should allow his holiness the dalai lama, who is revered all around the world, the ability to go back to his home. To go back to where he was born. S that time for bold action. I urge my colleagues to speak out along with me in urging the Chinese Government to do the right thing. Now is the time to raise our voices, now before it is too late. With that, i yield back my time. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman gentleman from georgia, mr. Loudermilk for 30 minutes. Mr. Loudermilk thank you, mr. Speaker. I dont intend to take all 30 minutes but the time i d spend is important because i want to honor an important person. First let me wish you a merry christmas. As we get into the seasonmark of us are thinking about family and friends and spending christmas time at home, which i hope to be able to do as well. Every christmas season, my thought goes back about 73 years ago my dad was a medic in world war ii. And on december 16, which will be just a few days from now, will be the 73rd anniversary of one of the largest, most significant battles of world war ii. The battle of the bulge. My father was a medic in the battle of the bulge. I still remember the story he is used to tell of the cold weather and the snow and how when the germans broke through the seeing fred line they decimated american forces. We lost thousands and thousands of troops in those few days. And how the snow was just so heavy and so thick that they many were trapped in their fox holes, unable to escape. Many retreated back to their to areas of safety and the lines behind. But i dont want to talk about my dad here today. I want to talk about someone else a dear friend of mine, someone i got to serb in the Georgia Legislature with. Another Young Georgian from spalding county, who was a pilot in the Army Air Corps. Now, captain john yates was not what you may think of, most people think of an Army Air Corps pilot flying a bmbing29 or b25 mitchell. What john yates flew was a small single engine piper cub aircraft. He was liaison pilot. Most people arent familiar with what a liaison pilot is, but they played a crucial and Critical Role in the victory in europe in world war ii and even in the pacific theater. You see this as a pilot i have a lot of appreciation for someone who will fly a very small plane, i mean, im a pretty tall guy, i dont fit in the cockpit of a piper cub very well. Thats why ive never actually flown one. But john yates would climb into the cockpit of this small, single engine aircraft, which are still in use todaymark of them are used in the bush areas of alaska because of how lightweight they are and small and compact, dont take a whole lot of runway he would climb into this small aluminum airplane and would fly just above the free top tree tops to draw enemy fire he flew a plane to be shot at. Now this wasnt like Close Air Support airplanes we have today that have titanium shells that can absorb a lot of impact. No, this was just a small plane with an aluminum skin around the fuselage. But what his purpose was, was to fly close to the enemy, to try to spot the enemy, and cause the enemy to fire at him, so our artillery and our other aircraft would actually know where the enemy forces were and where their heavy artillery was. Its an incredible, incredible job for someone to do, especially a young person. Maybe in his 20s. As he was serving in world war i. Now, after 60 years of from the time that he flew those piper cub aircraft i had the opportunity to serve with john yates in the Georgia Legislature. It was one thing i appreciated about john, as we find from a lot of veterans, as a veteran myself i know that same feeling as you once you serve you always have this desire to serve in another capacity. In 1989, john was elected to the Georgia House of representatives. I came several years later to serve with him, but john continued his fight for his fellow servicemen, for his country, and the Georgia Legislature, as he was chairman of the Veterans Committee and was always on the front lines of fighting for veterans care, for veterans and to ensure the government provided to veterans the care that they needed and the services that they deserved. He understood the meaning of patriotism. He lived as a patriot, and everything he did portrayed the idea of patriotism. One thing i liked about john yates was one of his favorite quotes was from Winston Churchill and that quote was, never give up, never give up, never give up. Thats something that we can take hold of ourselves today, especially as americans. We have a history of never giving up, of fortitude, the not just taking defeat and running away but taking defeat and turning it into a victory. John yates never quit serving. All he looked for was the ability to serve in the next mission he was called for. And on december 11 this year, john yates went on to his next mission in heaven. Were going to miss john yates. The state of georgia is going to miss john yates, but i stand here today, mr. Speaker, to honor one of those true american patriots who stood in the face of battle and faced the enemy face to face, and when he came home he followed that desire to continue to serve and he served until he passed away just a few days ago. Mr. Speaker, i would also like to just take a moment and recognize another anniversary. Six months ago today on a baseball field just a few miles from here, i and several of my colleagues found ourselves in a combat zone of our own. Doesnt seem like its been six whole months since a crazed gun man walked onto our field and started shooting at us, but the reason i want to bring that up today is because every person on that field that day that was shot at is still in this house today and still Walking Around in washington, d. C. By the grace of god, we were protected during that time, and i just want to thank everyone whose prayers and support and those who responded to that event to come out and save the lives of many of us. Steve scalise, the whip, that we serve with here. Tt mica, one of our Staff Members. Zach barth. And Capitol Police crystal griner all were wounded during that ballot. And it really was a battle. But i also want to highlight some of those that didnt leave the field that day, who stayed and help others. People like my good friend from mississippi, congressman trent kelly, an Army Reservist who when he identified the shooter he didnt panic and led many to safety. Representative missouri brooks o stayed and helped turn get zach barth who had been shot in the calf. Brad wenstrup who is also a colonel in the army reserve serves, a combat doctor, who was out on the edge of the field and could have easily ran away but stayed and was one of the first to be able to run out and give aid to Steve Scalise out on the field as he laid near second base. Retired Lieutenant General jack bergman. General bergman was able to actually lead several of our players and Staff Members to safety inside of the dugout away from the gunfire. And also for brian kelly, civilian staff member on the team who stayed with me throughout the gunfire as we tried to lend aid to matt who was laying next to the Capitol Police s. U. V. Throughout the entire incident. And finally, as my thanks goes out to special agent david bailey who i personally watched on numerous occasions put his own life in danger as he would move out into the line of fire to draw fire away from myself and brian kelly because he saw whenever the shooter was not shooting at the Capitol Police he was shooting at us and he would purposefully move himself in the line of fire and mir ackley protect miraculously protected. And so the Alexandria Police department who came to our aid and eventually took down the shooter. You know, moments like this are surreal to me and to others and they are important that we go back and we reflect and we remember these moments because the only way that we can correct mistakes from our past is if we go back and we relive them and we look at what caused this. And as we stand here today, one of the things that i see that we need in america that we have lost is the idea of civility. We heard here on the floor today differing opinions regarding policy, ideas of what is good for this country, what is right for this country, and thats part of the strength of this country. That is the freedom that we have is to bring different ideas. The whole idea of this chamber is to bring different ideas and different policy opinions to the floor and debate. And those that get the majority of ideas, people on their side of the ideas, then we move forward with those. But at some point in the past we have transitioned beyond , and we ing over ideas bring rhetoric thats distasteful. We attack the person, their families. I just believe that we can do a whole lot better in this nation if we once again find the ability to agree to disagree but respect the rights and the freedom and the liberty of the other person to have their opinion. If we can do that then we can engage in discourse and we will lessen the amount of violence that we see that are driven by political rhetoric. That will be the message that i would pass off to america on the anniversary of the shooting, because its thats the idea, that people like john yates lived their lives for, that fought the battles they fought for was for the freedom we have in this. Ation to continue to exist i believe americas greatest days are ahead of us, but we got a little work to do to actually grasp hold of this. Mr. Speaker, i thank you for the time, thank you for allowing me to honor the memory of my good friend and colleague, john yates, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert, for 30 minutes. Mr. Gohmert thank you, mr. Speaker. My colleagues across the aisle iscussing issue of special since mueller and theres one or two possibilities about some of the things they said regarding republicans and especially on as his ittee either memory is terrible or hes falsely intentionally misrepresenting things. I am not saying thats the case. Im saying its one or the other and i will get to that momentarily. This hearing we had this week in judiciary with deputy ttorney general Rod Rosenstein deeply, deeply troubling to want the department of justice to be about justice. Those who want to see the arbiter, that great that great entity that will assure that justice is done. We need an entity like that. The a. T. F. , their reputation sorely soiled back during on attack by the a. T. F. The facility where some folks that had been sucked in basically a cult, it didnt have to happen, and as we found out, local Law Enforcement said we knew that dave occur he shall went to sam kuresh went to sams wholesale in bell immediate, i think tuesday, and if the a. T. F. Told us they wanted to arrest him, we could help them arrange, as he walked out of sams with grocery sacks in his arms and there would have been no incident. No lives would have been lost. No children burned up in a fire. No People Killed so unnecessarily. But the a. T. F. Wanted to make a point and wanted to have a big actually there were constitutional issues there. I read in the paper that the gentleman that served with me at fort bening, georgia, during my time in the army had advised fort t commander out at bliss that he should not allow the u. S. Army tanks or equipment to be used in violation unless he had a direct order from the president himself and as we found out after the fact, the president made clear that oh, that was renos deal. You have to talk to her about that. So clearly he did not order s. Military to use equipment and allow their equipment to be used against civilian american citizens. So there were all kinds of terrible things that came out and it really made the a. T. F. Look bad. And i was a fan of the a. T. F. , the federal a. T. F. They knew them to have done some great things and i had some great dear friends and still do have some very dear great friends that are in the a. T. F. , but the point is such horrendous judgment in the a. T. F. Setting up what they knew or should have known would probably result in losses of lives, including severe injuries to a. T. F. Themselves. I dont think they lost anybody, but they certainly were severely wounded and treated there in waco, but that kind of outrageous judgment that puts political and news interests ahead of just doing he job and seeing justice done ends up being such a terrible blot on the reputation of any entity that its hard to work back from that. I still hear people that refer to that incident nearly 25 years ago and still its such a blot on the a. T. F. That its hard for people to consider the how. Without thinking terribly just inappropriate the a. T. F. Acted at times. And caused people to wonder, was that the general rule or was that the exception and people after some other episodes think its the rule with the a. T. F. , some say get rid of it. Whats gone on now is currently the deputy , with attorney general taking all three positions that he sees no evil , he hears no evil , he doesnt know of any evil going , like hinks everything the pet said, gods in his heaven and all is right with the world. I believe the author had a little girl saying that. But its not right with the world. Terribly wrong. And america and the world sit in position where potentially western civilization where the most incredible, amazing strides in health care in energy, and all kinds of areas of life on this earth have been made better exponentially. The United States of america is at the very heart of those great developments. A majority in the United States throughout our history would always say, we call those blessings from god. Now, maybe it is, maybe it we are majority, but ever getting closer to a position where this grand experiment in selfjudgment is potentially on the verge of being lost. History is not being taught as zellously as it once was. Places like Hilldale College or liberty. There are some places where it is being taught. I had fantastic history teachers, which is what i majored in at texas a m, because i knew i was going to do four years in the army at least and if we were at war when my four years were up, i would have continued to serve. But our students dont know history anymore. Why . Because president carter decided that the federal Government Intervention into education, even though its not an enumerated power under the constitution and it is therefore a power that is reserved to the states and the people and not the federal government, well weve been acting extra constitutionally, that means outside the institution, for quite some time, going back to the late 1970s under president carter. And our students have suffered as a result. And they dont know history. And someone had advised me that even though history is not an important part of the federally mandated test, there are things that in different subjects are mandated by the federal government. Here is an element that students should know about the subject. I was advised that the one area that federal the federally mandated test, the obviously area historically that students were required to know is that when the United States dropped two atomic bombs, one on high oshe ma and one on on hiroshima and one of nagasaki, it raised serious questions about the United States morality which is absolutely fictitious, unless the ignorance such a uthors requiring thing did not allow them to know the truth. He truth being that truman was advised that because the emperor of japan had ordered the japanese people to fight for their homes to the death, then the allied forces would have to land in japan, they would have had to move across the country and it was considered a very fair and possibly quite conservative estimate that there would be 10 Million People lose their lives if allied forces had to land and were fighting the japanese people home to home to home. ,o the morality of the issue is would we morally be better off in this absolute war that the japanese started against the United States, would we be better off losing the horrible tragedy of 300,000 or so lives, or would we be better off having five or so million japanese People Killed and five or so being allied forces lost . And the morally correct decision that a democrat, a man that apparently really wrestled with the issue from a moral tandpoint, he decided to put the american bombers at risk, those flying the planes and taking the atomic bombs, and to put 200,000 or 300,000 or so people at risk in an effort to avoid losing five million or so japanese and an equal number of more of the allied forces. I think he made the correct moral decision. So that doesnt raise moral issues about the United States, it raises ignorance issues about the federally mandated test. We would be so much better off if we got back to allowing local School Boards to decide and states to decide, as they had been for many decades, deciding what their students should learn. That was the beauty of a federalist situation where states would have so much power. But as is often the case when the federal government takes over an area like education, then it gets worse. And i was on the board of directors of the texas a m former Student Association and i can recall the president advising us that the s. A. T. , official s. A. T. Had to change the scoring system for the s. A. T. Because students across the board were doing so much worse than they did when classes around my era in the 1970s had done. That we had done overall so much better than the students that came through after the federal government took over education. And so i dont know if it was accurate but i had educators back at the time say theres a formula so its hard to say but outif you scored, say, 1400 of 1600 on the s. A. T. In the 1970s, then under the new scoring system it would probably be scored closer to 1600, 1500 to 1600, maybe a couple hundred points they had to add to the system they had to add to the system because after we had a federal department of education, then, you know, students started doing worse and so the to the keep it from looking like the department of education here in washington made education as poor as it helped to do, we had to raise the s. A. T. Scores basically on an arbitrary basis. We know that the students coming through in the 1980s, 1990s, and then this new millennium, they had the potential to do better than we ever did but because the federal government got involved, i dont think its just a great irony that a when the federal government took over education under president carter, that wow, ironically, isnt it amazing, at the same time students were doing worse and worse. So thats what often happens when the federal government gets involved and we saw that with waco. If they had gotten the help of the local Law Enforcement, there would have been no loss of life in all reality. But the a. T. F. Was going to bust in and make a big show out of it. And it cost an awful lot of lives. Well, youd like to think that when the f. B. I. Comes in you dont have to worry. Theyre going to do the right thing. And i know so many incredible, outstanding f. B. I. Agents. But for mr. Cohen to continue to say even after hes been advised and reminded that i have been raising cain about Robert Mueller for over a decade, i guess, he came in, sworn in in january of 2007 as i understand it, and initially when i questioned Robert Mueller as f. B. I. Director, when i first got to congress, i was carrying that image of the great f. B. I. , the image that so many of the agents still carry. Thousands of them still carry. But with more and more difficulty because of the cesspools that have developed here in washington. And the way in which it had been used as we saw with the i. R. S. During the Obama Administration, weaponized and used as a political instrument. Now, how do we know that . Well, we didnt know near as ,uch as we continue to find out ran off mueller thousands of years of experience and i contend it was because he wanted nothing but yes people. He didnt want the experienced people around the country that might try to point out to the director when he made one of his many mistakes, as f. B. I. Director or chose software programs, chose Law Enforcement programs, that created problems. Because they had more experience than he did. He did not really want people around the country to have more experience than he did because they might question something that he ordered inappropriately and he just wanted people to salute him, absolute the flag, figuratively speaking, and drive forward. That means when mueller wanted somebody to bust down the door in the middle of the night even though there was no threat of the individual fleeing, no threat of the individual hiding evidence, its done as we are now seeing the mueller special unit, group, team, swat unofficial swat, of course, but were seeing them use these type of tactics. Now i dont know, really know paul manafort, doesnt seem like a fellow i would enjoy getting along with. Nonetheless, it certainly appeared he was very materially mistreated because mueller wanted to make sure he got his point. They knocked down the door or at least went in in the middle of the night, however they got in, and you know, weve heard this before. This heavy handed federal government, and there was no reason for that other than bullying, mean, federal agents at the top, wanting to bully people around. We saw that kind of conduct with mike flynn as he was set up. He had been as part of the Transition Team talking to people at the f. B. I. About different issues. And now we know strzok was part of that, this man that absolutely loathed the president elect trump. E loathed everything about trump and those he was going to be bringing into office. We didnt know how badly they despiced or loathed the president and republicans supporting him until we got more information. But these kind of things are things that Robert Mueller should have known. He should have known the department of justices reputation and hope for being considered righteous was all riding on him. And what he did. And yet he rode in with his black hat, figuratively, for those in the Mainstream Media that dont understand those type f references. And he began to overreach and we heard from the guy that appointed mueller yesterday, Rod Rosenstein, that, gee, yeah, really, to have a special counsel you have to believe basically that a crime was committed. So it would seem to reason that mueller was appointed to investigate something they had reasonably possibly a crime had been committed. Nd yet because of whether its incompetence or zeal wanting mueller to go on a witchhunt to just keep searching until you find something even if its a poor guy like Scooter Libby who devoted his life to helping our country, we need somebodys scalp and it doesnt look like that donald j. Trump was colluding with the russians so we got to have somebodys scalp. Lets intimidate some people. Lets bully our way into homes in the middle of the night. Lets do whatever we got to do. Many are saying Michael Flynn didnt lie. To be a lie you have to intentionally have intent to deceive but whether theyre right or wrong about that, word he was bankrupted by an overzealous bully. I mean, all my friends on the left talking about bullying. I was small for my age and in my class i was bullied. Had black eye. Bloody nose. Had a fifth grade teacher after a big bully took my football and i tried to get it back and ended up bloody nose, black eye. Our teacher loved the bully back then and pulled me in front of the class while i was trying to get my nose to stop bleeding and told the class, this is what happens when little boys try to play with the big boys. But i know something about being bullied. And i recognize it in a Government Group when i see it and the mueller team has been bullies but thats what mueller wanted. Why do you think he went and hired weissmann who destroyed thousands and thousands of employees lives to work for Arthur Anderson in a joist at windmills that cost these people their livelihoods, caused more pain and suffering imaginable far what the Supreme Court said 90 youre a fool . This was not a crime. You made this up. And thats who mueller wanted on his team. This is the same Robert Mueller i have been pointing out for years that has been grossly unfair and running off the thousands of years of experience that he did so he could have great people, wonderful people but knew and they not only were but new and not only were they new and young but he was eliminating the older folks that had the experience that could bring them along because mueller wanted hem created them created in his image and get rid of wisdom through the ages. And i am sure there were a bunch of people that needed to go but you dont destroy an entire entity like the federal bureau of investigation just because you want a bunch of yes men and thats what bob mueller did. That man should never have been anywhere close to being a special counsel. He couldnt stand trump, and as the washingtonian magazine was glorifying chames comey, i believe it was james comey, i believe it was 2013 issue where they said basically, in essence, if the world were burning down, you know, james comey knew that the one person that would be standing there with him would be bob mueller. And comey is the very guy that admitted leaking evidence or leaking information out in order to try to get a special counsel appointed. As i covered with mr. Rosenstein yesterday, this is part of an f. B. I. Typical employment agreement. Everybody is supposed to sign this thing. All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the f. B. I. And all material which i have access remain the property of the United States of america. I will surrender upon demand by the f. B. I. Or upon the separation from the f. B. I. All materials containing f. B. I. Information in my possession. So if a man like comey goes to a meeting in his official capacity of f. B. I. Director with the president of the United States and he comes out of there and he types up a memo , even though it appears it was less than unbiased memo trying to make President Trump look bad, so he commemorates it with a memo. Well, that memo, as i discussed with mr. Rosen stein rosenstein yesterday, that is probably government property. Thats government information, government property, and the question is, did he commit a crime when he leaked that information . And theres a decent chance yes. So wheres the f. B. I. In its investigation into james comeys potential, and when you look at the record and you go back, oh, now we know from that one incident this is the person to whom he leaked and that got to the new york times, oh, heres another meeting where he was the principal character there, the most likely person to have leaked, well, lo and behold, his same conduit for leaking information that hes admitted to ends up being in place in this story. There may be at least six other places where hes leaked information and some of them may be crimes, but because the special counsel was all about trying to strip the winner of a president ial election, thats were not going after comey. Were not going after any of these other people. Theyre trying to find something as we now know from the Text Messages of f. B. I. Agent strzok, they wanted an insurance policy so that in case trump won, they could still get rid of him. Of course, strzok believed that no one in this country should vote, not a single person, not even Donald Trumps family should vote for him. It ought to be 100 million0. But, mr. Speaker, it is so clear that in my days of trying cases in federal court, state court where youre asking questions of a jury panel to see who would be fair enough to sit on a jury, we can see that these people that were working and have been and some still are for the f. B. I. , for the department of justice, they have no business getting close to this investigation unless they are a target of investigation. Andrew weissmann should never have been part of the special counsel team. Peter strzok, this is only some of the Text Messages he sent, he asked me who id vote for. I guess kasich. It goes on. God, trump is a loathesome human. May he win. Good for hillary. Would he be worse president , cruz. Trump, yes, i think so. This is an exchange between peter strzok, p. S. In this paige, mistress, lisa whos also working for the f. B. I. I mean, these people have done irreparable damage to the f. B. I. But worse than that, they have made a mockery of justice in the United States. And what really gets me, i know how upset i was in the Bush Administration when i saw somebody doing wrong. I didnt care if he was appointed by a republican or democrat. I didnt care that president bush had appointed a man or woman to a position. What i cared about is them being righteous and doing the right thing. And now where is my democrat friend who will stand up and say this isnt right . Ershowitz, great democrat, hes done it. Who would pick up the phone and say this is an outrage . What has happened under this attorney general should never have happened. Hes got to go. Where is the democrat that has a sense of moral outrage when the Justice System is just shaken to its core by people that want to take out a president because they didnt support him, they didnt want him to be there, they didnt think any american should vote for him, and theyre destroying our sense of justice and our Justice System . Its time for americans to wake up. Its time to clean house, get rid of mueller, get some fair people in there to investigate and with that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Remarks on debate in the house may not be excuse me reremarks in debate in the house may not engage in personalities to president s whether original rated from the members own words or being reiterated by another source. For what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Gohmert i move we do now hereby adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the house s follow the house live here on cspan when they return next week. The f. C. C. Has a number of key meetings to decide a number of issues before the opened of end of the year. Including Net Neutrality. They vote repeal certain broadband regulations. Theyre now holding a press conference about this. Do you think as it exists right now there are problems . Im not going to make any comments about the marketplace that could be interpreted or misinterpreted to prejudge what we could or how we might evaluate a potential merger. Margaret mcgillis, politico. Theres been a lot of discussion about Economic Impact of the 2015 rules. I want to ask you about, i guess a suggestion you made in 2014 that 10 distinguished economists take a look at proposed regulations and each commissioner would be allowed to pick two economists to kind of review the impact of the regulations. Why didnt you take that approach with this proposal . We saw how that suggestion fared in the last administration. Youre in charge now so why not . Look at the order. Thats all i would say. Look at the order. We grappled with the facts on the record as it related to the economic aspects of a title 2 regulation. Im confident once again that reasonable people will see that we conducted analysis of those facts. Immediately after the vote some of the there were announcements of lawsuits planned including from the new York Attorney general who plans a multistate lawsuit to reinstate the rules. There have been calls for challenging your decision in court on process as well as content. Whats your strongest Legal Defense if you go forward . Im sure you thought about that as youre writing these rules. Im shocked people are going to challenge this in court. So obviously they want to prejudge the legal issue. Our counsel Generals Office will handle that. As a high level, number one , in terms of substantive law, theres no question that what we did was lawful. If you look at the Supreme Courts decision in brand x, a majority of the Supreme Court said the f. C. C. Has the ability to classify Broadband Access service as title i information service. If you look at what the opinion by the judge said conferring in the hearing in the d. C. Circuit they expressly say that the Brand X Court said the f. C. C. Has the discretion to decide how the question of Broadband Internet Access Service classification should be decided. In terms of substantive law , in terms of Administrative Law here too. Administrative procedure act, we abided if by the evidence rule, and i believe it was at a Senate Hearing earlier this year where i said were going to follow that substantial evidence test expanded by the Supreme Court. That evidence that a reasonable person would agree is sufficient to justify conclusions reached by the agency. So from a substantive and Administrative Law perspective im confident our judgment will be upheld. Greg wallace, cnn. Thanks for taking the questions. Thanks for coming. On legal challenge, im sure youre aware of criticism of the Internet Freedom and Net Neutrality decision from businesses, from consumer groups, im curious if you think you and your allies have not done a great job explaining how this will impact consumers and thousand howe this can help them and im curious what you see Going Forward azure opportunities to message on this. Mr. Pai we consistently said that repealing these heavy handed rules would be good for consumers, good for competition and good for entrepreneurs across the country you heard some of that today as well when i spoke about the fact that a lot of consumers, especially those who find themselveses on the wrong side of the Digital Divide, there number one concern is Getting Better access, more competition. These title ii regulations take us in the opposite direction of that part of the case we tried to make and will make in the future, making sure we focus the agencys attention on the number one Consumer Preference when it comes to the internet, which is getter be Getting Better, faster, cheaper internet access. As i said in response to an earlier question, the decision we have made today, all fit together in order to promote a much more competitive marketplace, one in which theres a massive incentive to invest in infrastructure and im confident as i said before we will have both the consensus values of a free and open internet the Infrastructure Investment we need to bridge that Digital Divide and serve onsumers well. Reporter you were in a video last night promoting Net Neutrality. In that video one of the extras as a video producer, Martina Markota who repeatedly advocated the pizzagate conspiracy theory, do you think its appropriate for you to advocate Net Neutrality with someone who promotes baseless lies which have resulted in one case in a man almost per pitch waiting a mass shooting in a pizza parlor in d. C. Mr. Pai im not familiar with the facts you outlined, id refer you to the daily caller for that. Reporter youre not familiar with pizza gate . Mr. Pai no, with that person. Reporter at least half, maybe more homes have no choice for a competitive broadband wire line provider. To what extent does that undermine the idea that people can switch if they have a problem with their Broadband Service . Does it undermine the logic that competition lab sal to have any problems we see out there will be a salve to any problems we see out there . Mr. Pai again if you look at some of the companies, Smaller Companies that most people have never heard of, the ones that are critical to providing a more competitive marketplace, those are the companies that told us overwhelmingly these heavy handed rules stand in the way of them raising capital, deploying the capital to build networks and Offering Services to their networks. These are companies that are nonprofit, own by city governments, they themselves told us that these rules prevent them from developing networks out further by offering their customers more services. I personally visited both these spencer municipal law yew tillities that are mentioned in my statement and the lorenz municipal in iowa, and those two told me, nonprofit, that they would love to be able to build out to their network further and make more Service Offerings but they dont feel the title ii regulations enable them to do that. So my point is simply if we return to a bipartisan framework well see much more competition n years to come. Reporter the question i have, could you walk us through how knews on the Net Neutrality will make it easier for Smaller Companies to enter the market. Theoretically it makes sense but why didnt we have more competition prior to 2015 . Mr. Pai Going Forward, this is the approach to preserve the freedom of internet and give Smaller Companies a stonger insent toiv invest in infrastructure. Why is that . Ill give you an example, you may have seen and you if you havent i commend to you the statement i put out last week when i spoke to small providers. One in minnesota said he had a bank increase his Interest Rate the rate at which hed be able to get capital specifically because the regulatory uncertainty created by these rules. I talked to another provider who said these rules required him to hire a lawyer and to try to figure out how these regulations would apply to his business. A number of other companies with similar stories. These are companies least able toe withstand the Regulatory Compliance burdens we have placed on them. If you want more regulatory competition, if you want smaller providers to be an alternative, its incumbent on the agency to have a framework to give them a Business Case for deployment. Some of these Smaller Companies, theyre deploying in rural areas, in low 46 income urban areas, places where the case for deployment is already difficult. The heavier you regulate something in that environment, the less likely you are to get that something. Thats the approach we take with broadband deployment. Reporter hi, i was wondering if you might be able to tell us what are the case pending before the ninth circuit at t no sorry, f. T. C. Versus at t mobility, whether that might change things as far as an f. T. C. Enforcement standpoint . Mr. Pai as i said in response to a question, i think from david, the pabble decision in that case has been vacated. The status quo is the law of the land. Thats the Legal Foundation upon which we are operating at this point. Reporter if you can go back to f. T. C. And the memorandum of agreement, the draft that came out a few days ago, can you talk about implementation of that now that the order has been approved. Whats the schedule of that m. O. U. And whats the process . Mr. Pai it was a draft mem reason dumb of understanding as you probably saw. Now that the order has passed, i imagine the f. C. C. And f. T. C. Will execute that memorandum of understanding and thats our and that our staffs will be able to collaborate Going Forward tone sure that the consume brother text and competition functions mentioned in that order are discharged appropriately. Thank you, everyone, happy new year. Were going to transition to the bureau press conference right now
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.