Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear my friend Congressman Lewis. He does a great job explaining such matters.

We had an interesting combined hearing today in the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We heard from the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Mr. Horowitz. It was interesting testimony.

But having reviewed the record, it is interesting, because he quoted prosecutor one, prosecutor two, agent one, agent two, agent three, these different people, different prosecutors, different agents that he was relying on; their comments, their opinions, their suggestions; the SSA, Supervisory Special Agent, recommendation and comments on things that should have been and should have not been; and things that were proper and improper. But we had no information who these people were.

The whole reason for the inspector general investigation was because of the massive amount of clear bias that had been unearthed within the Department of Justice, including the FBI that is, of course, under the Department of Justice.

So we are being asked to accept all this information from the inspector general when so much of it depends on the opinions and the comments and the assessments of people whose identity we didn't even know.

So not only did we not know their identity, we don't know if they have texts and emails that are just as condemning of Donald Trump and laudatory of Hillary Rodham Clinton. We don't know what their positions are. And we found out from the inspector general that he didn't make any inquiry. He didn't check on them.

But I know from my days trying cases as a prosecutor, or as a felony judge in Texas, the lawyers, when they are picking a jury, as to who will sit in judgment on their case, they have a

right to know the biases and prejudices, or potential biases and prejudices, of anyone who may be sitting in judgment on their case. So that is why voir dire, as we say in Texas, is allowed, questions of the potential jurors.

Normally, how one votes is completely inappropriate to ask about. That is a secret ballot for a good reason. However, if one of the people on the ballot is the defendant in the case, is a civilian party in a civil case, then the attorneys are going to want to find out: Were you for or against this person? Did you have a bumper sticker for this person or against this person? Did you have a sign in your yard? Did you go around doing block walks trying to push for this candidate?

And as a judge, I know defendants' attorneys. If it were a defendant who had been a candidate, they would be pushing to ask those questions, to find out those questions, and it could lead to challenges for cause in Texas courts--I think in Federal courts as well.

Even if it didn't, I have heard defense attorneys argue many times: We cannot adequately exercise our preemptory strikes if we don't know about potential biases. So we need to know: Did they support this candidate? Were they against this candidate?

I know initially the response of one of my Democratic friends was: Gee, we never ask about how somebody voted.

No, we don't. It is not appropriate--unless someone who is on the ballot is being judged in that court. The same should be true for a grand jury. The same should be true for anybody who is going to pass judgment, and that should also include the people who are charged with bringing forth justice, not the concept of ``just us'' we have experienced during the recent two terms, but the concept of true justice.

Proverbs talks about the blessed nature of a government that doesn't judge because somebody is rich, doesn't judge because somebody is poor, doesn't give more favor to somebody who is rich, and isn't biased for somebody because they are poor, but does make just decisions based on the case, not on someone's social standing, be it rich or poor. Some are tempted to be biased for the poor, some biased for the rich. But real justice is just following the law regardless of someone's background.

So it is a bit of an anathema, it seems, that you have got an inspector general report based on people who may have worse biases than the people whom they are judging. We don't even know. So I was a little surprised by that.

We had a record of over 500 pages that was just full of some of the worst illustrations of biases ever imaginable. It was interesting. I didn't realize, but apparently back, I believe it was in 2012, there was a case that was lost that the Justice Department was prosecuting during the Eric Holder days. I had never seen this information until today and didn't see it until after the hearing, but apparently it was even one case where the jurors found somebody not guilty because information came in about the same kind of texting and emails that we were seeing regarding the hatred by some in the Justice Department and the FBI against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton.

There was a time when the Federal Department of Justice and the FBI were considered the best law enforcement, the best at providing justice anywhere in the world. That time is not now. In fact, we know that under Eric Holder and Attorney General Lynch, the U.S. Department of Justice went after police departments, local law enforcement, and using the power and almost unlimited money of the Department of Justice, they could overwhelm and force a local law enforcement office into agreeing to a consent decree where the U.S. Department of Justice got to basically supervise whatever they did.

Based on the kind of prejudice, bias, and outrageous actions within the United States Department of Justice and the FBI, it looks like some of those police departments that ended up agreeing to consent judgments might be better off suing the U.S. Department of Justice, exposing how biased and prejudiced they were during the period during which the Department of Justice came after them and was trying to supervise them, show how biased and prejudiced they were. So maybe the local police department should end up getting to tell the Department of Justice when they are acting appropriately and when they are not.

For heaven's sake, it is just incredible how such a great justice organization has been not just compromised, but devastated like a cancerous prejudice and bias, incapable of rendering fair, blind decisions without regard for any bias in favor of or against a litigant.

What a change. What a difference. President Obama is right. He did fundamentally transform America. I really would never have thought we would see the Justice Department after those 8 years end up like it is.

It didn't come out in the hearing, but I was given to understand that after the shock subsided somewhat of Donald Trump winning November 2016 that there was a massive effort just at a rapid pace to try to move people who had been politically appointed by the Obama administration in the Department of Justice and the Department of State, but especially DOJ, Homeland Security, political appointees, trying to get them into civil service jobs so that the Trump administration would not be easily able to get rid of them as every other administration does.

When a new administration comes in, the political appointees tender their resignations. Most are accepted, some are not. But instead of doing something like that, what we were hearing was that the Obama administration was trying to put them into cubbyhole civil service jobs, so that basically they could still utilize the prejudices and biases that were built up during the Obama administration.

It is just such a dangerous time. As I was sitting there for the hearing, it dawned on me that the kind of bias, just rabid prejudice and hatred not only for a candidate, but the disgust that was on parade in the texts, the email messages, just extraordinary, but that that kind of bias and prejudice may very well be the second biggest threat to Federal justice in America.

It is a cancerous bias. It is probably a cancerous bias in stage IV where it just is eating its way through, creating big holes where there was once a solid Justice Department.

What occurred to me was that that may be the second biggest threat to Federal justice in America, that cancerous bias. But perhaps the biggest threat to Federal justice in America is that I think for the first time in American history, you have one of two major political parties has about half of the country's support without anybody being horribly offended that this kind of bias and prejudice was driving a Justice Department.

I keep going back to when President George W. Bush was in the White House, and when we found out about the abuses of the National Security Letters, FBI agents just sending them out willy-nilly, just sending them out on fishing expeditions. That was not authorized. That was not lawful. Somebody needed to pay a price.

In retrospect, it is directly, as Robert Mueller said, that was his responsibility, his fault. Yes, it was. He should have been fired. He should never have been allowed to get close to anything attempting to pervert justice in America.

Unfortunately, he wormed his way in through his joined-at-the-hip buddy, Comey, leaking information in order to get a second counsel, that second counsel being his joined-at-the-hip buddy, Mr. Mueller. He should never have allowed that to happen. If it was a fair and just Justice Department, Rosenstein would have recused himself, Mueller would have recused himself and said: I am not the proper person to do this special counsel job because of my strong friendship, maybe even mentorship--whatever you want to call it--with James Comey; and also the fact that I was FBI Director working with the U.S. Attorney named Rosenstein, and my go-to guy, Weissmann, and we were the ones who were investigating Russia's illegal efforts to obtain United States uranium.

Of course, they helped quash information about that so that the Commission on Foreign Investment in the United States could approve the sale, that would open the way for beneficiaries of that sale to donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation as well

as paying off Bill Clinton to make speeches for a short amount of time. There is just so much that stinks to high heaven here in Washington.

We don't even know anything about the biases and prejudices of those people on whom Mr. Horowitz was relying to reach his conclusions. But it is worth looking at some of the things that were recommended.

For example, you had a man named Pagliano--and this is according to the Horowitz report--Pagliano was a critical witness because he set up the server that Clinton used during her tenure.

In other words, he set up the unsecured server which we now know was hacked. And I think my friend Andrew McCarthy makes a great point in an article today when he points out the mere setting up of that unsecured server out from under the government watch for the purpose, according to James Carville--he may have been trying to make a joke, but it actually was an indication of the mindset of the Clintons, when he said: Hillary didn't want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails.

She didn't want proper oversight, so she intentionally and knowingly had a server set up that was not secure, was out from under government protection and control, also knowing she might be able to get away with not turning in emails because they were not under government control.

How there could be 500-plus pages of bias shown in this report, and then a conclusion that there is no evidence of any bias in the investigation? My gosh, that is a lay-down, slam-dunk prosecution right there. You could have indicted Mr. Pagliano, who was certainly far more responsible for potential crime than Mr. Manafort is, clearly.

In the Horowitz report he says: The supervising special agent told us that the FBI did not consider Pagliano a subject or someone they would prosecute in connection with the midyear--talking about the Hillary Clinton investigation. The FBI believed his testimony was very important and providing immunity was an effective way to secure his testimony.

So this guy sets up the unsecured server, and it carried we now know for certain classified information.

We knew there was going to be a good chance he would have had to have known that. But if that supervising special agent and the Horowitz team had not been so favorably inclined not to find any wrongdoing, then certainly they would have recognized that this is a guy who could and should have been indicted.

Of course, I don't advocate that people be unfairly treated as Paul Manafort was, where you go busting down his door in the early morning hours when you know he is not a threat; there is no reason to bust down a door in those early morning hours, no reason to ransack a house, other than trying to intimidate.

But nobody tried to do anything, not even indicting or bringing him before a grand jury to potentially pursue him, because the prosecutors, many of them have told me: Man, this is a real easy one, much easier than organized crime. All you have to do is go after Pagliano, go after a couple of these other people, and once they see they are looking at years in prison, yes, they will tell you exactly what Hillary Clinton told them and others told them. And then you go to the next one and make the case that that testimony gives you.

None of that was done. It was all done in a way to protect Hillary Clinton, no question.

That report talks about Combetta. It says Paul Combetta is the one that later wiped emails from that private server in March of 2015. The report says that the investigation's team members told the inspector general Combetta was an important witness for several reasons, including his involvement with the culling process and the deletion of emails and his interactions with several people who worked for Clinton.

Several of the midyear--they call them midyear; it is the Clinton team members--stated that, after conducting two voluntary interviews of Combetta, they believe Combetta had not been forthcoming about, among other things, his role in deleting emails from the PRN server following the issues of a congressional preservation order.

The witness further stated that Combetta's truthful testimony was essential for assessing criminal intent for Clinton and other individuals because he would be able to tell them whether Clinton's attorneys, Mills, Samuelson, or Kendall, had instructed him to delete the emails.

So this is the way you work up through a prosecution. They didn't indict Combetta. This says the supervising special agent told us he believed Combetta should have been charged with false statements for lying multiple times. Well, if that had happened, then you go to him and you say: This is how many years you are looking at.

I have seen incredibly professional FBI agents in the field do just that: Here is what you are looking at. You are going to talk to your lawyer. You are going to decide what to do. We want you to see the evidence we have.

Then they would lay out the evidence: Here is evidence that might help. You might think it is exculpatory, but we here is the evidence that we have that we believe will overwhelm that. It is incriminating. We are not wanting you to make a statement now. You talk to your lawyer. See if you would like to assist us.

Then when you realize that, wow, their evidence is overwhelming, I am dead meat, I am going to prison, then let's see what kind of deal we can make.

Then you make a proffer: Here is what my client will say if you will give us this plea agreement or this agreement, maybe an immunity agreement, you work that out. That is how you go about proving a case.

None of that was done. The FBI and the Department of Justice attorneys, people who absolutely loved and worshiped Hillary Clinton and absolutely despised and hated Donald Trump didn't do any of that. They protected the people who would have been critical witnesses.

We get around to Mr. John Bentel. He worked at the State Department for 39 years. Here is what the IG report said:

Both agents who interviewed Bentel told us that he was uncooperative and the interview was unproductive. However, they attributed these problems to nervousness and fear of being found culpable.

Agent three--whoever that was, with whatever biases he had--told us that he did not believe that immunity was necessary and it did not help the investigation because Bentel was not forthcoming during his interview.

That makes no sense. That is the kind of guy where you go ahead and you have got enough evidence, you indict him, and then he gets a little more cooperative through his lawyer. The guy helped commit crimes, apparently. Then you see about getting more cooperation when he is looking at being convicted and doing a long time in prison.

But he did not have any of that done. There was not even a threat of prosecution. He wasn't prosecuted because bias affected the outcome of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. If he had been prosecuted, he would likely have been quite cooperative as a witness in establishing what really happened. But he knew he was guilty. He had a guilty conscience, which is obvious from what these people said in their statements.

So what about Cheryl Mills? She was treated as if she were an attorney for Hillary Clinton. She was allowed to sit in on the interview of Hillary Clinton that was not recorded, and, basically, she was assured in advance that she would be given a pass.

But Cheryl Mills is one who actually went through the Clinton emails. Because of her position, she was in a position to make sure they did not turn over any emails that would have incriminated Cheryl and Hillary Clinton. And instead of doing anything that would have brought that to light, they give her an immunity deal. They let her consult.

There is a massive question here of conspiring to obstruct justice, yet they gave them a pass.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Horowitz really did appear as if he were trying to do something so that he could kind of say he was placating two different sides. On the one hand, over 500 pages absolutely documenting the horrendous bias and prejudice that permeated an actually cancerous kind of bias that was eating through the Department of Justice and FBI, then turns around and gave Democrats what they would hope to have:

Oh, no, there was no evidence that bias affected the investigation.

Well, how about the fact that there is no attorney-client privilege if an attorney and a client are conspiring to obstruct justice or are absolutely obstructing justice?

In such a case, you don't give immunity to the attorney, the counselor, potential codefendant, and say: Here, you go through the evidence and you tell us what you are going to let us have, and then you destroy anything at all that you think might not be helpful to you and Mrs. Clinton and give us what you think will be safe to give us.

It is absolutely incredible. The very fact that that was done, that she was allowed to sit in on the interview, she was allowed to go through and screen the emails for her and her client that could have shown any possible crimes there is an outrage.

We need a second special counsel, and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on what my good friend from Iowa (Mr. King) was saying, there is an article here from this week--Hans A. von Spakovsky says: ``Alabama is arguing that by including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, it deprives the State of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The key to Alabama's case is the definition of `persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. This is not an issue the court has addressed before.''

That is interesting.

``Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau. If the State wins, it could have major political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political representation in Congress.''

And I might insert parenthetically here, I heard my friend, the delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was talking about hoping to have a vote, whether it was making D.C. a State or whatnot. But in the little research that I ended up doing after I got here is I have seen the license plate, ``Taxation without representation.'' I thought: Well, you know, of course, that was something that was said during the Revolution, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' Ben Franklin said, if we don't get to elect even one of the members of parliament that put taxes on us, then they should not be able to put taxes on us.

So I am familiar with that situation, but I didn't know, until after I had been here awhile, I find out that territories, like--or any U.S. property that is not part of a State, they do not have a U.S. representative because the Constitution is very clear, very succinct, it says that the representative shall come from the several States.

In the late 1970s, all of the proponents of giving Washington, D.C. a representative, a U.S. representative, they understood there is only one way to do that, and that is to have a constitutional amendment to amend where it says the representative shall come from the several States and include, and the District of Columbia, something like that.

Well, they passed it with a significant percentage in the House and the Senate that allowed it to go forward as a constitutional amendment, but they never got--in the late 1970s, they never got the requisite number of States because I guess, from the State standpoint, they are thinking: Well, if we ratify this as a constitutional amendment, it slightly, but still does, dilute a little bit of our power in the House of Representatives. So it didn't get the requisite number of States.

But, again, after I was here, I was talking to a friend from Puerto Rico, and I said: I know there have been votes in the past about whether Puerto Ricans want to be a State or not. Why has that not passed previously? This is several years ago.

And he said: Well, there are people that kind of like the current situation in Puerto Rico. It is the same as in Guam or the Mariana Islands or the U.S. Virgin Islands--all the areas that are not States, they are territories--because in those, as in Puerto Rico, because they do not elect a full voting representative into the U.S. House or Senate, then the Founders, up through the current time, have said it is not fair. Just like Ben Franklin said, it is not fair to make them pay Federal income tax, Federal tax, if they don't elect a full voting representative.

So there is no U.S. territory, no non-State U.S. property that has to pay Federal income tax if they are not a State that elects a representative, except for the District of Columbia.

And once I realized that, I went: Well, it may not seem to people to be a Republican issue, but that really is not fair for the District of Columbia, because the people in the District of Columbia pay Federal income tax.

So if we are really going to be consistent, we are really going to be fair to the people of the District of Columbia, there is only one thing to do: Either make them a State, which a form of that was tried in the 1970s and it didn't work, or the other--actually there are three things. The other is to make the law as it is for every other non- State, that the residents of that non-State do not pay Federal income tax.

So I filed that bill in a number of the Congresses, including this one. It was very basic, you know--residents of Washington, District of Columbia, will not pay Federal income tax, just like all the other territories. And I have been intrigued that I have not gotten support from Democrats, including the delegate from the District of Columbia.

I understand, you know, folks like my colleague want to have a full voting U.S. representative. Fine. But why not let your constituents at least be treated like every other resident U.S. citizen of a non-State. Don't make them pay income tax until you get what you want. Maybe some day you'll get it, but until you do, why don't you join forces with me and just say: We want to pass this law; we are going to be fair to the residents of Washington, D.C. just like we are to all the other non- States that are U.S. territories; we are going to say you don't pay Federal income tax.

But I have been amazed that I am still not getting support from the other side of the aisle, just to be fair, until they--I am not in favor of making the District of Columbia a State. I like what the Founders did, with that one exception, they should not have to pay tax since they don't elect a full voting representative.

So, anyway, I am hoping that at some point at least one or more of my Democratic friends will join forces with me and maybe we can push that issue to the floor so we can treat the residents of the District of Columbia fairly. But until the person representing the people here in the District of Columbia disagree, then it is

doubtful the Speaker would ever bring my bill to the floor so we could treat them fairly.

Now, there is one other way that that could be handled, and I did file this bill some Congresses back, but it had even less support, so I didn't bother to file it again. So one way to be fair to the residents of the District of Columbia would be to say: No Federal income tax, since you don't elect a full voting representative.

The other would be to do what was done in the late 1840s when there were major complaints from residents of the District of Columbia. They were part of the 10-mile-by-10-mile square District of Columbia, but were on the western side of the Potomac River. They were protesting. They were upset. Look, you are not using any of our land as Federal land, so why don't you just cede the land west of the Potomac back to Virginia and then we can participate in the election of not only representatives, but also two Senators? We will get to participate in that since you are not using the land.

Well, of course, nowadays, the Federal Government is using a lot of that land. You have not only Reagan National Airport, you have Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, and so many other things across the river.

But back in the late 1840s, that was ceded back to Virginia. That is why when people look at a map of the District of Columbia, it is no longer a 10-mile-by-10-mile square. It is uneven on the west side because it follows the Potomac, going back to that ceding of land back to Virginia.

So I have filed a bill before, and I am not planning on filing it again because it just didn't get any real support at all. But we drew a line with a metes and bounds description around all of the nonresident Federal buildings in the District of Columbia. We keep those as Federal enclaves, and then cede all of the other land east of the Potomac back to Maryland.

I remember my friend from the District of Columbia, across the aisle, asking me one time on this floor, when I was talking about this bill: But what if Maryland didn't want to take this land back?

And I looked at my friend, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, and I said--I am sure that our friend here, Mr. Hoyer, would say--any State would be thoroughly pleased to have you and your constituents as residents of their State. I didn't get an ``amen'' or ``sure, of course'' from Mr. Hoyer, but I am sure, deep in his heart, he felt that way. But, like I said, I never got any real support for that.

So I am hoping, at some point, my friend from the District of Columbia will join me and say: Okay, at least until--and even if it doesn't happen--at least until it did happen, the residents of the District of Columbia should be treated fairly, like we do those from any other non-State, and don't pay income tax.

I appreciate bringing those issues back up again. It is an easy solution. And I just feel like if we had a bipartisan effort to pass that, then we could get that done on behalf of the residents of Washington, District of Columbia.

But, anyway, back to this article from the Heritage Foundation, June 5, talking about the lawsuit about counting illegal immigrants in the Census. It says: ``Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of counting illegal immigrants in the Census gives States that protect them (California, for example) seats and votes they are not entitled to have.

``The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that Representatives in the House `shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers' ''--just like I was talking about--``with the `Numbers' determined by `counting the whole number of persons in each State.'

``After every Census, House seats are reapportioned according to the population of each State. Electoral College votes are reapportioned according to the number of each State's congressional Representatives.

``Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow States to gain a political advantage over other States by flouting Federal immigration law.

``The number of Representatives in the House--435--has been fixed by the law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment is `a zero sum proposition: Each State's gain is another State's loss.'

``Alabama argues that by including illegal immigrants in apportionment, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are unfairly distributed.

``Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and Texas each gained one seat and one vote.

``As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit: `four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.'

``Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. It says this `will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation.

``This also violates the `one person, one vote' equal representation standard of the 14th Amendment. According to Alabama, `the gains from including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who live in State with large numbers of illegal aliens.'

``Why? Because it means that `in a State in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who live in States where a larger share of the population is made up of American citizens.' '' Which is an interesting argument.

``This results in `representational inequality' by devaluing the vote of Alabama's legal residents. This redistribution of political power `disincentivizes States with large illegal alien populations from cooperating with Federal immigration authorities (lest they lose political power that comes with additional Representatives and votes in the Electoral College),' Alabama argues.

``Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the Census `punishes States who do cooperate with Federal immigration authorities in the identification and removal' of illegal aliens, Alabama's lawsuit states.

``Alabama's final complaint is monetary. Including illegal immigrants in the Census, it says, will likely cause it to lose its fair share of the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the Federal Government in grants and other funds.

``The key to Alabama's case is the definition of `persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues the term `persons' was understood at the `time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified' to mean the `inhabitants' of a State.

``Furthermore, `in the public law of the founding era, the term `inhabitant' did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitance was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside,' Alabama argues.

``In other words, `persons' does not include individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, without the permission of the Federal Government.

``The `Residence' rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 Census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated to the State where their `usual residence' is located, regardless of whether they are legally present.''

There is some hypocrisy, I have noticed, among some of our friends here. On the one hand, they are constantly saying: We have to bring these illegal aliens, undocumented people, whatever they want to call them, we have to bring them out of the shadows.

And I remember, on one occasion, we had a bunch of folks claiming to be illegal aliens in the gallery right here. They were shouting and proud to be illegal aliens at some point. I looked up, looked around the gallery at all of these people making noise, have T-shirts, and I thought: It doesn't look like they are in the shadows to me. I mean, it looks like there is plenty of light up there.

They keep using the term that they are ``in the shadows,'' yet Alabama has

this lawsuit and they are saying: We need to know who is in the country illegally and who is not so we can get a fair count.

And people that have been saying, on the one hand: We want everybody that is coming into the country illegally to come out of the shadows; when it comes to apportionment, they are saying: No, no, no, no, we want them counted, but you can't ask them whether they are here illegally or not. So we want their status to stay in the shadows. We want to keep their status secret.

Sanctuary cities are basically doing the same thing. They might as well put the Statue of Liberty out in San Francisco harbor saying: Give us your tired, your poor, your felons, your people that like to shoot other people and rob them, because that is basically what San Francisco has been saying: We don't care if you are a felon, we don't care if you kill people, you rape women, or raped anybody, we want you here, and we won't tell on you, so you come right in here.

I am going to file a bill. I have been working on it too long. I haven't gotten the cooperation I thought I should from some folks. But, anyway, basically, I think it ought be a civil right living in a city in the United States that is violated when a city says: We are going to welcome, encourage, really try to recruit people to be in our city who are felons, who are here illegally and felons.

And when that kind of action under State law robs people of their lives or their sexual purity or any other thing, there ought to be a cause of action against that city or that State that is saying: We encourage people that are here illegally and who are committing felonies, we want you here.

That really ought to be a right of the others who are U.S. citizens that is being violated by the sanctuary city or the sanctuary State. So if a State or city wants to keep encouraging felons to live within their bounds and it costs people their lives or their property, there ought to be a civil rights lawsuit lodged against that State or city government, or county government for that matter.

So we will get it done and we will get it filed. That way it is fair. So, say, if San Francisco, for example, wants to keep encouraging people, like the guy that shot Kate Steinle, to come into the city, and that way others may be similarly situated, as was Kate Steinle, and get shot and killed as they beg their daddy to help them, I mean, I just can't imagine anything much worse than that as a father.

The father should not have his lawsuit thrown out of court, as happened in the Steinle case. We ought to give the means to the aggrieved party to say to San Francisco, or say to the city or State when they are acting as a sanctuary city or State: Do you know what, you can do that if you want, but you are going to monetarily pay to the people who are harmed under your State or city color of law. It just seems fair.

So, hopefully, we will get something done on that and let the lawsuits commence against the sanctuary cities. As a former lawyer who tried a lot of cases, I have seen the good that can come. Sometimes there are places where the litigation system is abused, often a topic on FOX News, but there are some laws we don't really have to pass if you have a good court system that aggrieved parties can come in and they can sue and collect.

And just the threat of that suit and collection voids the needs for us to come in here or run in and pass a law every time there is some illegality or impropriety or some damage done to other parties. Let the courts mete it out.

When somebody is penalized financially in a sufficient amount, then it will change their conduct. I think you would see sanctuary cities change once their taxpayers realize they are going to keep paying out multimillion dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars constantly in court costs and damages assessed.

I bet you would see a whole lot of folks say: Do you know what? Maybe it is time that we quit having a sanctuary in our city for people who came in illegally and who also commit violent felonies or property theft or whatever it is. Let's protect people and give them that right through litigation.

Now, this article from Bob Price says: ``Border Patrol Agents Arrest Sex Offenders, Gang Members in South Texas.'' It points out that: ``Border patrol agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley Sector stopped sex offenders and gang members from making their way to their U.S. destinations over the weekend. During a 4-day period, agents arrested four child molesters and three gang members after they illegally crossed the border. The arrests include fugitives who fled the country to avoid prosecution and previously deported criminal aliens.

``Rio Grande City Station agents arrested a man who illegally crossed the border near Roma, Texas, on Sunday. During processing, agents learned the Salvadoran national was convicted in Angleton, Texas, in February 2015 for a 2014 charge of sexual assault of a child. The Salvadoran national received a 5-year prison sentence and was deported after being released early by prison officials.''

And then obviously coming back, some other child was probably saved from another sexual assault, because I know from my experience as a prosecutor and a felony judge, when somebody is that kind of evil that they would commit that kind of assault on a child, it just seems to be the kind of evil that they keep coming back to.

So it is something that needs to stop. Thank God we have Border Patrol officers who are protecting us.

I would just encourage our own Republican leadership, what got President Trump elected was he was promising that we would build a wall. He was promising an end to the unconstitutional DACA that Obama did. He was promising no amnesties. So I think in the time we have left in this year, wouldn't it be a good idea if we as Republicans in the House quit worrying about a discharge petition and started being concerned about keeping our promises to the American people?

Let's get the wall built where it is needed, but for heaven's sake, get the border secure. Secure the border so people coming in are coming in lawfully.

We should not have to process anybody who comes in anywhere except through an authorized entry point into our country. If you try to come in another way, the Federal officers ought to do like the State of Texas officers do, and that is stand in the way: You are not coming into our country. You are not putting a foot on American soil until you come in legally.

But the Federal officers haven't been doing that, and we need to make that happen as well. That is what we do. Once we have secured the borders, then we can work something out about who is here and who stays, who goes.

But until then, the border patrolmen again reaffirmed for me this last week, every time we mention DACA, amnesty, any kind of legalization, any kind of stay, any kind of path to this, that, or the other, there is another surge of people illegally coming into the country. Let's stop the surges. Let's do whatever it takes to secure the border. Let's forget about discharge petitions.

Concentrate on that secured border. That will keep our oath. That will keep our promise. That defends the Constitution, and it also actually helps people get reelected, because we kept our promises.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits the use of funds to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or guidance related to the social cost of carbon.

Social cost of carbon metric was a tool, and is a tool, used to bolster many Obama-era regulations. They supposedly targeted vague, ambiguous, and unverifiable costs.

In an article this week, The Wall Street Journal points out that by introducing ``social costs'' and ``social benefits,'' the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma, EPA optimists even including their guesses about how domestic relationships could have a global impact.

Meanwhile, the Agency ignored the best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions. This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise.

Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised these social costs of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21, completely unverifiable.

Now, the regulatory specifics will be hashed out in coming months, but there is really potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy.

If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound, scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this is ultimately a tax on the Nation's poor. The rich, they can handle these added, superfluous costs that come out of the nebulous areas of bureaucrats' minds, but the real ultimate cost is actually to the Nation's poor.

I can't help but go back to a woman, an elderly lady that lived outside of Carthage, Texas, that said: ``You know, I keep having these costs go up and up and up. I am afraid I am going to end up in my home going back to a wood-burning stove because of the Federal Government.''

And I said: ``I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your wood-burning stove you used when you were growing up that your mama used probably wouldn't be allowed today.''

Anyway, there is no reason to have this kind of cost, and I would urge a passing of this amendment. Let's quit adding nebulous, unverifiable costs.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I really have such great respect for my friend across the aisle, and I do truly mean that. But when I hear talk about what Republicans did to our Nation's poor and our seniors, I keep coming back to the ObamaCare vote, without a single one of the Republicans voting for that bill. Democrats have to take full credit. They passed it without a single Republican vote and cut $716 billion out of the healthcare of seniors.

Now, President Obama told them: Seniors, you don't have to worry. It will only come out of the pockets of the rich, greedy doctors.

Well, what our folks have found out is that is not the case at all. It has affected the elderly completely. It has been a real problem for them, because what they have seen is that, actually, if their healthcare provider doesn't get paid, they don't get their healthcare.

So I would just like to say again, I need to urge people to vote for this amendment. Making our Nation's poor pay for ambiguous, unverified costs and saying we are somehow making the world better while they are making the poor poorer is absolutely unsubstantiatable, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so we hear today from the Mueller investigation, as he was appointed by a man named Rosenstein that we now know was completely disqualified from being able to select or name a special counsel for a number of reasons. For one thing, he would be a witness, because one of the issues was did President Trump obstruct justice when he fired Comey. And the President relied totally, or largely, on the memo that was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. He would be a material witness.

You can't be involved in an investigation if you are a material witness.

Rosenstein, as it would happen, also had worked with a guy named Mueller and Weissman when they were working on an investigation into Russia's illegal efforts to get U.S. uranium. And, in fact, they kind of had to jointly and severally put the quash on information about that investigation, because if they didn't, then the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., CFIUS, including Hillary Clinton, would not have been able to vote to allow the sale of uranium that would end up in Russia's hands. And if that sale hadn't gone through, there is no question all those stockholders that benefited would not have been so anxious to put $145 million in the Clinton Foundation and probably Russia wouldn't have been as quick to pay $500,000 for a speech from former President Clinton.

But there are all kinds of implications there. Of course, we know from previous special counsels from the Department of Justice, all of them, until Rosenstein and Mueller, made a thorough effort to select lawyers and investigating officers who appeared to have no political bias going in.

What did Mueller do? He specifically went for the people that loved Hillary Clinton and hated Donald Trump, went out of his way to do that.

Some have complained, well, Weissmann has a history of putting innocent people out of work, destroying lives, not only making them unemployed, but making them unemployable and, as the Supreme Court has said, all for things that were not even crimes. That doesn't seem to deter him, just as it has never deterred Robert Mueller from destroying people's lives, people of integrity, honest, upstanding people, whether it was Ted Stevens--heck, Colin Powell, one of the previous Cabinet members, decorated military man, had nothing but just accolades to say about Ted Stevens and what an honorable, honest, upright man he was.

And the Mueller FBI framed him. They hid information that not only would have raised a reasonable doubt that showed unequivocally he was not guilty of having a gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars of addition to his cabin because not only did he pay for it, he paid about 20 percent more than the value because, as he had said before: I have to go above and beyond just to keep people at bay who might want to come after me. I have got to keep my nose so clean.

Yet I guess it could be argued, well, maybe Mueller didn't know that the FBI framed Ted Stevens and convicted him immediately before his election. Well, there is no question he would have known about it as the FBI agent who was singled out by another FBI agent as having engaged in the malicious prosecution, the hiding of evidence, the failure to produce evidence that they had that was exculpatory.

Well, we know that the FBI agent that signed the whistleblowing affidavit, he was driven out of the FBI; and the one that there is evidence under oath that she framed Ted Stevens, she continued to work in the Mueller FBI, which is kind of like Mueller when he was in Boston.

As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that Mueller knew that his FBI agents in Boston were framing Whitey Bulger's competition, but he certainly had to have known that those four people were innocent when he kept putting pressure on the parole board not to release those innocent people, which I guess is another reason it cost taxpayers $100 million to the two individuals and then the two families of the two people who died in prison.

Or Curt Weldon, that was the Mueller FBI. I kept wondering my freshman term, Curt would come to this microphone right here--and maybe that should be a warning to me: if you make Mueller mad, he destroys your life. But somebody's got to stand up to a mean-spirited bully like Robert Mueller. If everybody is afraid of a guy like that, then, I mean, we are Third World governments.

But I kept thinking, you know, Curt Weldon keeps saying the FBI had information before 9/11, they could have done things to stop it, and he kept raising serious questions. I thought Mueller has surely got to answer these. And, yes, I know he had only come to the FBI right before 9/11, so chances are he was not implicated because of his recent arrival as FBI Director before 9/11. But surely he has got to respond somehow. These are serious allegations Curt Weldon was making.

Well, he ultimately did respond. The FBI did a raid on Curt Weldon's adult daughter's lawyer office before, I think it was around 6 a.m., and, amazingly, the only people who knew were FBI; and yet all of the media was there to witness the raid, on television, newsprint, radio. They all showed up.

And they are not the only ones to whom it was leaked, because protestors showed up immediately at Curt Weldon's office accusing him of crimes, caught red-handed, stuff like that. That was 2 weeks before his election that he narrowly lost.

Apparently, that is how Mueller responds.

You know, with all the complaints about bullies these days, you would think that adults in Congress would say: Do you know what? We don't want adult bullies either. We don't want to

give adults the power, unlimited, unbridled power, to just go after anybody they want any time they want.

Manafort doesn't seem like somebody I'd ever want to hang out with, but, for heaven's sake, to knock down his door in the wee hours, drag him out of bed at gunpoint, when you just want to do a search--in fact, it would have been better, from a law enforcement standpoint, if they had done the raid when no one was home. But it wasn't about finding something; it was about raw, sheer intimidation.

So what do we hear in the way of raw, sheer intimidation from the Mueller cartel? Well, now we are told that a message that Manafort sent to a partner, somebody he did business with, that that was a crime. It is all about threatening people. It is all about bullying and scaring people.

And what authority is it that Mueller has? Well, that's interesting, because he doesn't want to produce that document. Congress has asked for it. We have absolute authority, and if we were doing our job, we would stop the Mueller investigation, pass an immediate law that not one penny could be spent without committing a crime on any investigation Mueller is undertaking until he shows us what authority he has.

You can't just give somebody unbridled authority, and then he doesn't even have to report to anybody unless it is the person who was disqualified that appointed him to be special counsel when he, himself, should have been disqualified. If he had had any decency or ethics about him he would have said: ``Do you know what? This is going to involve Russia. I was involved in the Russia investigation. I was FBI Director and, actually, there are some touchy issues there I was involved in, and I could be a witness because, you know, actually, the truth is we closed up information so that the sale could g through that Russia would get our uranium, and then Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation get $145 million. So, yeah, I was really involved in that.''

The last people who ought to be involved in an investigation now as special counsel about Russia would be Robert Mueller, Weissmann, and Rosenstein, but there they are, back together, investigating, while the statute of limitations is running out on any potential crime they may have committed that should be investigated by a second special counsel.

I have been saying this for a year now: We need a second special counsel. This is serious stuff, and people across the country, even some Democratic friends of mine, are realizing: Wait a minute. Trump's not getting the same treatment that Hillary Clinton got. It is pretty clear there are two different standards of justice.

Some people who care about justice--and, yeah, they are politically involved, but they care about righteousness and justice--don't want to see us go into being a Third World banana republic, which it appears to much of the world we have moved into becoming.

This latest allegation Mueller throws out about tampering with a witness, well, you know, under section 1512: If you kill or attempt to kill somebody, it might be a witness--nope, that doesn't apply.

Or if you use physical force or threat of physical force--no, that didn't apply.

Cause or induce a person to withhold testimony--no, didn't do any of that.

Didn't hinder, delay, prevent communication--nope.

Let's see. Well, did he knowingly use intimidation, threats, or corruptly persuade? No. No, that really didn't apply.

All right. How about whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates? No, he didn't do any of that.

So how about obstructs or influences or impedes any official proceeding? No, really didn't do that, didn't attempt to do so.

Or intentionally harasses another person, thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades anyone from attending or testifying--nope, that didn't happen.

Reporting to law enforcement--nope, that didn't happen. He didn't even turn the message over to the FBI.

Arresting or seeking to arrest--nope.

Now, Mueller may be involved in these, but it doesn't sound like Manafort is.

Causing a criminal prosecution--no, none of those apply. Oh, well, maybe. Oh, that is an affirmative defense.

You know, there is something Mueller's good at: scare people, throw out highbrow allegations just trying to intimidate.

It is like the Federal judge said, Mueller's folks don't care, and Mueller doesn't care about Manafort, anything that happened 20 years ago. We have seen it throughout Mueller's history. He finds somebody, whether it is Steven Hatfill, Ted Stevens, Curt Weldon, you know, people who got put in jail for crimes Whitey Bulger was involved in, though he was their FBI informant. I mean, he finds people he dislikes, and then he goes about trying to find a crime that he can pin on them.

And even if they are not really guilty, he is fine with keeping people in prison for crimes they didn't commit if he thinks they are not good people, he doesn't like them. That is how he could tell President Bush that he was 100 percent certain Dr. Steven Hatfill was the guy that was the anthrax killer. He didn't like him. No evidence-- none, zero--yet they destroyed the guy's life.

So it cost taxpayers--Mueller's actions, other people's actions in Boston--$100 million for the way he destroyed Steven Hatfill's life, another $6 million or so payout. You know, he leaves a terrible wake of devastation, lives wrecked, and he doesn't care.

The one thing he is consistent in saying is: I don't owe anybody an apology for anything I have done.

Yeah, it is the way bullies are.

Well, we have got another problem here in the House. We had an IT worker named Imran Awan, who worked for between 40 and 50 of my Democratic colleagues. Now, he sent, apparently, over $100,000 back to Pakistan where he still has family, and he got that from a loan here in the U.S., and he is charged with making a false statement to get the loan.

Yet that is a fraction of what we find from just the reporting of Luke Rosiak, the Daily Caller, this article from October 3, 2017. Unfortunately, the only thing they have indicted Mr. Awan for is basically making a false statement to get a loan, things related to that. But there are dozens and dozens of felonies in which he is implicated from his work here on Capitol Hill.

This article says: ``A now-indicted IT aide to various House Democrats was sending money and gifts to government officials in Pakistan and received protection from the Pakistani police, multiple relatives claim.

``A Democratic aide also said Imran Awan personally bragged to him that he could have people tortured in Pakistan. Awan's lawyer acknowledged that he was sending money to a member of the Faisalabad police department, but said there was a good explanation.

``The relatives said Awan and his brothers were also sending IT equipment, such as iPhones, to the country during the same period in which fraudulent purchase orders''--and by the way, from what we have seen, there were clearly dozens of fraudulent purchase orders.

Say, for example, an iPad cost $799 and Awan puts down it is $499 as a cost, maybe $300 for an insurance policy or something, but $499, that means it is under the $500 limit for things that do not have to be kept in inventory. So, as long as Awan kept prices on these invoices below $500, he didn't have to have a listing of all of the equipment.

So he could keep buying iPads, iPhones, and all of these kinds of things for different Members of Congress' offices, and there is no record kept of where those items are. They don't record the serial numbers or anything, as long as it is $499. The trouble for Mr. Awan is, every time he put $499 on one invoice for something that costs $799, it is a Federal felony, and he is implicated in dozens of these. The evidence abounds.

Yet some of us had an informal hearing and heard testimony about this matter, and he was bragging to people about all of the iPhones and iPads he was sending to Pakistan to the police there, to intelligence friends there, these kinds of things. And because he listed them at $499, they are not on an inventory so they don't have to be written off when they disappear. That is pretty handy.

But the FBI has had opportunities to have those invoices presented to them.

And each time they have instructed: Don't bring any of those documents. We don't want to see any of that. We just want to talk to you. And as I understand, even this week, they continued to report--the FBI investigating--that, yeah, we still found no evidence of anything other than this false statement on a loan. Why? Because they have instructed: We don't want to see the documents that prove those cases.

They are readily available for anybody, any Federal officer who wants to see them, but they don't want to see them. So they can keep reporting to the new U.S. attorney that there is no evidence. No, there is just nothing there. They can tell the Attorney General, yeah, we have looked into it, and there is nothing there.

And yet we hear from the reporter, he continues to talk to the witnesses--Luke Rosiak--and it was 80 percent of the witnesses that have personal information about the crimes the Awan cartel--crime family, whatever you want to call it--have committed, was 80 percent; now between 70 and 80 percent of those witnesses have never been interviewed by the FBI.

That way they can still report to the new U.S. attorney, to the Attorney General; we looked into it. There is nothing there. There is no evidence. Yeah, because you don't want to look at it. It abounds. And then when we hear that Mr. Awan is spreading the word among his friends from Pakistan that: I have just got to get this deal done and work out a plea where I don't get jail time, and I am already assured I will be able to work back on the Hill.

I was staggered to find out when we took testimony that actually about 3 to 9 months of every year for the last 13 or 14 years that Mr. Awan has been doing work as a computer technician for 40 to 50 Democrats here on the Hill, that he had never had a background check, but 3 to 9 months out of each year he was in Pakistan, and he was using the Pakistani internet to work on three or four dozen Members of Congress' computer systems.

We also learned that, at one point, they put over 40 Members of Congress' data on one server so that anybody that Awan wanted to could access the server and get information on all of these other people. And what happened? Well, that server with that serial number has disappeared, but the FBI has no interest whatsoever--at least so far-- in investigating what happened to the server on which Awan put 40-plus Members of Congress' data.

One, we do know some of the files that existed. We don't know what were in the files, but Awan had actually organized files that had Members of Congress' emails in them. Well, gee, why would Awan want to take Members of Congress' emails and put them in one file? That sure would make it easy if you were going to transfer somebody's emails to somebody else. You just put them all in a file. Put them on one server that lots of people have access to.

It is phenomenal the kind of breach that has occurred on the Hill. There are two kinds of justices, and it breaks my heart. There is the Hillary Clinton kind of investigation, and there is the Donald Trump investigation.

This is really tragic. So taxpayers are paying for Imran Awan's lawyer because he says he is destitute. Yet he sent $100,000 or more over to Pakistan in one transaction, and we know that he has property listed in his bankruptcy. We know that he was in business, took a loan from a guy from Pakistan who has known ties to Hezbollah, and they owed him money.

We can't seem to get the FBI interested in that. There are too many holdovers, apparently, from Mueller's day, and Comey's day. We need to know what was compromised.

And I don't care who the person works for, congressional computers should not be serviced from Pakistan. From information and belief, folks that should know, they tell me Pakistan would be one of the last places you would want somebody getting into congressional computer systems.

He said: Well, what difference does it make? It is just emails and calendars. Well, there are people that would pay a lot of money to have all of the emails from a Member of Congress. We just need the FBI more interested.

Again, I understand, the last guy that started making charges talking about FBI's lack of duty, he ended up being defeated by the FBI raid on his office and his daughter's office 2 weeks before the election. I understand, but somebody has got to stand up and say: Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

There are so many FBI agents that have given their lives, day after day, not making the kind of money they could elsewhere, but enforcing the law. And to have people like Mueller and Comey come along and put a blot on the reputation they poured their honest lives into is a travesty. And the only way we remove the blots is to call out those and make them responsible for the damage that they have done. And it is not happening.

Anyway, I realize I am running out of time. Luke Rosiak has great information here. He has done so much more investigation than the FBI has. I know there are a lot of FBI agents that I know personally that could take this case.

I mean, just not listing a piece of property in your forms here that you have to file, the financial disclosure, could be a crime if you do it intentionally. Sometimes you forget, but for heaven's sake, he didn't forget when he filed bankruptcy. He has got property. He has got all kinds of things that he has never listed, and those are the kinds of things that are important when people are servicing congressional computers. People need to know.

We need people that will be honest enough not to lie to the U.S. attorney and not to lie to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General--I don't guess it matters to them--but for other people who are honest and trying to follow and enforce the law and the Constitution as their oath requires.

We need a second special counsel. We need to investigate Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, and Weissmann. And we need somebody assigned to the Awan case that will protect Congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family for the future.

Now, today, there was a continuance filed moving Awan's hearing from this Thursday to July 3. It sounds like they are trying to do just what Awan has been bragging, that he is going to get a deal. It is not going to say anything about all of the breaches of security, all of the felonies committed in the forms that he filed, none of that. And so he is telling people--at least he has assured people--he can come right back and start servicing dozens of Members' computers on the Hill again. For heaven's sake, we need somebody in the FBI to step up and do their job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Dr. Burgess, for all the hours of work. It is not just a lot of fun up there on the Rules Committee, but I appreciate the work on behalf of our Conference.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a tragic number of days emanating from Santa Fe, Texas, due south of my home in east Texas, down in Randy Weber's district. It truly is tragic.

It is tragic, as well, when people in this country have become so comfortable persecuting Christians, demeaning Christians, that they put no stock, in fact, belittle anyone's mentioning of praying for the families or even praying for the country, which is where we have got to be.

There is a God. It is the same God that is referenced above my head and behind me, that same God in whom a lot of us trust. It just says: ``In God we trust.'' That is the national motto, but I guess it would be more accurate to say, ``In God, whom a lot of us trust'' because of the condescending, demeaning comments made about Christians, about praying.

Prayer does work, it does matter, but not when a majority of the country is prevented from discussing Christianity publicly. I mean, this was a country where Christians from different parts of the world fled to. It was a destination, a glorious destination where people could come and live as Christians and not be persecuted, because Jesus himself said we would be hated, but he said: Remember, they hated me first.

We were told we would suffer for His sake, and He has certainly shown how brutal that could be. But as the oligarchs in black robes have taken over legislating, executive activities, as well as their own judicial activities, they have walked our country to the brink of despair. They have taken prayer--and I am talking about the oligarchs in black robes, the judges.

I was once a judge, felony judge, then a chief justice of a court of appeals, and I know how easy it is to think so highly of oneself. When a black robe is donned, our imperfections are covered up. And by our office, we are supposed to have some higher form of reason than our fellow people.

It is just not so. It is not so.

People have had it forced down their throats that, when it comes to education, it can't be education about religion, particularly Christianity. Oh, you can talk about Islam. You can talk about Buddhism. You can give glowing reports about such things and what it takes to believe about the four pillars of Islam, but you don't dare talk about Christianity, because that is when the courts go nuts, say you have exceeded your bounds.

Schools have been told that they need to reinforce in a child's mind the relativism of different positions, where right to some may be wrong for others, and wrong for some may be right for others. There is no black and white, right or wrong. There is simply relativism.

John Adams, in 1797, as our second President of the United States, gave a warning that cries through over 200 years, over 220 years. He said it clearly:

This Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

He was a very wise man. This Constitution of ours, the one we took an oath to follow here in this very Chamber, it doesn't work in a country where the people are not taught morality.

When John Adams said morality and religion, he was particularly talking about Christianity and Judeo-Christian morals as one finds in the Ten Commandments, as symbolically evidenced by the fact that Moses' supposed likeness directly above and in front of me is the only face of all of those profiles that is full face and not the side, because at one time he was considered to be the greatest lawgiver of all times.

At the time, it was the Ten Commandments that were considered to be so vital that those who came before us believed were the greatest laws ever given. But through the oligarchs across the street in black robes, they have said: Don't mention God. It is okay to use ``Jesus'' as long as you use it as a one-word exclamatory statement. It is fine to take God or Jesus' name in vain, that is fine, that is okay, but don't use it in a statement that you have sincerely with all your heart chosen to follow Jesus. That is just too inappropriate.

So Adams, he was right. Whether you call them oligarchs, multiple monarchs, they have helped lead this country in a direction it really didn't want to go, been ahead of the country forcing us down this road to the dustbin of history.

It is just so clear. If you are not going to teach the Judeo- Christian morality on which this country was founded, on which the revolution came about--without the churches of the day and the Great Awakening of the 1700s, there would not have been a revolution. Without a Second Great Awakening in the 1800s and some of the churches' leadership, we would never have seen the end of slavery in America.

The world will never see the end of slavery. There will always be slavery in the world, but it is such a hideous form of people mistreating other people, I literally pray that it will not revisit this Nation, this once great Nation.

I do believe we can be great again, but not when we fail to bow our head in reverence to the God that we once trusted, most of us.

But if we are not going to teach the morality that would lead to a revolution, that would lead to an end to slavery, that would lead an ordained Christian minister to bring about another peaceful revolution of civil rights--read letters from the Birmingham jail. This man, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained Christian minister. It was the biggest part of who he was and whose he was.

And as we have removed those things that motivated a country toward freedom and motivated a Nation toward freedom for everyone, and an end to slavery, and then motivating them yet again through the words of the Bible through leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., we are headed in a moral declination that ends in the dustbin of history.

I just caught a few things that were said by my colleagues across the aisle before I came up. My friend Bobby Scott from Virginia indicated something to the effect that the lack of discipline robs students.

We have come a long way from the days where students got paddlings. I have been paddled. I was an A student, honor student, head of the National Honor Society. I still got paddled.

I had friends on the football team and other athletic teams, who had coaches that cared about them enough to take the time out of their busy schedule, not to give a time out to the offending student, but actually apply the board of education to the seat of knowledge.

And I really believe that I had friends, both white and black, in sports that would have headed for prison if not for a coach caring enough to paddle them when they got out of line, even though they were grown; not adults by law, but certainly full-bodied adults. They got them on the path that would lead them away from prison and lead them to being productive.

So when we claim, well, we have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, we have a First Amendment, very first amendment we have, a right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but when we have forsaken God and the teachings found in the Bible that were such a foundational part of our Nation's founding, then the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, don't work.

You have got to give up the freedom of speech because some things you say motivate others to commit acts of violence. So instead of condemning and punishing the violence, we silence the offending speaker, because those days when we defended what others said that we disagreed with them, those appear to be a distant memory.

Not only do we disagree with what others say, but we will offend to their death to try to prevent their right to say them. It is a long far cry from the calls during the Revolution often attributed to Voltaire, maybe it was him, maybe it was some other, but ``I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.'' They thought this would be a country where that could happen.

But schools, public schools at least, are not allowed to teach the kind of morality that was taught for at least the first half of our country's existence.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson had slaves. I have often pondered the incredible irony how Thomas Jefferson could have slaves, and yet in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, put on paper how offensive slavery was and make that as an enumerated grievance against King George for ever allowing slavery to begin here in the United States.

That was taken out before the Declaration of Independence was finally agreed to and signed.

But the only discussion, it seems, about the Bible in public schools is when it is demeaned and belittled.

So are we shocked that there is violence? Yes, we are still shocked. We still grieve for the families that have lost loved ones that will never be there again.

Put ourselves in their places. Think what could have been done differently.

Well, everybody is pretty safe in this building. Going back to 1998, when two law officers were killed, when it was so easy to come into the Capitol, they were by the majority leader's office, and one was able to shoot the shooter, though it cost him his life.

So we have had metal detectors. We have had people screened to come in here, but not in the schools.

It is unfortunate, but if we are not going to teach biblical morality, then to be free, we just can't be. We have got to give up freedoms of speech, religion, assembly. We have got to give up our right to bear arms. Not only give up our right to keep and bear arms, but we have got to give up our right to keep pressure cookers, our right to have fertilizer that could be used for bombs. We have got to give up knives.

It is amazing to me. I went to school in elementary school where we prayed most days, said the pledge of allegiance every day, were not afraid to talk about lessons from the Bible, and I carried a pocketknife to school. There probably weren't 5, 10 days in all my growing up where I didn't carry a pocketknife to school.

And I just noticed in my bedside stand I have got three knives that belonged to my grandfather that he carried for much of his life, because they didn't have a problem with kids having knives in school.

But when you don't teach Judeo-Christian morality, then you better take people's knives, guns, anything that might be used as a weapon. Vans. We will have to make it tougher to ever get a van. Maybe have a cooling off period before you can apply for and get a van or something that can run people down.

Eventually we will have to have cars that are driverless that only the government can set in motion so that we can protect ourselves and only go where the government will allow us to go. That is where we are headed. And it is where you have to go if you are not going to teach the morality and the religion that John Adams spoke of as our second President in 1797.

But that has also seen its way into our Federal Government. It is okay to lie if it helps your political team. It is okay to violate the law if it is for your team. It is okay to violate the Constitution and your oath to the Constitution if you are the head of the CIA or are intelligence and you want to stop the opposing party's candidate from winning or remove that candidate from office after he has fairly won.

This May 12 article from Andrew McCarthy, National Review, he points out that ``The Steele dossier author told Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson about a human source.

``Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a human source, i.e., a spy inside the Trump campaign, as the 2016 Presidential race headed into its stretch run.

``When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, `mischaracterized' what he had been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign.

``Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI's human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. The latter date is significant for reasons we will come to.

``Simpson's testimony on this point is worth revisiting because of a pitched battle between the House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department. Essential reporting on the controversy has been done by The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel. On Thursday, she related that, yet again, Congress had faced down a DOJ/FBI attempt to stonewall the committee's probe of investigative irregularities during the 2016 election season--particularly, abuse of government surveillance powers, which the Obama-led agencies used to monitor the Trump campaign.

``Unable to get voluntary cooperation, committee chairman Devin Nunes issued a subpoena demanding the Justice Department disclose information by the top secret intelligence source who is said to have assisted the

Russian investigation. That investigation is now being run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But more interesting is how it got started.

On that question, officials have been surprisingly fuzzy in their explanations, and hilariously inconsistent in their leaks: initially settling on an origination story that hinged on the Steele dossier and a trip to Moscow by the obscure Trump campaign adviser Carter Page; later pivoting to a tale of boozy blathering by an even more obscure Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, when the first story proved embarrassing--the dossier allegations having been unverified when the Justice Department included them in warrant applications to the FISA court.''

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear to me, as a former judge, that the FISA courts have got to go.

For some reason, these judges that have been nominated by a President, confirmed by the Senate, do an okay job when their court proceedings are open, obvious, and they have some accountability, reaction from the American public. But apparently, when they act in secret, they don't care so much about the Constitution. They have no pride in their own courts so that people can come in, take an oath, lie to them, create a fraud upon the court, and we don't hear a peep out of those judges. Not one lawyer or witness has been held to account by the courts that they offended by their fraud and deception.

And that includes Rosenstein and, apparently, at least the fourth application to renew the warrant that should never have been issued in the first place--and surely would not have been if the FISA court had not been meeting in secret away from public eyes.

Is there any secret this country has that is worth the destruction of our judicial system as we have seen through the fraud and the misrepresentations that have been allowed with no consequence? No offended judge is offended.

It tells me that this pitiful little gathering we have allowed to be called the FISA court needs to stop. They are doing more damage to our country than they could ever possibly help by their secrecy. And the more we find out about what has been kept secret, the darker it appears for this country and for our future.

We have Brennan and Clapper who perjured themselves multiple times before Congress and didn't seem bothered by it in the least. And then Brennan makes clear that, if you come up against them, you can do so at your own peril because they have ways of making you pay the price.

That is exactly what our Founders were concerned about. The King had his ways, too, King George III. And, apparently, that is the kind of kingdom we have come into here in the 21st century when an opposition campaign for President can pay for a warrant to be issued for no just cause, no probable cause, and no consequences.

We have seen the Justice Department, these career people, they weren't interested in ensuring that justice was done. If they had been, they would have gotten some Republicans to investigate. They were interested in being political to the damage of this country and our judicial system. It has got to stop. Mueller needs to resign, and Rosenstein needs to be fired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the words of my friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and she has an amendment that is going to help a lot of folks in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear some people say that they think Robert Mueller is going to be fair-minded, he is going to do a good job. But I think probably more than any of my Republican friends that profess to think they know Robert Mueller, I don't think they know him as well as I do, and on the research I have done on the man, the dealings I have had with him, the questions I have asked him.

But I don't think they know him as well as Eric Holder does, and Eric Holder said a month or so ago he has known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years, and, in essence, he wasn't going to stop until he found something he could pin on Donald Trump.

That is the essence, and I think he is right.

We see from Robert Mueller's history that when he decides somebody is not a good person, even when he is 100 percent wrong, then it justifies in his mind putting them in prison, leaving them for the rest of their lives, destroying their lives, destroying any friendships, family, caring relationship. He doesn't care.

He has destroyed good people, completely destroyed good people, and as he has said more than once after he has destroyed good people, and in the case of Dr. Hatfill, the government had an over $6 million payout to him for the

way Bob Mueller destroyed his life as an innocent individual, he said he had nothing to apologize for.

And see, in his mind, he doesn't think he does. He is justified in destroying anybody he doesn't like, anybody he disagrees with. And he is determined in his mind that Donald Trump is somebody that needs to be brought down.

It is so ironic, though. Here he was, pleading for the job of Director of the FBI again. He had already been that once. He did more damage than anybody since J. Edgar Hoover, and got 2 extra years because Obama liked the way that he was protecting President Obama and Eric Holder, and they gave him 2 extra years, much to the dismay of so many good FBI agents around the country and the thousands and thousands of years of experience of good FBI agents that he ran off, leaving our country all the more vulnerable because of his bad decisions.

But after I had had some of our Members approach me after a Republican Conference and say: Louie, you know so much about Robert Mueller. Is there one article we could go read where we would kind of get up to speed on his background?

And I said: Well, there are hundreds of articles I have read; some helpful, some not. But every time I did preparation to question him when he came before our committee, I did more and more study. And they said it would really be helpful if we had one place we could just go read stuff about Robert Mueller's background.

So that inspired me to start writing, and I accumulated from other writers, always giving them proper credit, and put together a 48-page article about Bob Mueller. This does scratch the surface, but there is so much more that could be touched.

Apparently, he served honorably and well in Vietnam, but that doesn't give him the right to ruin the country. It doesn't give him the right to destroy innocent people's lives.

And so here is just one chapter from my 48-page article, Mr. Speaker, and this particular chapter is entitled ``Death of Dr. Steven Hatfill's Reputation and Productive Life.''

Here is how Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist described the combination Mueller/Comey debacle: ``The FBI absolutely bungled its investigation into the anthrax attacker who struck after 9/11 terrorist attacks.

``Carl Cannon goes through this story very well, and it is worth reading for how it involves both Comey and his dear `friend' and current special counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI tried--in the media-- its case against Hatfill. Their actual case ended up being thrown out by the courts.''

I believe this is Carl Cannon's account: ``Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.''

And I would insert here, that is exactly what has been proven with most of the big cases that Robert Mueller has personally been involved in.

Carl Cannon goes on and says, ``In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. Ivins, by contract, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters, including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI.''

So I would insert here, the FBI has gotten a lot of tips and warnings from very helpful, caring Americans, and even from Russia. Because we know that Russian officials tipped off Robert Mueller, tipped off the FBI, that the older Tsarnaev brother had become radicalized, he was going to be a threat to the lives of Americans, and, in fact, Russia had warned the U.S. twice.

So perhaps there is the Russian collusion. Bob Mueller and the Russians, in fact. Unfortunately for all of those poor people that were killed or injured at Boston, Robert Mueller was not competent enough to realize the seriousness of the older Tsarnaev's radicalization, so people died and Robert Mueller continued to go on witch hunts for wrong people.

He continued to protect radical Islamists. As some FBI agents have informed me, basically they said: Our training under Mueller on radical Islam was, when you get a credible warning or tip from an American citizen about a potential radical Islamist threat, then you probably have gotten that tip from an Islamophobe, and you probably need to investigate the person that gave you the tip.

We know of cases played out in the news where that is exactly what happened. Poor guy, I believe it was in Florida, that gave the tips this guy is a threat, and what happened? The FBI investigated him, but they didn't investigate the man that would go kill others.

This article goes on: ``So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably''--of course, they were being petted--their handlers then told the FBI that the dogs had alerted on Hatfill and he must therefore be the killer.

There was no--let me repeat--there was no evidence whatsoever that Steven Hatfill was the anthrax killer.

Talking to some folks in Washington recently, one of them pointed out: Well, you know, actually, that also fits the mold that Mueller has created for himself. Here he purged the FBI training materials of anything that offended radical Islamist terrorists, but as agents have told me, both intel and FBI, Mueller blinded our FBI of the ability to see our enemy. He took away some of their best training materials, one 700-page bit of training workbook on radical Islam. He had ordered that destroyed. He didn't want anybody to know how to recognize a radical Islamist. He would rather his FBI--Mueller's FBI agents--investigate those making complaints for being Islamophobes.

``Unfortunately, both Mueller and Comey were absolutely and totally convinced of the innocent man's guilt. They ruined his life, his relationship with friends, neighbors, and potential employers.

``And from Carl Cannon, Real Clear Politics:

``You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted--and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler `as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.'

``Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, and personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill, the Bureau had its man . . .

``Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide''--that is the person he went after after they were assured Hatfill was completely innocent. They go after Dr. Ivins. He ends up committing suicide. ``. . . and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill.''

It is important to know, Mr. Speaker, Mueller didn't exonerate Hatfill; the evidence did. Mueller doesn't believe in apologizing after he destroys people's lives, and he could not bother to apologize after he wrecks a constitutional government, republic, as we are here, and that is why, after the government paid Dr. Hatfill $5.82 million in a legal settlement--that is $150,000 per year for 20 years, plus $2.82 million cash, but ``Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. `I do not apologize for any aspect

of the investigation,' he said, adding that it would be erroneous `to say there were mistakes.' ''

He ruins a man's life. People with better judgment than Mueller decided: My gosh, we have destroyed an innocent man. We will pay him $6 million to try to recompense him in some way for all of the damage Mueller did to him and his family and his life. All Mueller has got to say is: It would be erroneous to say that mistakes were made.

You have got to understand, Mr. Speaker, when Mueller goes after somebody to destroy them, even though they are not guilty of that for which he is pursuing them, he doesn't feel he has made a mistake. He presumes in his mind that he pursues only bad people, and when he destroys a person who is innocent of the crime for which he was pursuing them, in his mind it is not a mistake. He pursued a bad person, and, therefore, he doesn't owe an apology to anybody.

Going back to the article: ``Though FBI jurisdiction has its limitations, Mueller's ego does not.

``Mueller and Comey's next target in the anthrax case was Dr. Bruce Ivins. As the FBI was closing in and preparing to give him the ultimate Hatfill treatment, Dr. Ivins took his own life. Though Mueller and Comey were every bit as convinced that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax culprit as they were that Dr. Hatfill was, there are lingering questions about whether or not there was a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Dr. Ivins is deceased and had some mental issues, we are expected to simply accept that he was definitely the anthrax killer and drop the whole matter. That's a difficult ask after taxpayer money paid off Mueller's previous victim. Mueller had relentlessly dogged Dr. Hatfill using life-destroying, Orwellian tactics. Either Mueller was wrong when he said it would be a mistake, `to say there were mistakes,' in the railroading of Hatfill or Mueller did intentionally and knowingly persecute an innocent man.''

That is the bottom line. He says, ``we didn't make a mistake.'' If they didn't make a mistake, if Mueller didn't make a mistake, then it means he intentionally and knowingly used the full power of the United States Justice Department to destroy an innocent man, again, innocently and knowingly destroying the life of an innocent man.

So either he lied when he said ``we made no mistakes,'' or he didn't lie when he said ``we made no mistakes.'' If he didn't lie, it means he intentionally destroyed the life of an innocent man. It is that simple.

So the book goes through 48 pages, sets out a number of things like this. When I hear my friends, especially down the hall in the Senate, talk about what a great man Mueller is, either, number one, they are intentionally keeping themselves ignorant of facts, or, number two, they want Donald Trump kicked out of the White House as quickly as possible. Those are the two possibilities, and I hope the American public will wake up to that.

Now, it is also interesting, here we have got Mueller raiding, or being an accessory to the raid of Donald Trump's personal attorney's home and office, places where he was. Lo and behold, it shouldn't surprise anybody, but it turns out this article from April 17, by Jeff Murdock: ``Federal Judge Kimba Wood, who is overseeing the court case against Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, officiated the 2013 wedding of George Soros, a billionaire supporter of liberal political causes, according to the news reports at that time.''

Now, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that he is not just a supporter of liberal political causes. He supports anything that will help destroy the moral, upstanding United States of America that has been the greatest gift freedom has ever had in the world.

The article goes on here, though it says: ``The judge,'' Kimba Wood, ``is currently weighing whether to have a neutral third party review the documents seized in FBI raids on the office, home, and hotel of Mr. Cohen.

``Mr. Cohen's attorneys have sought to keep the government from reviewing the materials by asserting attorney-client privilege''--a legitimate privilege, of course. ``Prosecutors have demanded access to those documents claiming they are related to an ongoing criminal investigation.

``The government is currently probing Mr. Cohen's $130,000 payment to porn star Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, for possible violations of campaign finance laws.

``Judge Wood, who will decide those issues, married Mr. Soros, then 83, and his 42-year-old bride, Tamiko Bolton, in September 2013, media outlets reported at that time.

``The Bedford, New York, wedding was attended by 500 guests, including top Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and then-California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. U2 front man Bono also attended the reception, Reuters reported in a 2013 article.

``In lieu of gifts, the couple asked that donations be made to several organizations, including Planned Parenthood and Global Witness, an environmental activist group, according to Reuters.

``Mr. Soros donated nearly $10 million to political action committees that supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. He also chaired the national finance committee for a pro-Clinton PAC, dubbed Ready for Hillary.

``Judge Wood was also then-President Bill Clinton's second, but failed nominee for U.S. Attorney General in 1993. Mr. Clinton had nominated Zoe Baird, but she was withdrawn after it was revealed she had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and did not pay taxes on the employee. Judge Wood was then selected, but she had also employed an illegal immigrant, but did pay taxes on the employee. Fearing a repeat of the same disastrous nomination of Ms. Baird, Mr. Clinton quickly removed Judge Wood from consideration.

``Media reports at that time said Judge Wood had not told the White House about the nanny even when she had been asked directly. Judge Wood said in a statement that she had not misled the White House.''

In any event, people that care about fair, impartial, and blind justice that doesn't decide a case by looking to see who is on either side, they are sickened by what has been happening at the Department of Justice, at the top of the FBI, and under a special prosecutor who has made abundantly clear by his hires of those--not who would be fair and impartial, but those who would help Mueller do as he is so good at doing, and that is finding somebody he doesn't like and destroying their lives.

The additional problem in this case is that if he destroys and uses his illegal tactics and unfair weight to throw against innocent people as he has in his past, it won't just be Bob Mueller destroying one life, as he has in a number of these cases we discussed, but it will be removing an elected President of the United States.

I pray and I will do what I can to ensure that people wake up, people come peacefully out in America, and make clear that this railroading, egotistical, and unapologetic man who has destroyed the good that was once top to bottom of the FBI and who has destroyed innocent lives without apology, this man has no business being special counsel. In fact, he needs to be investigated for his role with Rosenstein, their role, along with the guy that Mueller brought along to help investigate Russia.

I am not talking about the alleged collusion of the Trump campaign in Russia. I am talking about the real collusion with Russia where Mueller even had an inside informant providing evidence of Russia's illegal activity in trying to obtain American uranium, and instead of using all of that information of Russia's illegal activity to obtain American uranium, Rosenstein, Mueller, and Weissmann put the quash on information about all of that investigation.

They threatened and coerced their informer into keeping his mouth shut so that the sale could go through of American uranium that would end up in Russian hands. So that sale would go through, and lo and behold, the Clinton Foundation would be $145 million richer in gifts from those grateful people that benefited from Russia ultimately getting American uranium.

Mueller needs to be investigated, as does Comey, as does Rosenstein, as does Weissmann. They are the last people on this Earth who ought to be investigating somebody else over alleged

Russian collusion. Mr. Speaker, you needn't look any further than the investigators themselves.

Mueller, in his arrogance, showed the country and world he was not interested in fair, impartial justice. He wanted people who hated Trump and who loved Hillary Clinton and helped her all they could, because he had determined that he was going to undermine the election of Donald J. Trump as President. And if he is not--Rosenstein is the one who has to be removed first. He has got to be removed. He has got to be investigated. I hope and pray that is going to happen, that Rosenstein is going to be investigated.

I can't count on Bob Mueller to do the honorable thing. There are so many examples where he had a great opportunity to do the honorable thing by people whom he has wronged and whose lives he has destroyed. He was careful always to avoid doing the right thing, making comments as if he had nothing for which to apologize for destroying innocent lives.

That doesn't even get into the Ted Stevens case. He had to have been all over the top of that case. He was the director of the FBI. You know good and well they didn't investigate the longest serving Republican Senator without Bob Mueller being all over the case. They framed an innocent man, manufactured evidence, and destroyed evidence of his innocence. It wasn't just a reasonable doubt he was innocent; he was innocent.

They manufactured charges, and one might say: Well, but we don't have direct testimony, direct evidence that Mueller personally knew of the frame-up of Ted Stevens. But what we do know is when the whistleblower FBI agent came out with sworn testimony of the frame-up of the innocent Ted Stevens, that God-fearing whistleblower was run out of the FBI, and the one that he reported the wrongdoing on continued to get glowing praise, advances, and promotions from Bob Mueller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important day for people who knew and loved the three individuals who were being held improperly by North Korea. They have now been released due to the negotiations with our prior colleague Mike Pompeo--our, now, Secretary of State--and also President Trump.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, for those who have not spent a lot of time studying American history, they have not realized what a benefit it can be to have an American President who is deemed to be a person who cannot be properly accounted for. His actions may be of interest to foreign leaders.

Frankly, I enjoy hearing people in other countries say they are just not sure what to make of President Trump. They are not sure if he is crazy; they are not sure if he might push the button to launch missiles; they are just--he is so unpredictable. But, actually, I think he is very predictable. The man knows how to negotiate.

As I pointed out to him a couple of times, if you look through our history, people who were considered to be the most educated, some said the highest intellect, greatest intellectual ability--you have people like John Quincy Adams, who is a hero of mine because of his dedication to bringing an end to slavery. It didn't happen during his 4 years of being President. It didn't happen during his 16, 17 years in the House of Representatives, but he was so dedicated to his purpose that he materially affected the young freshmen who sat at the back of the room for 2 years, overlapping about a year with Adams before his fatal stroke on the House floor just down the hall.

John Quincy Adams, when he was President, for all his education, intellectual ability, I mean, the man wrote books in German, loved the French language, read books in other languages like French and German, probably kept the best journal of anyone who was ever elected President, but he really didn't accomplish much of anything at all when he was President. Some of that had to do with the election controversy surrounding that.

Look at people like Woodrow Wilson, a former college president, supposedly high intellectual ability, but, yes, he did get us involved in World War I. He drug his feet. There were things that could have been done, but nobody had any concern worldwide for Woodrow Wilson. He was considered very predictable, and it got us into some trouble because people didn't think he had the nerve to stand up when it was needed.

Jimmy Carter was touted as being some sort of nuclear engineer, went to the Naval Academy, but the fiascos in which he was involved as President showed a man who was a nice man but rather inept when it came to foreign affairs. Obviously, the Iranians had no fear of him. He had such poor judgment that he encouraged the removal of the Shah of Iran. Not a nice man, but he was an ally. And Carter didn't have the foresight to see, kind of like President Obama when he was dealing with Qadhafi--Obama with Qadhafi, Carter with the Shah of Iran, they figure: Well, he is not a nice guy, so we will run him off. We will encourage him being run off.

In the case of Qadhafi, if it weren't for Obama's planes and the missions to take out those defending Qadhafi, Qadhafi would probably still be in charge in Libya, and ISIS and al-Qaida elements would not have gained the incredible foothold they have had. There wouldn't be the chaos there is today in Libya.

President Obama was touted as being of high intellectual capacity, yet just one fiasco after another when it came to foreign affairs as we have seen in the news recently, President Obama's efforts to get $100 billion to $150 billion, some of it on pallets with just cash, American dollars on pallets with forklifts, moving those from the United States into the hands of the Ayatollah Khamenei and his bloodthirsty religious zealots in Iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. So deemed to be an intellectual President Obama was, and yet just incredible malfeasance when it came to foreign relations. People were not afraid of him.

It was interesting to see polls, while President Obama was our Chief Executive Officer, showing that, although nations where Muslims were the majority, they didn't have much respect for President George W. Bush, but there were polls indicating that they had even less respect for President Obama.

How could that be?

They didn't see him as being very decisive. Indicative of that was, when he drew a line in the sand, had a red line, and Syria crossed that line, he did nothing about it, in essence. So that encouraged our enemies.

I know there are those who said that things that happened at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, other places, actually hurt America badly because it inflamed our enemies, whereas, actually, nothing inspires our enemies like the showing of weakness. As President Reagan once said:

Of all the wars that occurred during my lifetime in which

America was involved, none of them occurred because America

was too strong.

So when other nations perceive weakness, it is provocative, and that is what has happened in our 200-plus-year history. If we are perceived as being weak, it is provocative.

President Obama oversaw a number of such weak, provacative incidents. Some weren't weak, they were just foolish, like encouraging the taking out of Qadhafi. He was not a good man, had blood on his hands from back in the 1980s, and yet when President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, Qadhafi had an epiphany and invited us to come in and tell him what weapons he could keep and what he had to get rid of because he was afraid that he would be the next nation to be invaded.

When it comes to North Korea, President Clinton, educated in what are considered by some to be quite elite schools, Ivy League schools, and yet he oversaw, as President, negotiations with North Korea. This is just a rather short summary, but basically Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State and President Clinton's approach to North Korea was: Look, we will make sure that you get all the nuclear material you need to make nuclear weapons; we will make sure you get all the technology you need to create nuclear weapons.

We will get you in a better situation as far as the ability to have nukes than you could ever have possibly done on your own. And all we ask in return, in essence, is you sign a document saying that you won't use the technology and the materials to make nuclear weapons.

I can just envision the glee, the celebrations behind the scenes in North Korea over how crazy and foolish American leaders are, during the Clinton administration, because they are going to give us everything we need to have nuclear weapons, and all we have got to do is put a signature on a document.

Then we saw history repeat itself when John Kerry played the role of Madeleine Albright, this time with Iran; and, of course, we did have

Wendy, who was so helpful in getting North Korea what they needed to make nuclear weapons, had her as the lead negotiator, with John Kerry, with Iran, to make sure Iran had an agreement that would enable them to have nuclear weapons.

And if they lived up to every part of the agreement, this disastrous agreement, as President Trump described it repeatedly during the election and since, they would still have nuclear weapons in 10 years from when the agreement started.

We know--and I went down to the SCIF and reviewed things there. It shouldn't have been classified. It should have been available for the whole country to read. Eventually it was available. But it appeared very clear that the agreement that was enabled by Senator Corker, yes, he is a Republican, but just wasn't familiar enough with the Constitution as he needed to be, because he thought you could take a treaty, which the Iran deal definitely was because it modified other treaty terms, and you can't do that unless it is in a treaty.

The Constitution requires that a treaty is not valid, a deal such as the Iran agreement, until it is confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. And I am not saying anything that we didn't say back at the time. I was trying to get the Senate to wake up; that you can't ratify a treaty, which the Iran agreement is, unless you have two-thirds of the Senators voting to ratify, confirm the agreement.

Without two-thirds voting in support of the agreement, there is no agreement. All you have is something on paper that might as well be a memo.

But they acted like it was a deal, and that is why President Obama and John Kerry made sure that the Ayatollah, these radical Islamists that want to end America's existence on the planet as a country in which there is self-representation through a Republican form of government--yet they sent $100 billion to $150 billion in cash. And my friend Steve King from Iowa, Dana Rohrabacher, it may have been somebody else, but we went and met with the two lead inspectors in Iran from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA people talk about so much. Oh, yeah, we can be comfortable that the Iran deal is a great deal because those inspectors are carefully inspecting the facilities and any nuclear efforts in Iran.

I even heard one of my friends, whom I have a great deal of respect for, on FOX News this week, saying that: Look, you can't do anything with nuclear material without being detected because there are isotopes that are easily detectable, so the Iranians can't do anything in the way of creating nuclear weapons, moving nuclear material, without us knowing.

I am not sure the source for those comments, but I am sure of the source of my comments. I was asking the two lead inspectors of Iran with the IAEA: Gee, we just sent $100 billion or more to Iran. If Iran were to take some of that money, or all of it, and buy ready-made nuclear weapons from Pakistan, which has them, from North Korea, can you guarantee us that they could not get those nuclear weapons into Iran without your knowing?

And the answer was: Of course we cannot guarantee that.

In fact, I was told that the IAEA could set up detection equipment in Iran, say, at an airport or wherever, but they could not set up the detection equipment anywhere without Iran knowing exactly where the detection equipment was; and unless Iran was foolish enough to either bring nuclear material or a nuclear weapon right beside their detection equipment, then no, they would have no way to know whether Iran was bringing nuclear weapons or even nuclear material into Iran.

So I am not sure where this other information comes from, that you can't do anything with nuclear material or weapons without the IAEA knowing, because that is news to the IAEA. They don't know what they don't know, but they know that they don't know if somebody is trying to evade their detection equipment. It is that simple.

So when you have an agreement with people who go out before, after, and during the negotiations and stir up crowds with chants like ``Death to America,'' and you tell people in your country that you want to see America gone, that it is the Great Satan, Israel is the Little Satan, you want them both wiped off the map, wiped off the face of the Earth, you want any evidence that we ever existed eliminated, then you are dealing with a country that cannot be trusted.

Whether you call the radical Islamic leaders in Iran crazy, or just dogmatic jihadists, either way, they are a threat to America. And you send them money, they are likely going to spend it in a way that hurts America, kills Americans, kills Israelis, and makes Iran more dominant in the world.

So all of us who took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution, if we are sending money to Iran, my opinion, we are grievously violating that oath because they are going to do all they can to subvert our Constitution and, they hope, be able to wipe us out.

Of course, one of their points that was discussed in their Philadelphia meeting over 25 years ago--the FBI had evidence of the meeting and evidence of the things, their goals, what they wanted to accomplish. Well, one of their goals, over 25 years ago, these radical Islamists in America--one of their goals was to subvert the U.S. Constitution to sharia law.

They believed the easiest way to subjugate the U.S. Constitution to their radicalized version of sharia law was to get--either through the courts, through the legislature, or through the U.N., and force countries to adopt what the U.N. passed as criminal laws in their own countries. There are people here who keep advocating for that. But get a law passed, one way or another, that, in essence, says you cannot say anything negative about radical Islam, and make that a crime, punishable by jail, prison, fine.

So we have been moving that way; that is, in essence, what hate crimes are. Hate crimes, as I said back in 2007, `08, `09, when we were bringing this issue up, I said, really, you don't need a hate crime statute. We were told: Oh, yes, you do, because look at what happened outside of Jasper, Texas. Well, that is just south of my district. None of the people involved were constituents.

But when I heard about what happened, three White men took an African American, had him drug behind their truck, tortured the poor man to death, I wouldn't have a problem if Texas passed a law that said, in a situation like that, somebody is found guilty; then the victim's family, in that case, the Jasper victim, have their family select the manner that the defendant is to be drug and the terrain over which he is to be drug, and who will be dragging him across that terrain.

If we passed a law like that, basically, capital punishment, with a different way of inflicting the capital punishment, I would not object. It is so outrageous what those three defendants did.

But the ridiculous remedy that is proposed here in Congress was: We will fix that situation by providing punishment for hate in somebody's heart, and we will be able to sentence you to life in prison. There is no death penalty for any Federal hate crime.

Actually, this is how ludicrous the law was that was passed here in Congress. If someone were being tried for a hate crime because of the physical assault on someone else, the defendant would be totally, completely exonerated and held not guilty if he raises a reasonable doubt that, no, no, I didn't choose somebody because of their race, gender, any type of group they were part of. No, I just wanted to arbitrarily kill somebody, abuse somebody. I didn't care what group they were part of.

Under the Federal law, that person would have to be acquitted of the Federal hate crime because they chose their victim randomly, or at least raised reasonable doubt that they may have chosen the victim randomly so they are not guilty of this heinous crime.

Whereas, under Texas law, if you harm somebody, it is not nearly as important the feelings you have in your heart as what you did. And under Texas law, the two most culpable defendants in that case, in my opinion, properly got the death penalty, and the least culpable person got life in prison.

So this case, which was heralded as the great poster case for why we need a

Federal hate crime, actually would diminish the punishment that the defendants in a hate crime case would get. They couldn't get the death penalty anymore. Oh, no; they will get life in a Federal prison instead of death under Texas law.

We did not need that hate crime. And as I said years ago when this bill was being pushed, ultimately, what this hate crime bill will be used for is to punish Christians, Christian ministers, for reading verses directly out of the Bible, as has been done in Congress, in the House and Senate since the very beginning of this Nation.

And now we are starting to see it being used as a threat against Christians. We hear more and more people say the biggest hate group threat is Evangelical Christians.

Well, if they are real Christians, they cannot have hate in their heart for others, and yet they are being called the biggest threat as potential hate criminals.

It needs to be changed. We need to punish people for what they do wrong, and not whether or not they had some improper thought in their head.

But I am grateful that countries look at Donald Trump the way they looked at Ronald Reagan, because it is helpful historically.

``Saturday Night Live,'' seems like I recall Reagan's character being portrayed as walking around with a finger out wanting to push the red button so he could launch missiles with nuclear weapons on them, and the world said: Wow, this Reagan guy is really crazy.

It is invaluable for foreign leaders to not be sure about the American President, because that gives them more negotiating power.

It is kind of like a great poker player, except that Donald Trump indicates clearly he doesn't bluff. And as he pointed out to North Korea, he is not bluffing. And though he would rather not take the actions that are required, he will take them, and I believe he will, and apparently Kim Jong-un believed he would as well.

So if you look historically, Teddy Roosevelt has his Navy go around the world. People are going: This guy is crazy. Look, he just sent his Navy around the world. You don't know what this guy is going to do. Run up San Juan Hill? Who knows? This guy is a little bit crazy. And it always was helpful in foreign relations.

Now, Khrushchev took the measure of John F. Kennedy, very intelligent man, who wanted to protect America, but he was not decisive in his early days. Khrushchev scared him out of following through on his promise to provide air cover to those going into Cuba to try to eliminate Castro. Scared him off. Backed him off of his promise to provide him air support. So people were killed who were relying on President Kennedy's promise.

President Kennedy gave a speech and said, in essence: We are not going to let anybody build a wall and wall off part of Germany, Eastern Europe. And it was just, as I recall, a couple of weeks or so before Khrushchev ensured that the bricks were being laid and the wall was started.

They had a meeting in Vienna, and President Kennedy told people he didn't do well in the negotiating, that Khrushchev scared him and he didn't represent America well.

Well, that is not going to happen to Donald Trump. He is not going to go to into a negotiation with Kim Jong-un or the Ayatollah or anybody else and go in and come back out as President Kennedy did and confide: Wow, I really showed weakness. I didn't do a good job. He scared me. That is not going to be our problem under President Donald Trump, and our country is going to be better off because of it.

So I applaud President Trump for rightfully taking the step to discount and discontinue the farce that was the Iran treaty. It was not properly ratified.

And even though I wish we had had President Trump in place to stop the hundred-plus billion dollars that President Obama and John Kerry sent to the biggest suppliers of terrorism, no doubt that money will be used or has been used to kill Americans, but there is a new sheriff in town, and President Trump is going to make sure that doesn't happen again. God bless him for stopping the Iranian farce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 11, 2018, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to speak here, and especially to follow friends--very dear friends--hear Steve King talk about the importance of life.

I know there is historical accounts in the Old Testament when it talked about different kings and what went on while they were there. It normally says something like: ``and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord,'' or ``he did right in the eyes of the Lord.''

And every now and then, there is an addition to emphasize just how evil the people were. A society was under a particular king in Israel, and that addition was whenever--now and then, it would mention that mothers and fathers were sacrificing their babies on the altar of some idol.

And only if you believe the Old Testament, like the majority of Americans have for all our history, that ought to be quite an awakening when you realize that we have killed over 60 million babies.

I have talked to so many women who are brokenhearted, and they have got to learn to give it up and move on, but it eats away at them, the thought that they allowed a precious life to be taken that nature had entrusted them with. So, anyway, I just hate to see any women eaten up with guilt.

And it is not because there is a pro-life movement. It was there long before a pro-life movement. I hope that we can get the Heartbeat bill that my friend Steve King was advocating, I hope we could get that passed and get it to the Supreme Court.

Some of the rulings over the years have had to do with the ambiguity, the vagaries in at what point an abortion was no longer allowed. But any of us, if you see someone hurt and you want to find out if they are alive, you run up and you check. And if you find a heartbeat, then you call an ambulance--you call 911 and ask for an ambulance. If there is no heartbeat, then you report a dead body, and there is no lifesaving effort at all made if there is no heartbeat.

So I thought it was brilliant to have an approach like that. There are still some vagaries as to when a child first starts feeling pain in the womb, but there is no question, if you have on videotape evidence of the heartbeat, you see it, you hear it, then that is not so obscure that even some of the dense heads at the Supreme Court would be able to realize, yup, that is proof positive, that is hard, objective proof that there is a life and being worth protecting.

So I really applaud and join in with my friend Steve King's efforts, and we hope that even the last holdout pro-life groups, the National Right to Life, would get onboard. Most of us here that are pro-life, if we hear that there is any bill that will save innocent lives, we get onboard; count me in; I want to be part of it; I want to support it. So it is really intriguing when we have a bill that will save lives, even more than bills that that person or that group is already sponsoring.

And if anybody holds back, I don't know--there is not a good reason for holding back, and hopefully, it is not just for selfish reasons. Because the real pro-life folks, we support anybody's bill. We don't care. If one of my Democrat friends bring it, it doesn't matter. If it is a good bill, we want to be there for it.

I have just finished filing, just moments ago, a new bill, and it has come over a long period of time--agonizing. Especially having been a felony judge, handled major civil litigation as well, and then having been briefly a chief justice of a court of appeals, when I see judges that are so immoral and outrageously unconstitutional that they become monarchs in their own little kingdoms, and they refuse to follow the Constitution like I did--I wanted to legislate. I disagreed with laws that existed, and especially some Federal laws that existed, so when my term was up, I didn't--the Governor offered to appoint me to another appeals position, and I said: ``No, I want to legislate.''

And to legislate, I have to run for office to do that as a legislator. So I ran for Congress, and it was--it required financial sacrifice of basically everything my wife and I had, except our home and our cars, but, hopefully, before long, we will finish paying off our kids' college loans. They shouldn't have to pay them because, before I went on the bench, we had money set aside to deal with that.

But in the major financial adjustment from what I was making to what I made on the bench as a judge, that was part of the sacrifice, and I didn't want my kids to have to suffer--my wife and I didn't--because I chose to be a public servant.

But coming to legislature, here is the way you legislate. And we have too many judges that have not only been legislating, but on the issues of immigration, asylum, naturalization, DACA, we have had judges become all three branches. To me, that means they need to be removed from office--just removed. They need to be impeached and removed from the bench.

Doing that much damage to our constitutional system of restraint, of checks and balances, they have blown away all the checks and balances, and the only check on them, they think, ought to be in a higher court.

Unfortunately, we have people on the Supreme Court that are violating the Constitution, violating their oath, which, of course, would be a basis for removal. But they have become legislators, and anyone who can read, can read the Constitution and see where the power is on naturalization, immigration: it is in the Congress.

And there are certain executive powers that are newer to the executive branch, to the President--through the President to the immigration authorities, and we have judges that have usurped executive power, congressional power. And Congress has given certain authority to the President that we have the power to do.

And then to have judges come in and make national security decisions when they have a fraction, a tiny, tiny fraction of the information needed to make adequate national security decisions, that is why the Constitution did not put national security decisions in the hands of the courts.

So under our immigration laws that Congress had full authority to pass and did, immigration courts were set up. Now, I had quite significant concerns when I realized that Eric Holder, as Attorney General, then Loretta Lynch, they appointed all of the immigration judges without any other confirmation requirement. They just could pick them, and they served. That was a bit alarming.

And in previous legislation, I had assurances that my concerns would be fixed and we would come up with a way to confirm immigration judges. We still don't have a consensus on that. But nonetheless, in view of some of the decisions in recent days where a district judge in a small district in the United States, one little district in one State decides a national security issue for the whole country, it is outrageous.

Putting this Nation at risk because of their constitutional violations, which means their violations of their oath--and I agree with my friends here in Congress that say it is time to start bringing those people--I believe my friend, Jeff Duncan, was mentioning it earlier today. It is time to bring judges like that before our Judiciary Committee and vote to impeach them for violating their oath, violating the Constitution. Violating an oath is, I think, quite a significant charge in and of itself. It is a crime. But we have got to do something to rein in the runaway judiciary.

You know, the Founders, numerous of them had commented the judiciary will be the least threat to our checks and balances because they will have the least power. But somehow, all these years later, since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, the judicial part of our government has become really the biggest threat to checks and balances, to the constitutional restraints on power, which means they are a threat to our ongoing representative form of government.

So we obviously have to have quick decisions, quicker than have been made, regarding immigration status. And of course, the judges that Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch appointed had no problem at all saying: Okay. Here is your notice. We are not going to restrain you. You can go wherever you want, but come back in 4 years for a hearing.

And, of course, most of them never came back. And many of them, turns out, they have gotten taxpayer IDs so they can file tax returns, not for the purpose of paying more tax, but so that they can get back more tax than they paid in by claiming a bunch of children.

There have been TV stations and others that have looked into specific claims and found there is some places where there would be one house, dozens of kids would be allegedly in that house being claimed as dependents, and different families claiming dependents, but there is no telling how much.

I am sure it is billions of dollars that have been paid out to people illegally in the country for claiming that they have children. Some have been found. Okay, they had children, but they were in Mexico or Central America, and yet we are paying them for being here as illegal aliens, and not just through earned income tax credit--or the child tax credit, rather, but also for all kinds of benefits that they sign up for and get--food stamps, right on along the line.

But in order to stop one little district judge in one remote part of the country from deciding national security issues that put American citizens at risk, it is time to do what constitutional law professors have talked about for years--maybe not in some Ivy League schools where they don't really teach the Constitution. They teach how to avoid the Constitution.

But as my constitutional law professor, David Guinn, used to say at Baylor Law School, there is only one Federal court, tribunal of any kind that owes its existence to the Constitution, that is the Supreme Court. Every other Federal court owes its existence and its jurisdiction to the United States Congress. Now, that is the Constitution.

So, as some have said, Congress has the power to bring courts into the world, and we have the power to take them out. We have the power to say: This is your jurisdiction, and no more, or you will take on this area.

So we created immigration courts. We do need them, and we have to have them make decisions much more quickly. That is one of the things I am so grateful to Jeff Sessions for. He is appointing great immigration judges. They are making decisions as quickly as possible, so they don't leave people in limbo for years, like was done in the past 8, or prior to the Trump administration. So he is making progress there.

But since Congress clearly has the power to set the jurisdiction for every Federal court tribunal of any kind, then it is time to do what my new bill--and I just got the number, and I appreciate the clerk's quick and efficient efforts--but this now will be H.R. 5648. It says:

To amend title 28 of the U.S. Code, to provide for Supreme

Court original jurisdiction over certain immigration actions,

and for other purposes.

Here is what it says on page 2:

The Supreme Court and any immigration court established

under the immigration laws, as such term is defined in

section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, are the

only courts that shall have jurisdiction in which a claimant

shall have standing to raise issues of immigration,

naturalization, refugee status, asylum, and any other related

matter or case involving a claimed right to enter or remain

in the United States, or any case or controversy of any

provision of the immigration laws, or any order issued or

rule made pursuant thereto.

In other words, we need to end these runaway rapscallion judges who got through a confirmation by hook or crook and showed their real colors when they got out on the bench that they want to be little monarchs. It is time to rein in their jurisdiction so they can do no further damage to this Nation to our national security, which was never placed in the hands of the judiciary, it was always to be in the hands of the President and the Congress.

I hope we can get plenty of cosponsors and bring that to the floor. I really believe that, in this election year, if we can get that to the floor and pass it here in the House, then, in this election year, there could be so much pressure brought to bear on Senators down the hall.

We ought to be able to get it passed. It may be a long shot, but it was a long shot that the little 13 colonies could take on the most powerful country in the world, the most powerful Navy, the most powerful Army in the world, and win their independence, but they did. That is the hope that springs internal in the human breast. We have to start somewhere, and that is a start.

Now, it took me weeks to get it done, but I have written an article recently. Giving attribution, there are many other articles and sources I used in accumulating these 48 pages. But after standing up a number of times in our conference and pointing out to the Republicans in conference that any Republican who says they know Robert Mueller will be fair or come to a fair decision or a fair conclusion or be just, they don't know the Robert Mueller I know. Here is where you get into a lot of different opinions, but that is where it is helpful to look at things that he has done in his life.

I had hoped that, because he seemed clearly to be a person who should never have accepted the job of special counsel, that he was recusable. He was not qualified to be the special counsel on anything involving Russia, and certainly not the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet Rod Rosenstein, as the deputy AG, who had been involved in the Russia illegal attempts to gain control of U.S. uranium--and they knew that Russia was committing crimes to try to get our uranium--and Mueller was the head of the FBI, and he was the lead law enforcement person overseeing the operation, there was an informant within the system that was providing information to the Justice Department to Rosenstein and Mueller. Yet they put the kibosh on the investigation and the crimes that were being committed to get U.S. uranium. If they had not, then the sale of U.S. uranium that would end up in the hands of Russia would never have been allowed to go through.

CFIUS that approves sales that are sensitive to our security, they surely could never have approved the sale if Rosenstein and Mueller had just been honest and open that there is an investigation to Russia's illegal attempts to get our uranium. But, if they had spoken up about that, I don't think there is any question that the Clinton Foundation would never have gotten $145 million in contributions from people involved with the uranium sale. And it is quite likely that Bill Clinton would not have gotten $500,000 to speak for 20 minutes from Russia.

But I have written an article, 48 pages, entitled: ``Robert Mueller: Unmasked.'' You can go to my website. You can go to Sean Hannity's website, or others. I wouldn't do it on Google because of their dishonesty when it comes to conservatives. But DuckDuckGo. Bing is not as bad as Google. But look up ``Robert Mueller: Unmasked'' and download this article, read it, and arrive at your own opinion.

This week, I found an article I had not seen before, by Eren Moreno, back in January of this year, entitled ``Mueller, Rosenstein, and McCabe Exposed Covering Hillary's Uranium One Scandal.'' At the end of the article, they reference a succinct recitation of things that have occurred. We don't know who this person is. He has used an anonymous name. But here is the thread. He says: ``As we now know, the DOJ have indicted a Mark Lambert on 11 counts related to his role in a bribery, money laundering, and kickback scheme.''

Involving the sale of our uranium that would end up in Russian hands.

So they finally indicted somebody over this. There have been others who have been quietly handled, and they are referenced here.

And they reference an article here from the New York Post. It says: ``Exec charged with bribing Russian official in uranium deal. There's an indictment in the FBI probe of the Uranium One scandal, in which the Obama administration cleared a business deal that gave a Russian company control of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium.''

``Background and reminder: from at least 2008, Robert Mueller's FBI were investigating Tenam, the U.S.-based subsidiary of Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom, the Kremlin's (Putin's) energy company. The same Rosatom that purchased Uranium One.''

``Tenam was importing Russian uranium into the U.S. Between 2004- 2014, the local manager, Mikerin, engaged with U.S. companies Transport Logistics (TL) and NexGen Security in a racketeering, wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering scheme.''

``When a TL insider, William Campbell, blew the whistle on what he was seeing, Mueller's FBI started an investigation that led to at least four indictments by Holder's DOJ.''

``Remember--the Tenam investigation is related to the Uranium One (U1) sale. That's because the Tenam investigation was hidden from Congress and CFIUS''--the group that analyzes and approves or disapproves foreign investments in the U.S.--``who approved the U1 sale in October 2010. If either had known about it, it's highly unlikely the U1 sale would have been approved.''

``And the more you analyze the Tenam investigation, the more it appears that the Obama administration and/or Clintons deliberately wanted it hidden. Consider.''

``William Campbell--the whistleblower. . . . `'

He is the one who was providing information to Mueller's FBI about the illegal acts of Russia.

Now, there are times that the witness wants witness protection, wants to be anonymous, and doesn't want anybody to know who he was, or who she was, and so for those reasons of the informant's safety it is not given. But that was not the case.

Mueller at the FBI, the DOJ took a very unusual step. Instead of preventing others from knowing who this person was, they went after William Campbell and made him sign--under threat that they would come after and prosecute him--made him sign a nondisclosure agreement. Incredible.

They didn't want--Rosenstein, who is the U.S. attorney over the investigation--they didn't want Campbell out telling about all of the crimes committed in Russia's acquisition of U.S. uranium. They have their own informant sign a nondisclosure agreement under threat so he wouldn't let anybody know about all the criminality surrounding Russia's efforts to get our uranium. That doesn't make sense, unless you know how much money came into the Clinton Foundation after the deal was approved.

This goes on. It says: ``Now consider this--none of the four indictments ever saw the light of day.''

Actually, that is not quite accurate. They just handled it very quietly. It says: ``Every one was either quietly settled under plea agreements, or dropped entirely, as follows.''

``Mikerin, the Tenam manager, was sentenced to 48 months under a plea deal, for crimes that had 20-plus year sentences.''

That was in: ``United States of America v. Vadim Mikerin--Original Indictment 11/12/14. Conspiracy to Interfere with Interstate Commerce by Extortion . . . Forfeiture.''

Darren Condrey had a plea agreement regarding his violations of antibribery and conspiracy laws.

Carol Condrey had a plea agreement, and her case was dropped.

Rubizhevsky from NexGen had the case settled with a plea agreement. That is astonishing given the charges.

This stinks to high heaven. Mueller needs to go ahead and recuse himself and step down, and Rosenstein should do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, May 1, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, coming from my friend, a wise man from New York, I appreciate that very much. And I appreciate the effort in securing the whole hour for all of us to talk about this issue.

It really is a matter of wide-eyed justice. The blindfold was removed, and real justice in America is hanging in the balance.

People in America have seen what happened; and I think because they have seen the way justice has been abused for a number of years now, it is what helped Donald J. Trump get elected President. People were ready for significant changes so that we could get back to a country where the rule of law mattered regardless of who was the President.

When we look back at Chuck Colson, he did a year and a half in prison basically for having one FBI file in the White House. The Clintons had nearly 1,000 in the White House. Nobody did a day. We saw that kind of injustice come in and played out before us during the 8 years of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch in the Justice Department.

And now Americans who have seen--not all of them. Some are still blinded by the very thick paint that is provided by the mainstream media--but when you break through that, you brush that off, you get down to the bare facts. What you have now is Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who was the U.S. attorney when Russia's illegal effort to obtain U.S. uranium was going down. He and his dear friend, Robert Mueller, as head of the FBI, were investigating what they knew. They had the facts. They had the evidence. They had the person working behind the scenes providing information, and they knew Russia was illegally trying to corner the market on U.S. uranium.

They knew that bribes were taking place. They knew there were all kinds of crimes taking place. Yet we don't know how it was with such a powerfully important investigation going on, an investigation that has led up to a time now where the head of Russia--whether you want to call him czar, president, Vladimir, whatever you want to call him, he is the head guy--and he has made clear that in Russia they have rockets now that can deliver atomic weapons, nuclear weapons, that the United States cannot stop.

And we know that while Rosenstein and Mueller were involved in investigating the efforts of the President's friend, Vladimir, for whom he had much flexibility after the second election, we know he is making noise, rattling his sabre, as an existential threat to the United States' very existence.

So the evidence was there. What we can't find out, because we can't get a proper investigation, is who was it? What was it that caused Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Mueller to squelch the investigation into Russia's effort to get our uranium? Because if it was going full board, and if it had not been squelched by Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller, Russia would never have ended up with 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

And since we now know Hillary Clinton will not be President, the Clinton Foundation has gone away. But when it looked like everybody thought she was going to be the next President--and she had been Secretary of State. She had all of this power as Secretary of State. She was one of the key critical people that had to approve this sale that would end up putting uranium from the United States in Russia's possession. They squelched the investigation.

The sale went through with Hillary Clinton and her friends' support. The Clinton Foundation ends up with $145 million from those who had invested in the effort to get Russia U.S. uranium. Bill Clinton got $500,000 for a 20-minute speech that, from what we understand, wasn't very good; but it wasn't about a good speech, it was about rewarding the Clintons for Russia getting U.S. uranium.

There is no way, this side of heaven, that you could have a fair investigation of former FBI Director Mueller and the former U.S. attorney on the role they played in helping Russia--along with Hillary Clinton, helping Russia get U.S. uranium, all to the detriment of the United States.

I mean, we had prior Soviet spies, Communist spies, who were put to death for providing designs for advanced weaponry. But in this case, you have Hillary Clinton, Rod Rosenstein, and Bob Mueller not just helping design. Here is what you need to create atomic weapons to destroy the United States. They didn't care. We know on one hand money, a great deal of money, was involved and changed hands, but there is no way the FBI and the Justice Department, that we have seen has so many close friends of Mueller and Rosenstein--there is no way they are going to be able to investigate that matter.

Since the day Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel, I have been begging that we get a second counsel to investigate Mueller. He ought to be fired, but that, politically, cannot happen without some of our weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate deciding they need to remove the President. That should not happen for what the Democrats did. So it is critical.

If we have a second counsel--and by the way, let me just say, a great patriot, ethical, honest, upright man named Jeff Sessions is seeing to a number of critical things that we need investigated, seeing to them being investigated. And I applaud his efforts to apply the rule of law across the board.

But when it comes to investigating Rosenstein, Mueller, and Comey-- who has already admitted leaking things that should be a crime--that is going to take a second counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend Congressman Zeldin arranging for this time to talk about it. I appreciate the effort my colleagues have put into researching this. We have got to have a second counsel, or our Justice Department is done.