Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Arrington for his dedication to rural America. That is the heartland. I thank him for knowing that and representing his district so well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend from Florida, Congressman Ron DeSantis, was saying: Under ObamaCare--that passed without a single Republican vote--Congress was expressly put under all of the conditions of ObamaCare, and it expressly took us out from the insurance that we liked, the insurance plans we had and liked, and 180 degrees contrary to what President Obama said and so many of our friends across the aisle.

Even though we liked our insurance and we wanted to keep it, it turns out that was not true what they had been saying for so many months. We didn't get to keep our insurance. I know emails keep circulating that Members of Congress have some special ``pie in the sky'' health insurance, but, actually, it is exactly the same insurance options that every single Federal employee from--well, I started to say

from the President down, but, actually, the President does have his own special healthcare. But I guess that is why ObamaCare seemed so appealing. It wouldn't affect the President and his family, or he might have looked at it a little bit differently. But since he has his 24/7 physician, it seemed okay to him to force the rest of the country under it.

Every Federal employee before ObamaCare had the same options we did. The major change in congressional healthcare came since the provision was put in there. Although every single Federal employee had employer-- which means Federal Government, which means taxpayer--assistance in paying the premiums for their health insurance, we had to pay part and the Federal Government paid part--taxpayers, in other words, paid part. That was pretty common across the country.

But in ObamaCare, for some reason, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid thought it was a good idea to stick it to Members of Congress that were not in leadership so that there would be no Federal supplement. No Federal employer was going to pay part of the cost of the insurance, health insurance, for Members of Congress. That is in the bill.

Originally, we thought that meant every single Member of Congress would not get the employer part paid by the Federal Government. But it turns out the Speaker and certain of the leadership and leadership staff who must have helped draft the bill, that the way it was worded did not include the funds they were paid for them so they would continue to get the Federal portion paid by the government and taxpayers as that is.

But then Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama got together, and they worked out a deal. Like my friend, Congressman DeSantis from Florida, pointed out, they made a deal to completely ignore what was in black and white print in ObamaCare that Members of Congress, other than the leadership, would not have the Federal Government paying any part of theirs. All the rest of the Federal employees in the country, yes, they would still have the Federal Government pay part of their insurance, only Members of Congress wouldn't.

They made a deal to specifically ignore what our Democratic friends put in the law, in black and white expressly there, and so we had gotten so many calls and so much information.

Going all over east Texas, I've heard from so many people who have lost their insurance who now could not afford their insurance and now were forced into a network that did not have the doctor who was saving their lives or the medication that was saving their lives, didn't have Mayo Clinic and didn't have the certain cancer facility that they had been using to keep their lives going.

I had heard so many of those horror stories from constituents I just could not--I mean, I went and talked to the personnel here that are supposed to help us sign up for healthcare, and I just could not bring myself to sign up for ObamaCare that was being illegally interpreted. It is not even an interpretation; it is very clear. We didn't get the Federal subsidy, yet they agreed to do it despite what they put in the law and agreed to in the law. So I went without insurance at all for a few years and then have to pay extra to have insurance through my wife's employer.

Ron DeSantis made a great point. If we went ahead and enforced ObamaCare exactly the way it is written, the Speaker and the leaders would be taken care of in the House and Senate, but the rank-and-file Members of the House and Senate, I think, would more quickly have come to the conclusion: we have got to have a change, and we have got to have it quick.

Perhaps that is what President Obama was thinking when he agreed to have the taxpayers fund the huge part of the congressional health insurance that, gee, if he did that, then they wouldn't be as quick to want to overturn it.

I think it is very important as we hear friends across the aisle talk about how devastating it will be if we repeal ObamaCare. Yeah, what happens? Think about it. What happens if we repeal ObamaCare? We would go back to the way it was before ObamaCare passed. I didn't remember it being quite this high, but one of our friends mentioned this week, I remember the polls were saying 75 percent of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance before ObamaCare was shoved down every Americans' throat. So if we repealed ObamaCare, what would happen is we would go back to a health insurance--or a healthcare situation--where 75 percent of Americans were satisfied.

What many of us were saying, as we were in the minority on this side, we were begging our friends across the aisle, look, don't just throw out the entire healthcare system the way it is even though you have got people in the health insurance business and the big pharmaceuticals helping you write ObamaCare so they are going to make billions and billions more than they have ever made--yes, it is true, a lot of health insurers have gone out of business, but the big ones that helped write ObamaCare and sign on to it--happy to endorse it and embrace it-- made record profits. So much for opposing crony capitalism. We see it at its best in ObamaCare.

So Americans should be a bit skeptical when they see some of the people who helped write ObamaCare and made billions and billions saying: oh, no, let's not throw it out.

Well, just remember, if we did that, if we just voted to end ObamaCare and have our system exist as if ObamaCare had never passed, it would immediately put us into a situation where the vast majority of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance and with the healthcare they got.

I have noted over the years that one of the things that has helped with the acceptance by the minority that has accepted ObamaCare as being a good thing has been that politicians here in Washington have skewed the difference between health insurance and healthcare.

I know people have said: Oh, gosh, people were dying on the sidewalks.

Actually, if you are on the sidewalk and you have got a health problem, you do as people that I have seen in the emergency rooms have done: they go to the emergency room. I am standing in line behind them, waiting to get care for one of my children.

So it wasn't a matter of not getting that healthcare. Those people did not have health insurance.

What good is ObamaCare insurance when your deductible is $7,000, $8,000, and you are paying $10,000, $12,000 a year for your insurance and you don't have enough to put aside in savings to even pay $1,000 to $2,000 of your deductible?

Yes, you have health insurance, but you sure don't have healthcare because now, because of ObamaCare, you cannot afford it.

Yes, from time to time I hear people say: Yeah, but the subsidy is working out so well, I am able to have insurance.

Well, what is your deductible?

Well, it is pretty high, but I am satisfied with it.

You know what we keep finding?

They are satisfied with it because they have got cheap health insurance and it works out fine until they have something catastrophic happen and they find out they don't have the money to cover what they have got to cover.

We have got to do something. I submit it wouldn't be so bad to go back to a system that a majority of Americans said they were satisfied with and then work from there.

Don't throw out the whole system again and make the Federal Government, Big Brother, have its fingers in every aspect of your supposed care. When the Federal Government has that role, whether you want to call them death panels or not, there are bureaucrats who will make decisions to decide what they are going to allow you to have and be paid for. That should never, ever be the role of the government.

Some say to go to a single-payer system. I despise that term because it masks just how evil the system is. It is socialized medicine, which is also another way of saying you have rationed care. Everybody is not going to get what they need, and the government will decide who they think has a life valuable enough to get a new knee or to get a new hip or to have back surgery or to have lifesaving surgery. The government will decide that.

That is the same reason I have heard from numerous seniors now. Before ObamaCare passed, they had Medicare as supplemental coverage. But even so, after ObamaCare passed, which cut $716 billion out of Medicare, they could not get timely surgeries that they needed before ObamaCare.

If we don't repeal ObamaCare, it will continue with those wait times that many seniors are now experiencing. Whereas, it used to be: When do you want to do this? Tomorrow? Next week? When do you want to do it?

Now it is: I know you need it now, but it is going to be 2 or 3 months before we can work you in.

It is rationed care. That is what ObamaCare causes. There is going to be more and more of that unless we get ObamaCare repealed. I just don't think that is an option. A majority of Americans did not want ObamaCare, and, after it passed, still didn't want ObamaCare. They gave us the majority in the House, now in the Senate, and now the Presidency on a promise that we would get rid of ObamaCare.

So we start from the premise that healthcare will be better and more affordable once ObamaCare is repealed. There needs to be reforms, but you have got to start from the premise that you have to get rid of the system that is skewing and basically destroying the greatest healthcare system ever produced in the history of the world.

Medical historians, as I noted before, have indicated there was probably some point in the early 1900s--it can be debated when that point may have occurred; some say around the protocols in the early 1900s, around World War I--or whenever it was, around 100 years ago, for the first time in human history, someone who needed healthcare had a better chance of getting better if they didn't go see a doctor. That point was in the early 1900s. After that point, you started having a better chance of getting well if you went to see a doctor.

So you look at that time, whether it is 100 years, 120 years, and to think that just in the thousands of years of recorded history in our lifetimes, you have not only had a chance of getting well after seeing a doctor, but you have a great chance of being cured.

Think of all the diseases and conditions that we found cures for. We have so many yet to go. There will always be something else that needs to be researched and cured, because that is the state of this world. But we had a system here in America that produced more lifesaving medications and treatments and surgeries, more lifesaving and enhancing procedures of all kinds because, for one thing, we had competition, we had a free market system.

Our Founders so wisely put in the Constitution provisions for rewarding people, because of original thoughts or inventions, copyrights and patents. Congress has done a lot of damage to that system in recent years, but it still provides an incentive to create something that is lifesaving or life-enhancing.

We simply cannot build a healthcare system that helps people based on the foundation of ObamaCare. More and more--until it is complete, socialized medicine will be, if we leave ObamaCare in place, there will be more and more rationed care, which means less and less care for individuals.

For 6 years, Republicans have been united in our support for fully repealing ObamaCare. Congress has voted--at least the House has--more than 60 times to repeal ObamaCare. So it is not the time to get timid. Now is the time to support the President's efforts to get rid of ObamaCare.

If what we have to do is bring forth the bill that we passed in the last Congress and put it on the desk of the President to get rid of the thing that has, at least informally, President Obama's name and that he says he is proud of--people are getting hurt, people can't afford what they have got. More and more are losing insurance. We are losing more and more insurance companies.

I still continue to be quite concerned to just say there is a great panacea in buying insurance across State lines because, unless we end the exemption from the monopoly laws, the antitrust laws, then we could very easily end up with only one or two insurance companies in the whole country instead of having only one in 30 or 40 States.

Far better it is to just end the exemption from antitrust laws, end the ability for a health insurance company to monopolize and have monopolistic tactics that keep entrepreneurs from developing new insurance companies, different ways of paying for healthcare. We have got to end that so that people that come up with new ways and better ways to provide healthcare end up doing well because of their great idea to provide more affordable healthcare.

One thing in my mind that is absolutely certain: if we can just get rid of ObamaCare, then one of the steps we have got to take is to get back to a system that we had 50 years ago or so, when I was growing up in Mount Pleasant in east Texas, and you knew what things cost.

All the different times I had to be taken in for stitches because I got involved in activity that was going to get somebody hurt--and I was often the one--all those times I went in for stitches, my parents always knew what it was going to cost when the doctor put stitches in my head or above and below my eye. All the different places I have got them, they knew.

Of course, on one occasion--he can't get in trouble now because he is gone--a dear friend of the family that was a family physician at the time let my mother, since she was such a good seamstress, put in maybe three of my five stitches. Mother said: That is just basic sewing; I can do that. He said: You sure could. I have seen you sew. That is all it is.

I don't encourage that kind of thing, but mother did a nice job, and he closed it up. She knew she was still going to pay the fee. Even though she put a couple of stitches in, she knew she was going to pay the fee. Anyway, he was shorthanded on nurses that day, and mother was the nurse because it was a weekend and he came in special.

Anyway, you don't see people anymore, like they did when I was young, who say: I am going to a different doctor because the other doctor raised his prices and that one is just as good. You don't see that.

Nobody knows actually what the doctors are getting paid. I have asked for answers from wonderful healthcare providers that are really trying to take care of people: How much is this? How much is that?

Well, Louie, I can't really tell you. It depends.

Is it Medicare, Medicaid, cash, Blue Cross, Anthem, an HMO? You have got to tell me. And what is the diagnosis?

Sometimes it is a different charge, depending on what the disease is.

Why is that?

Because the government has put different payment schemes on these things.

We have got to get rid of a system where nobody knows what anything costs. You can't have competition and spur healthcare and healthcare providers on to the very best they can possibly do to innovate new ways and better ways to treat people and to provide healthcare if we don't have actual competition and people knowing what they are paying for. That is one of the things we have got to get back to.

I know there are some physicians who have said: Well, my contract with the insurance company doesn't have that provision.

I have heard some do, but some have told me: Yes, my contract as a doctor with that insurance company said I specifically cannot let somebody who is paying cash pay as low an amount as I am taking as full payment from this insurance company.

Well, that shouldn't be the case. But as long as an insurance company can monopolize, violate antitrust laws, then they will be able to do that kind of thing to keep people from being able to pay cash as readily as they could if they were one of the major insurance companies.

We ought to get out of that.

How do you get out of that?

Well, the first thing is you never ever will as long as ObamaCare continues to be the law of the land.

So I am so proud we have a President that continues to push the idea of getting rid of ObamaCare so that we can have a better system providing healthcare. And I do use the word ``healthcare'' and not ``health insurance.''

And it bothers the heck out of me that the CBO makes this grandiose

claim of how many people will lose their insurance, because they are too ignorant, under the models they create, to distinguish the difference between somebody who chooses not to buy a policy that costs them a fortune, has a huge deductible, and is going to not help them when they need it, and someone who says: Gee, I want to keep this insurance, but I can't afford it.

The CBO has made themselves--put themselves in such a blind position, they can't tell the difference. The CBO says, ``Well, if somebody says, I am not paying for this insurance policy. The deductible is too high. The premiums are too high. I am going to put my money in a savings account, and I will have, in 3 years, $40,000 to cover healthcare problems, if I have some in the future, and that will keep growing,'' well, they will say that poor person that now has a huge growing health savings account is like a poor homeless individual, and the government yanked away their insurance.

No. They just chose to quit rewarding a health insurance company for not providing them insurance that they need. There is a difference between losing insurance and just refusing to buy insurance that is worthless.

I am hoping that we are moving closer to the day when we can get rid of this Democrat Congress contrived group called the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. I have been convinced for a number of years that we will never be able to get this country on sound footing with a driving economy, all boats being lifted, getting the country out of debt as long as the CBO is the official scorer for the bills in this building.

It seems clear to me. Yes, I understand. They have come to my office a couple of times. I understand. I get it. You create models, and then you feed this information in that you think is important to the models you created that hardly ever rely on actual historical performance. And then you just dutifully report what the model says the cost is and what is going to happen as a result.

Try living with history and using absolute historical evidence of what happens instead of creating some goofy model that, as best it appears now, when they--well, first, I think $1.2 trillion, they estimated ObamaCare. And then after President Obama woodshedded Elmendorf, the director--and I know he doesn't like that term--but whatever you want to call it, he called him over to the Oval Office, met with him; Elmendorf comes out, redoes his numbers--Oh, it was under a trillion dollars. $800 billion, just like President Obama said. How about that?

And then as soon as it passes, shortly thereafter, well, you know, it is actually probably more like 1.7, 1.9. And now more modern estimates say it is not $800 billion; it is now 1.2. It is at least $2 trillion, maybe $4 trillion, maybe $4\1/2\ trillion. It is just through the roof.

So I don't think it is unrealistic to say that the CBO's margin of error on ObamaCare wasn't plus or minus 2 or 3 percent. It was plus or minus 200 to 400 or so percent. No entity that cannot have a better margin of error than 200 percent has any business scoring anything considered official in this building.

And I know Dr. Arthur Laffer got a private grant to figure out a way to have competitive scoring of bills in the House and Senate so that these scorers could have a score on their accuracy, their success rate for accurate scoring of bills.

So as you go along, this Republican idea of competition being a good thing--you have competitive scoring instead of one official group that will never allow this country to get on a proper footing because it was set up in 1974 as Nixon was going out. And the Democrats were having a heyday, and they got a little giddy and left 2 million people in southeast Asia to die instead of having an orderly transition, and, at home, were wreaking havoc with the way we pass laws in this building.

I will continue to urge the President of the United States, as we take up a tax reform bill, not to give in to the pressure from people in Congress toward the top to go more to a 20 or 21 percent corporate tax because the corporate tax really is about the most insidious--one of the most insidious taxes because it is based on a lie.

We tell the American people, ``Oh, you don't have to worry. We are going to sock it to these evil corporations and make them pay all this big tax,'' when the fact is that corporations don't exist, don't continue to exist if they don't have the customers pay that corporate tax. That charge is ultimately paid by Americans across the country. It is another way of sticking it to the little guy when you have a high corporate tax.

And I am fully aware there are people in this country that think it is a great thing that they think we are evolving from a manufacturing country to more of a service economy where we just provide services and don't get engaged in this lowlife manufacturing.

Well, guess what, that lowlife manufacturing is how a country survives for centuries. Any nation that is considered to have power in the world loses that power after the next war if they cannot produce the things that they need to defend themselves from hateful, evil leaders in the world.

Some people didn't seem to mind when we were losing the tire manufacturing, steel manufacturing, steel product manufacturing, losing all that to China. They didn't seem to care. Oh, Louie, don't worry about it. We are a service economy.

Well, as a historian, I am telling you, if we don't get back to manufacturing the things that we have to have to defend ourselves successfully against evil tyrants--whether in Iran, North Korea, totalitarian in Russia, wherever, if we don't manufacture what we need to defend ourselves and our freedoms, we won't have them past the next war. And be sure of this. Don't believe me. You know, Jesus said there will always be wars and rumors of wars. They are going to exist.

But Reagan was right. You know, the best way to avoid a war is to have so much strength that people will not attack you. They don't want to challenge you because they know you can take them out.

Unfortunately, we have had the ability to take out evil empires and evil tyrant leaders for a long time. But just as occurred when I was in the United States Army, Active Duty for 4 years, was at Fort Benning, and our embassy was attacked in Tehran, hostages were taken. We had a President--well, he had hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace when he took power, so it was kind of tough on him to turn around and attack him.

But the Iranians said the students did it. But it became very clear very soon, they stopped saying the students had the hostages, and started saying, ``We have the hostages.'' It was a government- orchestrated attack. They could have and should have protected our embassy, and Carter should have made it clear: You either get our people out unharmed or we are bringing the full power of the United States military to Iran. And it wouldn't be a bluff. I think they would have let them go.

That is why they spent at least 3 days talking about the students having them. That was a way out. If Carter had said, ``We are coming if you don't get those folks out,'' I think that they would have let them go. But you can't bluff in a situation like that. But we should have made it clear that we are not tolerating attacks on United States land--and that is what an embassy is.

And because we didn't defend ourselves there, the stories started: Well, they ran from Vietnam. You know, didn't do anything, the paper tiger.

One after another we got hit and didn't properly respond. And I understand President Reagan acknowledged that he let the Congress intimidate him into pulling our forces out of Beirut after 300 marines or so precious lives were lost to a terrorist attack.

So the story built and continued: The United States is a paper tiger. They won't defend themselves.

And it became attractive to be attacked.

So we need a 15 percent corporate tax. Meeting with different CEOs in years past over in China: Why did you leave America?

I thought they would say: Because of all the regulations. Yeah, those were problems. And sometimes unions are too--demand too much, and we can't stay in business, so we move.

But no. The number one answer over and over is: You know, we got a deal cut, and now we are at an effective rate between 15, 20 percent corporate tax.

And in America, you know, they say, cumulatively, corporations are probably paying around 40 percent for corporate tax.

It is time to undercut the tax that China pays. Bring back our steel industry. Let's get back to having Detroit--after so many of the great Midwestern States had cities that were model cities, and people were working, and there weren't the big slums because things were going great, that day can come back. But it will not come back to the extent it could with a 20 or 21 percent corporate tax.

But, oh, my goodness, if we cut our corporate tax to 15 percent, this United States economy will explode. This less than 2 percent that we had growth under President Obama, lowest for any 8 years in our history, that would end overnight.

Mr. Speaker, if I might ask how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct attention to this ongoing narrative about collusion with Russia. We still desperately need an independent counsel to investigate the Mueller-Comey-Lynch-Clinton relationships.

It appears Mueller is on a tear and he is going to do everything he can to divert attention from his collusion with James Comey. They were buddies. They colluded about so much.

Comey is trying to get an independent counsel appointed. He was able--by leaking illegally, pulling these shenanigans, he consulted with Mueller even on his testimony. And Mueller is the guy who is supposed to judge the testimony. And under current Federal regulations, Mueller should have recused himself.

We got to have somebody investigate Mueller. It is getting out of hand.

In the meantime, the new developments seem to make clear to some of us that Donald Trump, Jr., seems like a nice guy, but he appears to have been the target of a Democratic action to try to take down the Trump campaign.

They point to this meeting between Donald Trump and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Moscow attorney. Some of this is in an article written by Scott McKay, July 14, The American Spectator. She was trying to meet with Donald Trump, Jr., and when they actually had the meeting, she didn't have anything to give him. She brought up about the bill that was passed that helped some extremely wealthy Russians who were buddies with Putin, but, as this article points out, the evidence of collusion between Trump, Jr., and the Russians seems to be based on a timeline which included the WikiLeaks disclosures of hacked Democratic National Committee emails and Trump's request that the Russians make public the 30,000 emails of Clinton supposedly that she deleted from her illegal private server. But it is a smoking gun that Trump was the beneficiary of this Putin regime intelligence arm hacking the 2016 elections, so our friends across the aisle seem to say, but that doesn't make sense. He got nothing out of the meeting.

At some point, everybody in this room had to run for election, and if they had an opponent, if somebody said, ``Hey, you need to know this about your opponent,'' you know, at some time or another, everybody in this room has listened to something, and many times it is just garbage, and you say, ``I don't want anything to do with that.''

And essentially that is what Donald Trump, Jr., did after he got lured into a meeting.

But when you think, wait a minute, what was this Moscow attorney even doing in this country? This article points out that her presence in the United States alone ought to be the source of suspicion, that not only is the Trump-Russian collusion narrative suspect, but the real inquiry ought to be whether the encounter was a small part of a larger attempt to trap the Trump campaign.

The Russian lawyer wasn't even supposed to be in the United States. She had been denied a visa for entry into the United States in late 2015, but given a rather extraordinary parole by the Obama administration to assist preparation for a client subject to an asset forfeiture by the Justice Department.

She could not be in the United States unless someone who answered directly to the President of the United States said: We are going to let her in. She is working on something special, so we are going to let her in. Even though we knew previously she is not somebody we should let in, she is doing something special right now. We want her in.

And the story is that Loretta Lynch had to approve her coming in.

So the client, Prevezon Holdings, that this Russian attorney was allowed to come in to help, was suspected of having paid some portion of $230 million stolen by Russian mobsters. When Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer representing a company that had been the victim of the theft, reported it to authorities in Moscow, he was promptly jailed and beaten to death by the Russians.

The American response to this atrocity was the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned several individuals connected to human rights abuses. The Russian Government retaliated by preventing American adoptions of Russian children. Who did that hurt? The Russian children, but Putin didn't care. Why would he care? He is making billions, he has got people like this Russian lawyer who Loretta Lynch let in.

So then we find out in June the Russian lawyer was permitted to fly back to the U.S. to have the meeting with Trump, Jr., at Trump Tower, no less, and then ends up in the front row for a congressional hearing. She was sitting right there behind the Obama Ambassador.

In my experience, all the hearings I have seen, when you have somebody from the administration of the caliber of an ambassador, they are very careful to make sure people behind him are those who can hand a note to help him answer a question. That is what is normal. Yet there she is, right behind Obama's Ambassador to Russia.

Then she turns up at a D.C. showing of a documentary film on the negative effects of the Magnitsky Act and later appeared at a dinner involving another couple of representatives, and she is now a lobbyist for the Russians overtly. Maybe she was then. The repeal of that legislation is a priority item for the Russians and a personal objective for Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney.

So rather than any Clinton dirt, as was reportedly the primary subject brought forth at the meeting with Donald Trump, it appears she was here with the approval of Loretta Lynch, with the approval of the Obama Department of Homeland Security.

They knew what she was about, just like they knew what the member of a terrorist organization was about when they approved him coming to the White House and Janet Napolitano lied at our hearing, said that that wasn't happening.

So she did all of this without a visa. She did not file a Foreign Agents Registration document, which is required, and the Obama administration gave her a pass on those things: Sure, let her in. She is doing important work. We are not giving her a visa; we are just letting her in. We are not going to pick her up, because she is doing important work.

Really? She is setting Donald Trump, Jr., up, and the Obama administration considered that important enough to let this person who they previously realized should not be allowed in the country to come in to do that kind of important work, set up Donald Trump?

Well, anyway, turns out Veselnitskaya was connected to Fusion GPS. That is the Democrat opposition research firm, which employed a former British spy who used Russian contacts to produce the infamous and now debunked ``urinary dossier'' smearing Trump. Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS head, Glenn Simpson, to work on behalf of Prevezon, the company she was allowed into the country to represent. Fusion then hired Christopher Steele, the British spy who drew on Russian sources to produce his dossier, and then they made him available for private briefings on the dossier with left-leaning media sources such as Mother Jones, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo, The New Yorker, CNN.

And, by the way, there is Veselnitskaya's social media account, which is decidedly more aligned with the Fusion GPS side of the equation

than with Trump. She was no friend of the Trumps. Every indication was she wanted the Trumps taken down.

Trump, Jr., met with her. It appears to be a setup.

I was guest hosting Patriot Tonight the other night. Some people say: Why do you do this media?

One of my jobs is to not only be aware of what is going on here, try to vote properly, argue the right way on different bills, but it is also to make sure that people in America know what is going on. And a guy called in, very interesting, but he seemed to have a pretty good grip on all of this. It is just amazing how many American citizens across the country--they are not confused by the smokescreen that we get from the mainstream media.

So if timelines are interesting to you, there is this: reportedly the Obama administration sought permission to electronically monitor Trump Tower in early June, and the FISA court refused to grant it, but in October, they allowed it. Isn't that something?

Once they set up Donald Trump, Jr., with this friend of the Obama administration, this Russian attorney who was using the Democrats' own opposition research firm, she was helping them, they then convinced a judge: Go ahead and let us monitor everything going on in Trump Tower. When the judge initially refused to do that.

The article said: ``So if you'd like to don your tinfoil hat and play the collusion game, try this on for size--when the Obama administration couldn't get permission from the FISA court to surveil Trump, they allowed Veselnitskaya back in the country to take part in those Washington activities''--meeting up with Donald Trump.

`` . . . and in the meantime''--she used--``the administration's pals at Fusion''--GPS--``with attempting to hook Trump, Jr.''--into a basis for them getting a warrant.

There was nothing to that meeting, yet they used it, got a warrant to further monitor everything going on in the Trump Tower in October.

It just keeps pointing back to the fact we have got to get an independent counsel to investigate Mueller and his ties to Comey and Lynch and the Clintons, and get to the bottom of this mess. Yes, I want an investigation, because this is looking pretty lurid right now.

Just in the time left, I do need to mention, this continuing push by friends across the aisle and the Obama holdovers in our executive branch, they think net neutrality is something we have got to have. Maureen Collins in The Federalist has a great article on July 19, and she points out regarding net neutrality:

``The debate over net neutrality can easily turn into techie-jargon that no one understands. Here is the basic gist: the internet is made up of bits. Proponents of net neutrality want to make sure these bits are all treated equally, meaning all web content appears on your computer at the same speed and with the same quality.

``That sounds like a good thing, right? Supporters say that net neutrality would make all content equal by ensuring that internet providers cannot buy faster or higher quality content. The free market, they say, is inherently unfair and only a third party--the government-- can determine how content should be treated. But that sounds exactly like textbook New-Deal progressivism.

``You see, this is not a question of whether or not internet content should be equally available. Rather, it is the much older question of who should determine that content is equally available: consumers, or the government?''

``Even the background of net neutrality is straight out of the New Deal playbook. Like many administrative programs, the fight for net neutrality began when similar provisions failed in Congress. After legislative failures, what is a good progressive to do?''

``Progressive,'' that term bothers me, kind of like ``single payer.'' Single payer means socialized medicine, government-run and rationed healthcare. What does progressive mean? Well, it actually is a throwback. It is socialism. Some socialists are even hardcore communists, not all are, but they want an Orwellian government where they watch and know everything going on, and they know better than Americans do. Let the government decide your future.

``The Bush FCC adopted principles for `preserving internet freedom' in 2005, but did not go through a formal rulemaking process. In 2008, the FCC went after Comcast for going against these principles, only to get struck down by the D.C. Circuit, where bad administrative law goes to die.

``The entire process repeated itself under the Obama administration. In 2010, the FCC adopted an `Open Internet Order.' Verizon Wireless sued the commission and, again, the commission lost at the D.C. Circuit.

``By now, it may seem that there must be something legally wrong with the FCC's net neutrality regulations.''

And that is exactly right.

``Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can give a specific power to an executive agency, like the FCC--usually through statute. Here's the kicker: the FCC claimed Congress gave them the power to regulate the internet through the Communications Act of 1934. The observant reader will notice this law was passed a long time before the internet even existed, though the act did give the FCC power to regulate `common carriers' like radio, wire communication, and telephone companies.''

But not the internet.

``Not only does net neutrality follow the New Deal's progressive formula, it literally derives its power from a New Deal-era law. Right before the 2016 Presidential election, the Obama FCC created a third set of net neutrality rules.''

The bottom line is, if there is net neutrality, the government will decide what you get to see and hear on your internet. When I had family living in China, I knew what it was to be censured and have the government deciding. You can't learn anything negative about the government.

We cannot allow this pleasant sounding net neutrality to become a reality because, though it goes along perfectly with ObamaCare, with the government controlling our healthcare, why shouldn't they control what we get to see and hear on the internet?

And the bottom line is, this is the United States of America and it was created to control government, not to let the government control our free choices.

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 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 24, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much my very good friend from California, with whom I have traveled abroad and had some amazing meetings with representatives of countries around the world.

As I listened to our friends on the other side talk about this issue, it appears very clear what they are saying is that every Member of the House who has ever met with someone from a foreign country and asked questions, whether they believe what they were given or not, is guilty of a crime and should be damned to hell for all eternity.

Basically, is that my friend's impression?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from California and I have met with the then-leader of Iraq. Neither the gentleman from California nor I cared for the man. He was the Prime Minister of Iraq. He did a great deal of damage to Iraq. He, along with President Obama, dramatically weakened Iraq.

I know my friend recalls our conversation with Prime Minister Maliki. We were asking for answers to questions that we considered very serious.

For example, I was asking about his commitment to protect the refugees from Iran that he had pledged to protect. My friend from California was asking about the Iraqi pledge to help pay us back for some of our costs in making Iraq free.

Those two issues so infuriated Prime Minister Maliki that we got word later when we were on the C-130 that we were being banned from Iraq by the Prime Minister.

But to hear our friends across the aisle talk, every time one of them and every time one of us on this side of the aisle have asked even people we consider to be despicable and have done terrible things and we wanted answers, we were committing a crime in demanding those answers.

I also know my friend from California got similar treatment from a man we believed was corrupt as the leader of Afghanistan at the time.

I don't find any crime or any harm in asking questions and getting answers, even from people for whom we have no respect. So I think it is a good thing. If anybody has got information, even if you don't care for them, try to get the answers to those questions.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my friend from California, Dana Rohrabacher, making the point that he did.

There is nothing either sinister, wrong, criminal, improper when someone is engaged in an election or when someone is not engaged in an election, if offered information that may be helpful, whatever the source. Unless it is a known criminal that is going to advise someone about some potential crime, there is normally nothing wrong with seeking or even getting that information.

I doubt there is anybody on this House floor, when offered information from a source about an opponent in a campaign, didn't at least take some action to see if there was anything legitimate to it.

So it is just amazing, when we know that there is certainly probable cause to believe crimes have been committed during the Obama administration, yet we got nothing in the way of support in investigating the probable cause of real legitimate crimes; not those for which there is no known criminal statute that would be applicable or that may have been violated, but simply, you know, there may be times when it is bad taste.

But the villainization of Donald Trump, Jr., for inquiring of someone that Loretta Lynch, as Attorney General for President Obama, specifically and personally stepped in to ensure could be in this country, it is just incredible how much is being made of Donald Trump, Jr., meeting with somebody that Attorney General Lynch pulled all kinds of strings to get her in and keep her in the country.

And then when you see that picture of this same person sitting right behind the Obama Ambassador to Russia, Ambassador McFaul, and you know at these hearings, especially an appointed and confirmed official like an ambassador, they don't want somebody directly behind them who is not supportive and not capable of reaching up and handing them a note with information that may be helpful and them answering a question.

We have had countless hearings, and I have seen it done countless times. You want somebody behind you that can help provide answers to questions that you may not can answer without their help.

So there she is, this person that these same friends who pulled all kinds of strings to get her in this country. They are all upset that she ever talked to Donald Trump, Jr., and he has--I admire the fact that he immediately saw that this was a worthless meeting and walked away from it. So pretty amazing. It was good judgment to walk away from it, once he found out what she was about.

I wish that President Obama, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton had as good a judgment in their meetings with people instead of telling our enemy--and I do consider the man with whom President Obama was meeting an enemy. He was not a friend of the United States.

And what does President Obama do when he doesn't think the microphone can pick him up?

He says: Tell Vladimir Putin--President Obama's close buddy--tell Vladimir, my buddy, that I have a lot more flexibility once I am past this election.

``Okay. Yeah. I will pass that on. Dah, dah, I will pass that on.''

Clear intent; there is no mistaking. The intent is: I will be able to give away more of America's defenses the way I canceled our missile defense system in Poland once I am reelected because then I don't care. I won't be running. I can't be defeated in another election. So I will be able to give away a lot more of America's defenses.

And what did our friends--who are now so upset about Donald Trump meeting with a Russian lawyer, finding out she was not worth meeting with and leaving--do back then?

Nothing. They defended President Trump's actions either vocally or by their silence while we were raising questions.

I can't end this week without expressing my grave disappointment with Congress over a specific detail of the National Defense Authorization Act. There are a number of things in there that bother me that I think are big mistakes and that I don't think we should be doing. I think we are wasting money, but compromises have to be made. We are making a form of sausage called ``laws,'' so we have got to compromise on some things.

But there are some things that are so important that there cannot be a compromise. It is too important. It will result in lives being saved or lives being lost, depending on what we do here in Congress.

So our friend, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, realized before I did that the law, as would be in the National Defense Authorization Act, with all the compromises that had to be made under the great leadership--and I am not being sarcastic--of Congressman Mac Thornberry--did a masterful job handling all the problems that arose-- but the law of the NDAA was and will be, under this new law, such that President Obama and his administration would say, the way it is worded, the way it is, authorizes us to decide that an appropriate use of this very limited more and more precious money for our military to defend us can and should be used whenever someone requests a sex change operation.

The reports are that, with the hormonal treatment, it can be around $130,000 or so per person. Military commanders advise that they have been told: If you have a military member under your command that asks for a sex change operation and you say something like ``have you really thought this through?'' or they say something like ``why don't you talk to a counselor?'' or ``let's talk about this'' or ``you give it some more thought,'' those are career-ending statements that that commander would have made; that if someone requests a sex change operation, you don't ask questions, you don't refer them to counseling, you don't suggest that they give it more thought. You just sign them up.

Now, the problem there, too, is that apparently they are advised that they have about 2 years minimum that this servicemember will be out of commission, cannot be deployed, you can't be sending them anywhere because you have months of hormonal treatment leading up to the sex change surgery. And then even if there are no complications, the followup and the rehab is quite significant. So you better count on at least a couple of years minimum where that servicemember, that military member cannot be sent anywhere, cannot be ordered deployed. They are useless in defense of our country as far as filling the immediate needs of the military, and that is astounding.

Now, potentially, some might submit that we have come to find out about maybe the greatest political lobbying by any group of our medical practitioners. And those who compile the diagnostic statistic manual, referred to as DSM--we have had I, II, III, IV, V--each time, they have been subjected to political lobbying because they didn't

want people who were thinking about a sex change operation--and even though their chromosomes would not change--still indicating they are male or female, they wanted to have surgery to change. That was considered to be a very serious illness, psychiatric illness.

But with a lot of lobbying, it eventually got downgraded, and the most recent downgrading in the DSM is to something called a ``dysphoria.'' It went from ``disorder'' to ``dysphoria.''

But dysphoria, if you look it up, it still is--well, one psychiatrist just said it means confusion, basically. If you have got transgender dysphoria, you are confused. It is the opposite of euphoria. You are not well, you are not happy, you have got behavioral problems because you are not happy with your gender.

Well, for most of our country's history, we understood that, in our military, it is not to be a societal experiment. We want people who can fight, hopefully not to their death, but to the enemy's death to stop those who would kill us or take our freedom.

And it is heartbreaking that--when the amendment came to the floor last night for a vote to prevent any of that precious money that is going to save the lives of our military members, the amendment lost by five votes, 214-209. In other words, if three people had changed their vote, that amendment passes, and no money could be used out of that precious money they need for bulletproof vests, they need for up- armored vehicles to save their lives when an IED hits them, all of these things that are so important to our military.

We are told to account for $3.5 to $3.9 billion over 10 years they are projecting to be spent, but that, of course, means that is before word gets out that if you want a sex change operation, if you can get through basic training--I am not sure about that, you may not have to get through basic--but if you can join the military and demand a sex change operation, then you are not deployable. They can't send you to combat for at least 2 years.

We will pay you as a military member. We will provide you, free, the hormonal treatments. We will take that money that could save another member's life and we will spend that on this expensive surgery to change your organs, maybe cut them off or add some, and then we will spend more of that money that could save other military members' lives and spend it on your follow-up and your rehab, all while you can't help them because you are going through this transition.

This is a difficult time, and it breaks my heart. And it is not a civilization-ending thing that happened last night, but when the book one day is written about the rise and fall of what so far has been the most free and greatest nation in the history of mankind, this would be something listed as a symptom of why this country lost the next great war, because they were more concerned about playing societal experiments than they were with defending their lives and their freedom.

I see my friend, as good a friend as I have here in Washington. I yield to my friend, Steve King.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments.

In fact, some people sometimes think that we exaggerate, but my very good friend from Iowa and I have stood there on the mountaintop outside of Vienna where Western civilization stood there in the gap, and it was all at risk. The odds were that Western civilization was going to end with the fall of Vienna. If the radical Islamic group that had taken so much of the territory already, if Vienna fell, then the rest of Europe would fall. There would be no stopping this radical Islamic movement through Europe, and there is a good chance we are not even here in this fashion today.

I thought about that and my friend and I standing up there getting a briefing from an individual that knew the history so well, that this is where one group was, this is where the siege was, that is where the Polish group brought cannons, and no one in the Islamic group thought it was possible to get cannons up there.

I thought about that and reflected on that as President Trump was speaking in Warsaw, Poland, and it was clear how desirous the Polish people have always been for freedom: Yes, you can practice what religion you want to, but don't come try to take over our country and tell us we can't pursue Christianity.

I did not realize until President Trump gave that speech that there in Warsaw, when Pope John Paul II, came, that they were screaming ``We want God'' as a group--amazing.

So as I recall, though, it was a Polish prince or king that came down, King Jan Sobieski who came to the aid of the Viennese people. They were under siege. They were going to be defeated. It meant the fall of Western civilization; perhaps we headed into a new Dark Ages. And this Polish king comes down, determined, gets cannon up on this mountaintop that no one who was in the 2 years of seeking a sex change operation and sex reassignment, as they call it, could possibly help do during that 2-year period. They got cannons up the mountain in position to help stop the obliteration there of the Western-civilized Vienna, to stop the fall of that radical Islamic empire from taking over and destroying Western civilization, making slaves of all of those whom they overtook.

And some, of course, in their party believed that if an individual refused to become a Muslim, they should be killed. Others believed in the more humane treatment that, no, you make them slaves, and as long as they keep paying their tax, which is really an admittance that there is no God greater than the Islamic God, as long as they are willing to subjugate themselves and worship at the altar by paying that fee to show that they were subservient to the Islamic God, then they could be allowed to live.

Those were two problems back in that day: Do we let the people live if they won't become Muslim, or do we just go ahead and kill them? And many humane thinkers thought: Well, no. As long as they will submit to our god, pay the tax to show they are submitting to our god; and Christianity's God, they have got to forget talking about that or they do need to be killed. Just pay the tax and they can go about still living.

If Vienna doesn't stand, if it falls, as was anticipated, we are done.

And I can assure my friends here in the House that there was no one who was out there defeating the radical Islamic desire to wipe out Western civilization who had undergone a sex change operation in the prior 2 years.

This is a risky time in our history. As others have pointed out, no matter what societal experimentations people want to undertake, what type of lifestyles people want to undertake, the military is intended to protect our freedom so that we can pursue these things.

And I know President Obama was fond of saying: Gee, Guantanamo is a greater recruiting tool. But as I have talked to Muslim friends--yes, I do have them around the world. As I have talked to Muslim friends in other parts of the world, whether Afghanistan, Egypt, other parts of the Middle East, North Africa, they say: You have got to understand, some of the things you do in the United States make for incredible recruiting posters for radicals in our Muslim faith.

When it is advertised that the United States Congress is in favor of taking men and surgically making them into women with the money that they would use to protect the Nation otherwise, or taking women and doing surgery to make them men, the United States Congress would rather spend that money on that surgery than defeating radical Islam, then it is an advertising, just a bonanza for the radical Islamists.

My Muslim friends tell me, they then agree, the recruits: You are right. If that is how stupid they are, their society has no right to remain on the Earth. We need to take them out. They are too stupid.

A disappointing night last night and a disappointing week.

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 1 minute p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 17, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honor to recognize the Central Heights Blue Devils baseball team, which completed a stellar season culminating with the capture of the 2017 Class 3-A State Baseball Championship title.

This exceptionally talented team from just north of Nacogdoches rolled to victory with a 10-0 shutout against an aggressive challenge from the Wall High School Hawks of San Angelo, Texas.

With the support of coaches, teachers, administrators and their entire community, these young men bear witness that anything is achievable through hard work and determination. These are guiding principles that lead to success not only on the field, but will undoubtedly resonate through every endeavor these valiant championship players undertake in their lifetimes.

Among the individual team members to be congratulated are: Matthew Taylor, Cade McCarty, Clayton Ray, Sam Nortch, Wyatt Allen, Ryan McClellan, Cade Watson, Will Haley, Braden Thomas, Dillon Burris, Cole Reneau, Tyler Burris, Michael Badders, Devin Yates, Grayson Rodriguez, J'Kolvin Wallace, Rowan Arrant, and Jacob Miller.

Their sportsmanship, humility, determination, hard work, and skill are to be commended, admired, and emulated.

The talented Blue Devils team was led to victory by an outstanding coaching and administrative staff, including: Travis Jackson, Head Coach; Brett Thornell, Collin Wallace, & Nathan Williams, Assistant Coaches; Temple Rodriguez, Statistician; Kevin Herron, Athletic Director; David Russell, Principal; and Bryan Lee, Superintendent.

Accolades must also be given to the players' families and the entire community of supporters who reside in Nacogdoches County, who embraced the fighting spirit which was evident in every team member throughout the season. Without these devoted fans' support and encouragement, the Blue Devils' road to the championship would have undoubtedly been much more arduous.

It is with great pride that I join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2017 Class 3-A Champion Central Heights Baseball Team.

Their legacy will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear all the rhetoric about Republican efforts that a majority of Americans have wanted us to take. Going back to even before ObamaCare was passed, the majority of Americans didn't want ObamaCare passed.

I have been amazed at some of the rhetoric from across the aisle, I think from the former Speaker, who said something about how open their process was.

Really?

Anyway, I know sometimes our memories aren't what they once were. That was not a terribly open process. I believe the Speaker back then said: We don't need any Republican vote and we don't want your input. Basically those were the words I recall.

People were promised over and over again by the President of the United States that if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. On at least one occasion he even said the word ``period,'' there are no exceptions. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.

So it was quite disappointing. Some of us knew this was a disastrous bill. I did read it. I didn't have to wait until Speaker Pelosi passed it to find out what was in it. I read it and I knew it was going to be a disaster.

Then, after it passed, we ultimately find out that they knew well in advance that if you liked your insurance, there was a very good chance you would not be able to keep your insurance, period. It wasn't true. All those, including the President, went around saying: If you like your insurance, you can keep it. According to statements after the fact by people involved, yes, they talked about it and they knew people were going to lose their insurance. They are going to lose their doctor, they are going to lose their healthcare provider, but we can't say those things and still pass this bill. We can't let that get out there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want people to remember how this disastrous legislation ever came about in the first place, and how, going against the will of the American people to pass the disastrous bill--around 2,500 pages is what my two volumes came to--but people knew it was going to do lot of damage to people's health and their lives. As we know, when you cannot get the healthcare you need or the lifesaving healthcare you have been getting, you no longer live.

It is amazing now, after ObamaCare passed 7 years, to find out things about the knowing design of ObamaCare. They knew that insurance companies, under ObamaCare, were given incentives not to have the best people to treat cancer, the best cancer healthcare providers, the best cancer lifesavers in the network.

They had incentives under ObamaCare to not include the best physicians and hospitals that will save the lives of people who have cancer; don't include the best healthcare providers that will help those save their

lives, or at least prolong the lives of those with AIDS; don't include in your insurance coverage the best healthcare providers for those with heart problems.

If you don't include the best healthcare providers for cancer, AIDS, heart problems, or whatever it is, then people who are going to cost you a lot of money will not likely choose your insurance.

It was all part of the design to implode healthcare in America, destroy the broken system we had so that people would eventually throw up their hands and say: Well, I didn't originally want healthcare, but surely anything will be better than what we have.

Apparently, from the beginning, the intention was to set it up to give Big Pharma, to give some insurance companies, basically, not only incentives, but mandates that would force their prices ever upward. As Big Pharma knew, they were going to make profits like they had never made in their history.

As I have told some of the Representatives before, when they signed onto ObamaCare, they basically signed your own death warrant. Yes, you will make tens, maybe hundreds of billions more than you have in the past, but eventually it will lead to your industry being controlled by the government in such a way that you will be like pharmaceutical companies in Third World countries where they are allowed to collect the costs of production and maybe a small percentage above that, which means there are no new lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs being produced in countries like that. Eventually, down the road, ObamaCare would destroy the incentives to create new lifesaving drugs and it would be the end of this incredible run of decades of the most incredible advances in medicine in the history of the world.

Some medical historians say that maybe 100 years or so ago, protocols around the time of World War I were the line of demarcation in our history. Somewhere around the early 20th century, early 1900s, there was a point where--before that point in time, if you went to a doctor, your odds were better of getting worse. If you go to a doctor seeking help for a healthcare problem, the odds were you would get worse. On the other side of that line, in the early 1900s, was a point that if you went to a doctor for healthcare help, your odds of getting well were better than of getting worse.

So it is pretty remarkable, if those historians are right, that for the thousands of years of recorded history, it is only the last 100 years where you had a chance of getting better if you sought medical help than of getting worse if you got medical help.

Look at what has happened since then. It is just incredible, especially since the 1950s. I would submit that the Founders' vision in creating copyright and patent protection for intellectual creations and thought helped drive those developments in healthcare. It made a lot of people wealthy. But there is nothing like real incentive, more luxury, more freedom, more enjoyment because of the huge rewards of great intellectual creations. Healthcare had just become incredible.

I began to notice after I got to Congress that my friends across the aisle were completely skewing the massive difference between health insurance and healthcare. Health insurance was an even newer thing to most Americans. For healthcare--as we say, maybe the historians are right--it is around 100 years ago that, for the first time, you had a better chance of getting better than you had of getting worse after seeking a doctor's help. But wow, the advances, the progress that was made.

The more the government interferes and dictates who gets what, the more rationed care you get, the less advances in healthcare, the less incentives there are to create lifesaving, life-enhancing medications. When government is the most powerful player in healthcare, you will always end up with rationed healthcare.

Some point to the situation with the small child, Charlie Gard, in the U.K. They say that is what happens when you have bureaucrats deciding who gets to live and who has to die. But the more appropriate analysis, I think, is they are not actually deciding so much the ultimate conclusion of who gets to live and who has to die, but what they are really doing to get there is deciding, rationing, which lives, in the opinion of government bureaucrats, are more important or may be more helpful to the socialist movement, to the bureaucratic entrenchment than someone else.

If you are perceived by the government bureaucracy or the government bureaucrats, the D.C. bureaucrats as being a threat to more government--more powerful government, more control of the individual, if you are a threat to those things, then you can pretty well be assured that when your situation is analyzed by the bureaucrats, you are not going to be eligible for the lifesaving medications and you are not going to be eligible for the hip replacement because we looked at your age and you have had a nice life and it is time to give it up. We don't have enough for everybody to have everything we want, so we in Washington will decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Actually, we decide who gets what treatment.

In the case of Charlie Gard, it is not a lack of concern about life; it is just in the opinion of the bureaucrats, where it always goes with socialized medicine. We only have limited government resources, therefore, we have to be careful whom we help. In their opinion, Charlie Gard may not make it.

The way Americans, a majority of Americans, at least, used to feel was every life is worth trying to protect. Of course, along came Roe v. Wade and made clear only those lives are worthy of protecting if a mother wants to protect them.

We even had people in the previous administration that had voted, made the pronouncement through their actions and votes, statements, that even if a child is born alive after an attempted abortion, in the opinion of those individuals, like our former President, you still should be able to kill the child even if the child is born alive because the mother wanted the child aborted, so go ahead and kill the child.

I am grateful for all the stalwarts over the years, but I believe we have seen a change in that philosophy in the realization, like with the heartbeat bill, that says, in essence, if a child has a heartbeat, they are a living person and may not be aborted.

So it is an interesting time here in America, but it has now resulted in a lot of rhetoric that is really outrageous. You know, I have said for years here on this floor that, with all the allegations, statements, verbal wars that have gone on across the aisle, you know, we know that no one on the Democratic side wants to harm people, wants people hurt. We don't question their motives, and yet, as I am in my office hearing friends across the aisle--okay, I am using the term ``friends'' loosely--but hearing them use terms about how we want people to die. We have come to a sad place in our history.

This story, June 30, from FOX News, was reporting on statements made by some individuals. This quote said--this is from Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren: ``These Medicaid cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives.''

Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' to predict thousands would die if a projected 23 million drop or lose their insurance. And Senator Sanders accused Republicans of trading healthcare for tax breaks to the rich: ``Is this what America is supposed to be about, taking away health insurance from kids with disabilities, from people with cancer in order to give tax breaks to the billionaires?

``Let us be clear, and this is not trying to be overly dramatic: Thousands of people will die if the Republican healthcare bill becomes law.''

Well, you want to fact-check that, of course. If the Republicans' healthcare bill, whatever it says in the Senate, is passed, thousands of people will die. If the bill is not passed, thousands of people will die. So I guess we can't say it is not true. People are going to die whether it passes or not, but the implication is that Republicans, through their efforts, are going to kill people.

What I would just like is an acknowledgment from our friends across the aisle, like Senator Sanders, that there

have been people since ObamaCare has passed who lost their insurance, lost their healthcare provider, didn't get the treatments they needed, their way of life was harmed; and there are bound to have been a lot of people who died sooner than they would have earlier if the President's words had not been hollow that, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, and if ObamaCare had not rewarded insurance companies for not including places like MD Anderson, treating for cancer, or good healthcare providers.

Obviously, if they have the best healthcare providers for cancer, for these other life-ending diseases, then people will use their insurance, drive up the cost; so it really created an incentive for insurance companies not to get the best end-of-life treaters in their network. To their credit, some have, but many haven't. So it has been amazing.

Here is other rhetoric. The former Senator, Hillary Clinton, said: ``Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death party.''

I mean, maybe that is one of the reasons she didn't win. I mean, that is just an outrageous thing to say.

This article goes on to say: ``Some Democrats traveled the country to ring the alarm. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper came to Washington to lobby against the measure, which he said was immoral and would lead to 100,000 deaths by 2026.''

Now, there is this liberal group, apparently, Center for American Progress, liberal think tank--I don't know what their tank is full of, but it is obviously more socialistic thinking. But according to this liberal group, the Center of American Progress, if 23 million fewer people have health insurance, then the coverage losses from the Senate bill would result in 27,700 additional deaths in 2026 and 217,000 over the decade.

Well, isn't that interesting. There is nothing that they can adequately point to as a factual basis. Any citing of CBO, whose margin of error on ObamaCare could have been anywhere from plus or minus 200 to 400 percent--CBO is not a source that should ever be cited with a straight face. They just shouldn't be.

I agree with my friend, Dr. Arthur Laffer, that when it comes to tax reform, we just need to forget CBO. They don't know ``sic `em'' from ``come here.'' They explain, yes, they create these models, so they don't really come up with a score. They create models that provide us the scores: garbage in, garbage out.

So it has just gotten to be a sad state of affairs because people are hurting across America. And I know there is apparently 25 percent in my district. I have heard them. I understand they want to keep ObamaCare. They want to move towards socialism. They like the government having so much control over their lives. Just go ahead and check them into an Orwellian center and let them enjoy Big Brother taking care of them.

But I do represent their best interests, and I think the 75 percent in my district are right about what will be best, that ObamaCare needs to be repealed. We need to get relationships back between a patient and a doctor without an insurance company or a government in between them-- except for very rare occasions--as it once was. It used to be the government didn't have anything to say much at all about that other than having the FDA, things like that. But insurance companies came along, and they were only for catastrophic problems, so we still had complete control of our healthcare.

I do appreciate, greatly appreciate, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referencing the need to honor God. That means a lot to me. Her statement that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship, to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us, but if the government is big and strong enough to say who gets healthcare and who doesn't, who gets treatment, who gets the lifesaving care and who doesn't, then that is to put government in the place of God, and nothing dishonors God more than to have any person or any entity that believes it is the substitute for God.

The United States Government is not a substitute for God. Without God's blessing, as our Founders repeatedly made clear, we wouldn't have even the freedom we have today.

Joseph Schmitz, on July 5, wrote a terrific article, and it is absolutely worth every Republican taking note of. I would encourage my friends across the aisle to take note of it, but I understand their positions. They cannot participate in the repeal of ObamaCare because they staked the majority--well, they staked future socialism on this bill.

Mr. Schmitz says: ``In early 2016, Congress passed H.R. 3762, a law that would have repealed most of ObamaCare. On January 8, 2016, Obama vetoed that would-be ObamaCare Repeal Act.

``240 years earlier, Congress declared `to a candid world' that, `The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.' Among other usurpations specified in the Declaration of Independence, `He' ''--talking about the king--`` `has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.'

``Our 1776 Declaration of Independence concluded, `We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world' ''--that is not the government. That is appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world--`` `for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states; . . . and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'

``In July 2017, Congress should likewise acknowledge the `swarms of officers' harassing our good people under the guise of ObamaCare and reenact the 2016 ObamaCare Repeal Act.

``Note well below the revenue-raising nature of the ObamaCare repeal sections of H.R. 3762, keeping in mind that ObamaCare originated in 2009 as the `Senate Health Care bill,' and the Constitution provides that, `All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.' '' That is Article I, section 7, clause 1.

And he goes on for quite some time to cite all the different sections in ObamaCare that actually make it a revenue-raising bill. Section 204 has the individual mandate mandating people have to pay money and buy something; section 205, an employer mandate mandating that they must pay a massive tax like the individual or pay for insurance, buy a product. For the first time in American history, citizens are required to buy a product, employers are ordered to buy a product. Section 206, Federal payments to the States; section 209, repeal of the tax on employee health insurance premiums and health plan benefits; section 210, repeal of the tax on over-the-counter medications.

I am sorry. These are the names of the sections in the House bill. Those were not in ObamaCare. These are the provisions in the House bill that would repeal all these taxes, as Chief Justice Roberts called them.

So these are all good sections, is what Joe Schmitz is pointing out, individual mandate, employer mandate, getting rid of those, Federal payments to States. It is just taking out a repeal of the employee tax. So there we go. It is eliminating so much of the taxes on individuals, repeal of the tax on over-the-counter medications.

This was the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, who passed this legislation, ObamaCare, the ACA. They put a tax on over-the- counter medications, they put a tax on employee health insurance premiums and a tax on health plan benefits, and they put a tax on health savings accounts. They had already paid money on that that went in it, but anyway.

So the Republican bill that President Obama vetoed, it would repeal limitations on contributions to flexible spending accounts. You can put as much as you want in there. It would repeal the tax on prescription medication. ObamaCare actually put a tax on your precious prescription medications that are saving people's lives.

Anybody who would have the gall after voting for all these taxes put on the backs of poor people who can't even hardly afford their prescriptions as they are, and, yes, they have been skyrocketing under ObamaCare, and to say that Republicans are trying to harm people and dishonor God, for Heaven's sake, read your own bill.

They put a tax on medical devices. Senior citizens who had to have help moving or walking, you got to pay a tax on that, and we don't care if you can't afford the tax and you can't move around anymore. We are the government.

That was the ACA, ObamaCare, that put that tax in place, and another health insurance tax in the bill, and it eliminated the deduction for expenses allocatable to Medicare part D subsidies. It placed a tax called a chronic care tax, there was a Medicare tax increase, there was a tanning tax, there was a net investment tax, all kinds of taxes in ObamaCare. They hammered the American people.

We were promised--President Obama stood right there and promised no money would pay for abortions under his healthcare bill, under the healthcare bill they were going to pass. That is what he said. He said no people illegally in the United States were going to get their healthcare on the backs of people in America legally. Both of those were not true. It turns out Joe Wilson was prescient.

It is time to wake up. We were sent back into the majority because ObamaCare was passed, and we are going to be sent back in the minority, appropriately, if we don't repeal it.

President Trump has made clear in a recent tweet: Look, if you guys can't pass the replacement now, at least pass the repeal, then we can start moving together on a replacement.

Surely the Democrats will want to come and not be so obstructionist once their precious ObamaCare has been struck down; then maybe they will actually work with us to create a better system, but it is time to wake up, it is time to repeal ObamaCare.

Now, I want to touch on one other subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is involving all this mess, these allegations about Russia.

It was not Donald J. Trump nor any Republican who told the Russians-- the Russian leaders, actually: I will have a lot more flexibility after the election.

That can only mean one thing: I am going to give away a lot more of America's strength, helping you out in Russia. As you are trying to get stronger, I am going to give away a lot more of our strength, maybe our edge over your military. I will have more ability to give that away after I am elected to a second term. Tell Vladimir.

It was not a Republican, certainly not anyone associated with Donald Trump, who went to Russia with a supposed reset button, couldn't get the translation right, but wanting to reset the relationship.

And for those who didn't follow history well back then, the reason there was a strain in the relationship between the United States and Russia was because George W. Bush as President of the United States stood on principle, and when the country of Russia, under Putin, attacked Georgia, President Bush, appropriately, was outraged, and he pushed for sanctions to let Russia know that the United States does not approve of Russia attacking sovereign countries.

So the message that President Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted to get across to Putin and the Russians was, with a wink and lots of pats and happy times: Look, George W. Bush as President, we think, overreacted when you attacked Georgia, you know. So we want to let you know we want a reset button, because under President Obama and me, Hillary Clinton, we are not going to overreact when you attack neighboring sovereign countries. We are okay with that, see, and we want things reset. We are not going to get upset like Bush did when you attacked a neighboring country.

That is the message that came across very loud and clear to Putin and those around him.

I would like to think I learned during my summer as an exchange student in the Soviet Union a little bit about the way a lot of Russians think. I get surprised when people say: It is so hard to read Putin. No, it is not. The man was part of the KGB. He wants the glory days of the old Soviet Union back even though they were built on a skeleton that could never maintain the weight that such a Socialist country was putting on that frame.

So then we find out here, this was back in January, January 11, 2017, an article in Politico of all places, surprise, surprise, by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern, it says: ``Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

``A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.''

This is Politico reporting on the collusion between Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and the country of Ukraine to stop and defeat Trump.

Now, where has the Politico reporting on this issue been since January? I appreciate them pointing this out back in January, but apparently at this point back in January, Politico had not yet gotten the word from their friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: hey, hey, kind of soft-pedal that stuff where we colluded with the Ukrainians to try to take Trump out, because we are going to make that a big allegation about Trump and the Russians, so kind of back off that. Let's take the spotlight off that one.

The article goes on: ``The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

``Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. . . . ''

So they go on and try to do what they can to help, you know, salvage some respect for the Democrats here. There is little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine, but the fact is Ukraine did collude with Hillary Clinton's campaign, and they were successful in helping the Trump campaign, Manafort had to be fired, and they are still trying to create clouds surrounding that. But anyway, how about that?

Well, it leads to one conclusion, and that is that it is part of the evidence that we have got to have an independent counsel, and I don't mean Robert Mueller. I am talking about an independent counsel, not one that is bosom buddies with Comey; and not one that can't stand Trump; and not one that is going to run out, not hire any Republicans for his staff who love Trump, but just hire people who can't stand him and wanted Hillary elected.

This is a guy who has been vindictive, who has worked closely with Comey in the past, and he is in no position whatsoever to judge anything about James Comey.

If you go back and look at what is required under 28 CFR 45.2, it provides that a Department of Justice attorney should not participate in investigations that may involve entities or individuals with whom the attorney has a political or personal relationship.

Mueller and Comey are buddies. They have closely consulted on so many things.

For example, this story from June 7, 2017, by Josh Siegel, says:

``Former FBI Director Jim Comey `closely coordinated' with Special Counsel Robert Mueller before his planned testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his interactions with President Trump.

``FOX News reported a source close to Comey said the former FBI Director consulted with Mueller about how to approach Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. The Department of Justice appointed Mueller

special counsel to lead the investigation of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and any possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Mueller and Comey were longtime colleagues at the Justice Department, and legal experts say it would not be unusual for a special counsel to be in contact with somebody who is a party to its investigation.''

Mueller and Comey were longtime colleagues at the Justice Department.

Well, anyway, there needs to be an independent counsel who will investigate the goings-on between Robert Mueller and James Comey with the recent revelations about Comey's very apparent release of classified information.

Bob Mueller is not in a position to judge him. And a great piece of evidence that Robert Mueller is not fit to be the special counsel investigating this matter is the fact that he didn't recuse himself because of his close relationship with Comey, and how Comey is a critical witness in what he accuses Trump of, which doesn't seem to really be a crime.

But, based on Comey's testimony before the Senate, it bears going back and looking at a normal FBI employment agreement that says: I will surrender upon demand by the FBI or upon my separation from the FBI all materials containing FBI information in my possession.

They also have a breach of contract case there because the FBI Director carried stuff with him, that he prepared on his government time with his government equipment, saved with his government equipment, and passed on, apparently, with his government equipment, that appears to have been classified, according to the new releases coming out now.

If you look at Comey's conduct in the past, as this article from Mollie Hemingway on June 12, 2017, pointed out, he had pressured John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the responsibility of investigating the supposed, the alleged, leak of Valerie Plame's identity. It turns out the prosecutor knew on day one who it was--Richard Armitage--but he wasn't honest enough to say: ``We know. I don't need to spend millions and millions of dollars of government tax dollars and waste thousands and thousands of hours investigating. We know the answer.''

No, no, no. This was Comey's dear friend, Patrick Fitzgerald--not just a close personal friend, but godfather to one of his children--and Comey gave the role of special counsel into that leak on Valerie Plame's identity. It was Comey who gave that to Patrick Fitzgerald, his close friend.

What a travesty that turned out to be. That was a fraud upon the American Government by Patrick Fitzgerald. He knew on day one the answer to his investigation, but he wanted a scalp, so he wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to get one. A 3-year investigation.

And what did he end up doing?

Fitzgerald ended up prosecuting ``Scooter Libby for''--as she says-- ``wait for it, obstruction of justice. Comey was unconcerned about the jailing of journalists and never threatened to resign over this infringement on First Amendment freedoms.''

So, since Mueller did not have the moral sense to recuse himself when he was offered this special counsel job because of his close personal relationship with James Comey and who he has hired since then, it is very clear, the President is not going to be able to fire him, because there would be such screaming about the Saturday Night Massacre. Mueller knew that, and this is part of his vindictiveness. When it became clear from Comey's testimony that there was no conclusion with Russia by President Trump, then he leaks out that: Oh, I am investigating the President for obstruction of justice.

Why would he do that?

Because by leaking out that he was now investigating the President-- if the President fired him after he leaks out that he is investigating the President, then you would have the allegations of the Saturday Night Massacre and all this kind of stuff.

So the only way forward is the appointment by President Donald Trump of an independent counsel that is truly independent.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need someone who has been contributing to Hillary Clinton or to Barack Obama or to any major Democrat or to any major Republican. We need somebody that is going to be a fair arbiter in this pursuit of justice so that he can investigate Mueller fairly and impartially. And the relationship, whether Comey and Mueller consulted, as they did on so many things, like his Senate testimony, about some of the things--well, like the leak that Comey testified to that appears, potentially, to have been a crime.

We need to know what Mueller knew. Obviously, Robert Mueller is not going to resign, so the President couldn't very well fire him. But we have got to get to the bottom and find out what really happened so that justice is done.

The projecting by one group of people on the Republican Party conduct they engaged in and projecting it on the Republican Party as if it was they that did what this group did, it is time to have all this investigated. We are not going to get it with Mueller, a dear friend of Comey. It is time to have a true independent counsel.

The only one way we can do that appropriately is if President Trump finds somebody truly independent, truly not a political animal, who can investigate. And that is not Rosenstein, that is for sure, as well. Then we can get to the bottom and see that justice is done.

So here is our work. Let's stay here and work until we get ObamaCare repealed, tax reform passed and signed into law, and let's encourage the President to appoint independent counsel so that we can finally see justice in this case, where currently all we have is what one friend referred to as a big fraternity party among the Muellers and Comeys and their buddies in that fraternity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my fellow Members that are speaking up on this very important issue. I appreciate Dr. Murphy taking the lead. It is something that has not gotten enough attention. We continue to have people dying, and we need to deal with the issue.

It is interesting: some people find great hope in their religious beliefs. Throughout America's history, Christianity has been an important foundation. No, you didn't have to be a Christian to participate in government, to be a Founder, but, as Ben Franklin said, we know because he wrote out the speech in his own handwriting immediately afterwards, as requested.

So often, teachers teach that he is a Deist, as so many of the Founders, we are told, were Deists. Yet in his own words, in his own handwriting, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, at 80 years old, 2 to 3 years away from meeting his Judge, his Maker--severe gout, arthritis, overweight, trouble getting up and down--he said these words:

``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?''

Franklin said, we have been--by the way, that is obviously a reference to Jesus' comment about the sparrow, and God seeing the sparrow, watching the sparrow.

But he goes on and he makes it very clear, as his own words indicate, that unless--he said: ``We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writing that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.''

Again, referencing Scripture.

Those are not the words--any of them--they are not the words of a Deist. So teachers that have been miseducating people for so long, I know they are just passing on what they were taught, but there has been so much miseducation for so long.

Regardless of what else, we don't try to force our religious beliefs on anyone. That is not what the House of Representatives is for. But since it formed such an important part of our founding and a part of the discussion for most of our Nation's history, it is important to point out that those Scriptures that Ben Franklin referenced at the Constitutional Convention, the Scriptures that have been quoted so often--

We know the Bible is the number one, far and away, most quoted book in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nothing else anywhere even close. It has brought hope to people that had no hope.

So it is interesting that, as our Nation moves further and further away from the source of so much hope for so much of our Nation's history, and for those who lived through that part of our Nation's history, the hope that Franklin Roosevelt brought to the microphone when he read the famous prayer on D-Day as American soldiers were fighting, as he said, against those forces of evil, drawn from a country that was used to peace that were fighting forces of evil.

But they had hope. That hope and prayer that Franklin Roosevelt gave over the microphone for several minutes now is condemned by so many.

That hope that served as the foundation, the building blocks for the beliefs of Sam Adams, that so many around in those days gave credit as being an important foundational building block for the revolution, for the new Nation.

We are arriving at a time when record numbers of people are dying. We heard today in our Judiciary hearing, I believe it was 144 Americans each day are dying of drug overdoses.

Who dies of a drug overdose?

People without hope, people who are drawn to drugs to provide a good, warm feeling.

We have more military members killing themselves than at any time probably in any nation's history. I don't know that for sure, but it is just hard to imagine a time in any nation's history when so many of its veterans are taking their own lives, a time when so many of our active military have taken their own lives.

Obviously, as people have said over the years, that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and it is the act of someone without hope.

So we know, regardless of whether people accepted Christian beliefs or not, Christianity, throughout our Nation's founding, provided hope. The Bible provided hope for those who were slaves through the 1700s and 1800s. So many were Christians, and it was the Bible, it was those wonderful spirituals, it was Scripture that gave them hope to endure and get through the horrors of slavery.

Though Abraham Lincoln bragged in his early twenties about being an infidel and not believing in God, Steve Mansfield, in his book in the last 5 years or so about Lincoln's struggle with God, documents his going from being an infidel to a point where, as President, he read Scripture constantly.

Dr. Rufus Fears, a brilliant history professor at the University of Oklahoma, asked me once: You know why Lincoln's speeches are so good and touch our hearts?

And I said: I don't know. They are just really well-worded. They are great speeches.

He said: No. He was reading so much Scripture by that point in his life, like the Gettysburg Address, he wrote his speeches as if they were Scripture. His words provided hope because he referenced Scripture so much.

And whether atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever, so many have a general knowledge of what Christians believe, and it is very basic. God, according to Genesis, the Old Testament, He created the world, created the universe, created man and woman. Basically, we got the Bible as an owner's manual, giving us important history so that we could get a good look at what works and what doesn't, and what the owner expects, and how we can live the most joyous and hopeful life even through terrible, perilous times.

Christianity goes on and, in the New Testament, points to the belief that the Old Testament, as we refer to it, points to the Messiah coming to be born in Bethlehem. So many of the prophecies about the Messiah to come. Even if one believes Jesus was not the Messiah, incredible that He could fulfill those prophecies the way He did.

And Christians, as people of most religions understand, believe what John 3:16 says: ``For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.''

So, clearly, Christian religion is based completely on love; that God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, who was perfect, unblemished with sins of the Earth. And only something--someone unblemished could take away the sins of the world.

And the additional exclamation point that makes clear that Christianity is a religion based on love: it was made clear by Jesus himself when He was asked by the lawyer, naturally: What's the greatest commandment?

He said: love God, and the others like it. Love each other. And on those two commands hang all the law and the prophets.

If you were to go about outlining the Ten Commandments, they easily fall under those two headings: Love God, love each other.

But then Jesus also made clear: Greater love hath no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

And Jesus knew, because whether you believe he was the fulfillment of all the prophecies from the Old Testament or not, He could have escaped. He made no effort. He gave himself out of love.

It is easy to say He is either a liar, or He is a lunatic, or He is exactly what He said. But his acts were based on love. He gave his life for a world that needed an unblemished lamb.

With that background, Mr. Speaker--and, of course, the Supreme Court outlined it much more thoroughly in the late 1800s as it came to the conclusion well after the horrid case of Dred Scott, when the court analyzed and made clear, determined, pronounced: Even though everyone in the United States is not a Christian, this is a Christian Nation.

And everything that the Court called into view in their decision testified to that fact, as the Court pronounced.

Now, so why am I going into this?

It is because we have hit what may be as low a point as we have ever hit in Congress. When Russell Vought was being questioned, on the same day, another person named Comey was testifying here on Capitol Hill. Russell Vought was being questioned by Senators so they could determine how they wanted to vote on whether or not he could fill a role in the administration. This low point in our Nation's history has to rank down there as one of our low points.

When so much throughout our history has testified to the fact that Christianity was such an important part of our foundation, of everything that has been good in America, the ending of slavery, driven and guided by churches. Sure, there were some atheists involved. The revolution following The Great Awakening, 1730s and 1740s, ended up yielding a revolution that produced the greatest country in the history of the world by virtue of the opportunities, by virtue of the protections for freedom-loving people around the world, by virtue of, you know, the opportunities and the assets, and that a country would ultimately arise where the number one health problem for the Nation's poor was obesity. With more opportunities, more assets, more freedoms, even then Solomon's Israel--incredible country with many religions-- celebrated here in the United States.

But as General Jay Garner was told when he was in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven out--he has told me twice--actually, three times has said it when I heard him speaking back in 2004. I called him. He reiterated it. He told me again in last September. Yes, I remember it correctly. He talked to a direct descendant of Mohammed in Iraq about what kind of government the U.S. should help Iraq have. I will contend we shouldn't be about nation building, but that was his order and that is what he was doing.

And he said that this descendant of Mohammed with a black turban said he was going to explain in his native tongue, because they were recording it. And then after he finished, he said: Now, let me just give you, in a nutshell, what I told you we need here for a government in Iraq. We need a government formed by Iraqis, a government composed of Iraqis, and a government based on a constitution which is based on the teachings of Jesus.

A descendant of Mohammed told Jay Garner that the best hope for a country was a constitution based on the teachings of Jesus, because basically those teachings of Jesus are the only way in which a nation can allow freedom of religion.

No matter which religion or agnosticism, atheism, whatever religion, it is not going to be able to truly allow freedom of religion unless it is based on the teachings of Jesus. And that is what this insightful descendant of Mohammed in Iraq told retired General Jay Garner.

So we get to 2017, a hearing on the same day Comey testified, this appointee nominee by President Trump, Russell Vought, a great man, a fine man, had his Christian beliefs perverted, twisted into something that was represented to be hateful. It is a religion based on the love of God and the love of His Son that would give his life for others.

Senator Sanders said: ``Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that

you wrote for the publication called `Resurgent.' You wrote, ``Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.''

Senator Sanders then went on and said: ``Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?''

Mr. Vought replied: ``Absolutely not, Senator. I am a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . . ''

Senator Sanders interrupts: ``I apologize. Forgive me, we just don't have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?''

Mr. Vought relied: ``Again, Senator, I am a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.''

Senator Sanders said: ``I understand that. I don't know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jew? Do they stand condemned, too?''

Mr. Vought replied: ``Senator, I'm a Christian . . . ''

Senator Sanders at this point is shouting: ``I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just--I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?''

Mr. Vought replied: ``Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that, as a Christian, that is how I should treat all individuals . . . ''

Senator Sanders responded: ``You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that is respectful of other religions?''

Mr. Vought said: ``Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.''

Senator Sanders said: ``I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.''

And that came from--the quotes came from an article in the National Review quoting from the hearing itself.

That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, this may be the low point for hope in America when a sitting Senator condemns someone who is simply quoting from the teachings of Jesus, teachings that even a descendant of Mohammed knew was helpful in creating a great nation.

We have come a long way from the hope that abounded within the founders of this country, within the hope of those who fought to bring about the end of the horrendous, hideous practice of slavery, where human beings treated brother and sister human beings with chains in bondage.

And now we come to a point that I feared--and I brought it up when hate crime legislation was discussed--that the day would come when the religion of the world based on the love of God and the love of Jesus Christ would be twisted to the point that it would be called hateful.

Jesus said: ``I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.''

He is either a liar or a lunatic or he is exactly who he said he was. But that is not hateful. It is not hateful to believe in a religion where you want to share the joy and the hope that comes from it.

One of the results, maybe it is a--not a result, but more of an unfortunate situation that exists. When you take away the hope of the Christian religion, condemn people for believing Jesus is the hope, as he said he was, or as our friend, the late Chuck Colson, pointed out: ``Our hope is not going to arrive on Air Force One.''

He believed the hope was in Jesus.

And now we have someone who is declared totally inappropriate to be a government official because he believes the teachings of Jesus. It is not hateful to believe the teachings of Jesus. In fact, someone--I know I have Jewish friends who have said: I thought Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus.

Well, the truth is that anyone who is a true Christian, if they blame Jews or anyone else for the death of Jesus, they are not a Christian. They don't understand the belief that Jesus died for me and for anyone who has done wrong in this life.

So it is a sad day, it is a sad week, and it is a sad month to look how far we have come from the hope that was once so prevalent. Now we are in a society where suicide is rampant--144 drug overdoses a day, and that doesn't count all of the suicides by veterans and Active Duty military.

Christianity is a religion of love. May God grant wisdom to any Senator who thinks otherwise.

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 6 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 28, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is a privilege and it is good for the House and good for America when Judge Ted Poe is on the floor making a case. He was a great judge, a great prosecutor before that, and we will always need his voice making a case here on the floor, especially the kind of strong case he was just making. And I want to follow up with that.

There was a story yesterday, June 22, by Kristina Wong. It says:

``James Comey may have misled Senators on May 3, when he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had never been an anonymous source in news reports related to the Russia investigation.

``By that time, he had already leaked several private conversations he had with President Trump to his friend Benjamin Wittes, editor-in- chief of the blog Lawfare and former editorial writer for The Washington Post.''

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall, as we see every day, evidence that The Washington Post does not just despise Donald Trump, they are actually malicious in their reporting. President Trump, as a public figure, would normally have a tough time making a case as a public figure for libel or slander because you have to prove malice. The Washington Post has proved repeatedly they are not interested in fairness or anything resembling balance. They can't stand Donald J. Trump, and they are out to try to get him in a malicious fashion.

So when anybody, especially somebody with the FBI, leaks anything to people that may have it end up in The Washington Post, they, indeed, themselves become part of the malice for our President.

The article says:

``Wittes wrote in a piece on May 18, only 9 days after Comey was fired, that the former FBI Director had shared those conversations `over the previous few months.' He wrote:

``Comey never told me the details of the dinner meeting; I don't think I even knew that there had been a meeting over dinner until I learned it from the Times story. But he did tell me in general terms that early on, Trump had `asked for loyalty' and that Comey had promised him only honesty. He also told me that Trump was perceptibly uncomfortable with this answer.''

Now, let me insert here because obviously Mr. Comey does not understand what loyalty means and why a President of the United States would ask for loyalty from the Director of the FBI. But what loyalty means from a Director of the FBI is: Mr. President, I will be loyal to the administration. I will not go out and leak things to the media and I will not go out and stab you in the back every chance I have, even though I have these friends that hate your guts. And I know when I leak things or share things to people that can't stand the President, it is going to hurt him and it is going to be disloyal.

That is what loyalty is. It is outrageous for someone to try to make an obstruction case out of a President asking for loyalty.

Look at what the Obama administration did. They prosecuted more people that they alleged were leakers than all other administrations put together. They were aggressive in prosecuting disloyalty.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, as President of the United States, wasn't threatening to prosecute the way the Obama administration obviously had done. And he didn't try to make an example of everybody by having them prosecuted if they leaked anything. Otherwise, Comey would be standing before a judge answering charges right now; and maybe that should come later.

All he was asking for is: I need you to promise me loyalty.

And the very question of a President just asking for loyalty ended up being a source of evidence that Mueller--not Mueller. That is another case altogether. There is plenty of evidence about him--that Comey is probably the most disloyal FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover was taping Presidents himself and having them watched and spied on.

So it is amazing, as smart as James Comey is--I have questioned him a number of times, so I know how smart he is. But as smart as he is, he couldn't figure out that loyalty would mean you don't run--try to make your President look bad after a simple meeting where the President just asked: Would you be loyal? I am not asking for the Moon. I am not asking for anything outrageous. I am simply asking: Would you please be loyal?

And even as President Trump was, apparently, asking for loyalty, this disloyal, dishonest Director of the FBI was already turning wheels in his head: How can I hurt this President? I know a reporter that hates Trump, who worked for the Trump-hating Washington Post. Even though he is not there now, he will know how to help me hurt Trump.

I mean, even as the President is asking for loyalty, that is what he is getting in the mind of the FBI Director.

So is it any mystery when we look back at the case history we have talked about here on the floor about how Comey manipulated John Ashcroft into recusing himself so Comey could push his own dear friend and godfather of his child, Patrick Fitzgerald, into being special counsel to go after the Bush administration?

Clearly, Comey and Fitzgerald were hoping to nail Karl Rove's and Dick Cheney's hide to the wall. That is what they were after.

And how do we know?

Because on day one--well, of course, the fact that Comey would push the godfather of his child into that position tells you all you need to know, but there is plenty more.

They both knew that Richard Armitage had leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. And they knew that there was no need for a special counsel or a special investigation. Yet they spent millions of dollars and man-hours trying to get beyond that and find some way to nail somebody they didn't like.

You would call that dishonesty or disloyalty because honesty would have had Comey and his dear friend and godfather of his child immediately going public on day one.

This would be honesty, to go forward and say: We know that the godfather of my child here, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to find out who leaked information about Valerie Plame and her dishonest husband, Joseph Wilson, who lied to the CIA and lied to Congress, but we still need to know.

And guess what. We already know on day one who leaked it. It was Richard Armitage. There is no need to squander taxpayer dollars and there is no need for the government to pay massive amounts of money to Patrick Fitzgerald to do this investigation.

We are honest individuals. We are coming forward, and, yeah, maybe it wasn't all that honest for me to put my dear close friend, Fitzgerald, in this position, but I am going to be honest now. We don't need this investigation.

But that is not what they did. They were disloyal and dishonest to the American people, to the Bush administration, and to justice. They asked for expanded jurisdiction, made it seem like they were on the trail of something big.

No, they weren't on the trail of anything big. They had nothing. They wanted to try to get somebody prosecuted, and that way they could try to justify the massive amount of expenditures for nothing, for no good reason, that they were about to go through.

Eventually, they prosecuted Scooter Libby for allegedly being inconsistent with something he said--same thing they went after Martha Stewart for.

There was no insider trading that Martha Stewart engaged in. And I know she is not a fan of Republicans--seems like a very nice person when I talked to her--but she was treated grossly unfairly. There was no insider trading. So they keep talking to her until they find they think she said something inconsistent so they could get a conviction, get a scalp under their belt, figuratively speaking, and claim they had done some great good. Comey was underneath, behind the scenes in that as well.

So it is amazing to me how anybody could try to be accusatory of someone, a President that said: Can you please promise me you will be loyal?

He didn't ask for anything illegal, nothing unethical, but apparently--you know, I didn't know Donald Trump. I supported Ted Cruz for over a year for President. But I have come to understand, this man has amazing instincts with people, amazing business acumen, figures out when something makes sense and something doesn't make sense.

One of the other Members of Congress just this morning was saying: You know, I never realized until I had seen the President in person, the man really has a big heart.

Okay. It was kind of surprising to some folks. But you get the inkling of it the more you are around him. And you see the way he treats kids, and we saw the way he treats children. You know, we saw the way he was so good to all kids. It didn't matter--he didn't care if they were Democrats' kids or Republicans' kids.

But I do recall, 8 years ago, one of my friends from Texas had a daughter, had her little book and pen, saw kids lined up getting an autograph from President Obama. So she ran over to get an autograph, and she came back in tears because she said when he got to her, he said, ``I am not signing yours,'' and walked away. Her parents assured her it was nothing personal. He just obviously had some kind of emergency.

But then later on, before the congressional picnic was over, she saw other children lined up getting an autograph. She ran, got to the end of the line, and once again, when President Obama got to her, he said, ``I told you, I am not signing yours.'' It took a long time to get over that.

But a lot of the people that saw the way President Obama treated some kids--not all of them, but some--saw the way President Trump didn't care anything about their background, what party their parents supported. He was just a gracious guy, obviously showed a big heart for kids.

So it would be understandable that somebody in business, doing multimillion-dollar deals, would need to know people were going to be loyal. And I have come to know enough about Donald Trump and his intuition about people he is dealing with, if he asks someone to be loyal and that person hedges their bets, said, well, I will be honest-- I haven't asked him, but I am willing to bet when James Comey refused to say he would be loyal but said he would be honest, I would be willing to bet you Donald Trump knew immediately this man is not going to be loyal or honest, and that is exactly what has happened.

James Comey has been both disloyal to his country, to the FBI, and to the President he was serving. He admitted leaking information. And some of us believe that if President Trump had not tweeted out, making reference to potential tapes of their conversations, that the disloyal, dishonest former Director of the FBI would probably not have been as honest as he was about some other things that were said.

But for anyone in the media to make some kind of big deal, potential obstruction of justice charge, just bringing up ``I need you to be loyal; tell me you will be loyal'' is absolutely outrageous.

I would expect every President, surely, if they were a good President, at one time or another needed to ask for a pledge of loyalty, not that you are going to lie, not that you are going to commit a crime, but you are not going to run out and leak stuff more than once the way James Comey did. You are going to be loyal to me. And if there is a problem, you come to me. You don't go leak it to your leftwing friends.

And also being loyal, I would think, would include that, if you believe there is a need for an independent counsel, a special counsel, and that you are a critical witness, that being loyal and being honest would--and being ethical would require that you not look forward to having one of your best friends in the world, Bob Mueller, being the special counsel.

My friends, my very dear friends, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Jody Hice--I have an article from yesterday. I have been talking about this for a week or so with different people, but we do need an independent counsel. We need a special counsel. And courts have made clear, Congress cannot appoint an independent counsel. It is an executive branch function. It is a violation of the separation of powers.

It has been made very clear: Congress can appropriate for independent counsel, they can make laws that create an office of independent counsel or a special prosecutor, they can do all those things, but they cannot, Congress cannot appoint an independent prosecutor, a special counsel. That is an executive branch function, and everyone in the executive branch derives their power, any that they have, from and through the President of the United States.

We know, there is no question about it, President Barack Hussein Obama regularly and intentionally obstructed justice, but we know that for a President to obstruct justice the way President Obama did was legal. He has the power to legally obstruct justice a number of ways, whether it is at the very end, just an outright pardon, or whether it is a dictation of policies the

way President Obama did: We are not going to go after and prosecute this group of people that have come in and committed crimes from other countries.

Some of us felt like it was terrible judgment, but President Obama had the legal authority to obstruct justice in directing the Justice Department not to pursue and prosecute certain groups of people or even individuals. He could pardon them outright before or after investigation. The President has that power. So does President Trump.

But as my friends point out in this article, Mr. Comey misled the American people in the early weeks of the Trump administration by furthering the perception that President Trump was under investigation when, in fact, he was not. He, again, did this willfully and intentionally, and, I would add, he did it disloyally and dishonestly.

They point out that Comey recently admitted that, after being fired from the FBI, he had a friend leak an internal FBI document to The New York Times detailing a conversation Comey had with President Trump. Comey testified under oath that he had ordered the leak to help create public momentum for the appointment of a special counsel, which we now know is Comey's mentor, predecessor, dear friend, Robert Mueller.

Unless anyone be confused--and I have even heard our great Speaker of the House say: Yeah, well, you know, the fact is his credentials are impeccable. We trust him.

Well, anybody who looks into Mueller's situation deeply enough will not say that his credentials are impeccable. He served honorably, heroically in Vietnam, but as FBI Director, he set a policy in place that would run people out of the FBI that had years of service and experience as supervisors. One article pointed out, he had run off thousands and thousands of years of experience.

I would submit it is because his egotistical narcissism would not allow him to have anybody that knew more than he did so they could question or offer suggestions contrary to what Director Mueller wanted. That is why he cost the FBI millions of dollars. And because of his poor leadership, his purging of the FBI training materials so that all these new people, after he ran off the experienced people that knew what radical Islam was--they had been trained to recognize it--ran them off, had younger people in there who were not allowed to learn what radical Islam was, so when the Orlando shooter or Tsarnaev or any of these others that were on the radar were investigated by Mueller's trained FBI, they didn't know what they were looking for. Because of the poor training--it wasn't intentional by Mueller that they would end up costing people their lives, but that is what happened.

An article points out: ``On May 7, 2014, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting of conservatives for their political beliefs. Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder blocked the appointment. This despite the fact that the lead investigator they assigned to the case, Barbara Bosserman, was a max-out contributor to President Obama's reelection campaign.

``This is the type of unequal justice the Americans despise. No special counsel in the IRS targeting investigation. No special counsel for the Clinton email investigation. But if it's about protecting Comey's reputation and hurting President Trump, then of course there has to be a special counsel.

``Throughout 2015 and 2016 there were calls from Congress for a special counsel in the Clinton email scandal.''

I mean, for heaven's sakes, when you have someone go out and destroy known evidence that has been subpoenaed with a hammer, now that is illegal obstruction of justice.

But, no, Comey didn't want that investigated. Oh, no, his dear friend Hillary Clinton, the dear couple that was so close to Loretta Lynch that she would order him to misrepresent what the FBI was doing, that she would get on a plane knowing he is the spouse of somebody they are supposed to be looking at prosecuting, that there is plenty of evidence to show she violated the law many times, criminal law many times, oh, no. But this Justice Department refused, even after it was revealed that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton less than a week before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton.

No special counsel was established, even allowed, or even recommended, even after some unusual Justice Department immunity deals, the deals the Justice Department made with Comey there as Director when he, apparently, was a big enough shot he could do his job and Loretta Lynch's; say, I'm not going to let anybody--what he said was no good prosecutor, in essence, would prosecute this case.

That was a lie, but he went before the public to say it to help his friends, the Clintons or, rather, better friends of Loretta Lynch and the President.

Boy, if President Trump had ever gotten the loyalty from James Comey that President Obama got, in numerous cases, undeservedly, people would be recognizing prior criminal activity for what it was and is.

Anyway, in one of the hearings, Mueller was asked about this incredible, horrendous activity of persecuting conservative organizations, refusing to allow them to form because they could go against President Obama in the next election. The Obama administration clearly used the IRS as one of its most effective campaign operative groups, and it worked. They were able, in 2012, to prevent conservative groups from forming and from coming after President Obama for problems he had created.

But with all the national furor over the IRS, Mr. Mueller was supposed to be so fair, so impartial. He is asked: Okay. Well, we're told we don't need a special counsel because you, the FBI, are all over this. You don't need any special prosecutor. You've got this under control. Who is the lead agent?

He couldn't answer the question.

He is asked: Okay. Well, how many agents have been assigned to the case?

Mueller could not answer that question.

He is asked: Have any victims been interviewed?

The answer again was: I don't know.

The reason was Mueller is not objective. He is not fair and balanced. He despises this President, like his and Comey's friends at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and elite circles. They have shown they are and have been disloyal to the President. They have been unjust to this President.

And Mueller, I mean, going back to when William Jefferson was being investigated, I haven't seen the articles in many years, but I do recall, because we were paying attention, when Mueller had a congressional office searched without having--there are many times Members of Congress have potentially probable cause they committed a crime, and the way it was always handled, for over 200 years, you go to the Speaker of the House, because things in a Member of Congress' office--like, at that time, nobody should have come into my office, even with a warrant from the FBI, and been able to get material that said what FBI agents were giving me information about the terrible administration in the FBI.

The only way we can have a balance of power and the only way we can have oversight is if the FBI has no right to come in and find out who the whistleblowers are, because they do come after them. We have seen that over and over.

But Mueller was out for blood. They get a search warrant. Forget 200 years of law. We are not going through the Speaker so they can preserve things that are privileged that the FBI shouldn't get. Always in the past--there have been many people prosecuted with things that came from their office, as I understood it.

I was in on one of the meetings between the Attorney General's lawyers, the House lawyers, and the FBI. They said: You know, many times we have given you--when you show us what it is, we make sure what is privileged stays privileged and give you the evidence that lets you prosecute.

But Mueller went straight there, as a smack at Congress: You better not have oversight of me, or I will come after you.

And when he was questioned about this issue that Congress was raising, his response was: Maybe it's time I appointed 400 agents to investigate Congress.

He was threatening Congress.

This is mean-spirited. This is an unfair, unjust man. And there is only one answer because he leaked out, ``I am investigating the President for obstruction of justice.'' Now if the President fires him, oh, it will be another Saturday night massacre.

So the answer is that the President has all the authority to appoint special counsel. He has got to appoint somebody to investigate Mueller, his chummy buddy Comey, their chummy buddy Loretta Lynch, and the Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton couple so we can finally find out truth, honesty, and loyalty in this country.

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 12 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 26, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, residents of east Texas are no strangers to bringing home championship trophies. Yet it is still a thrilling moment to welcome home a team after winning a national championship title. Even more so when they bring home a second national title the following year, and rarer still when the team then wins a third national championship. But it is truly unprecedented in NJCAA history for a team to win four straight national titles in a row. What an exceptional privilege it is to stand today to congratulate the Tyler Junior College Apaches baseball team for its fourth straight 2017 NJCAA Division III World Series victory, the 56th national title in the history of TJC.

The Apaches finished 4-0 in the World Series held in Greeneville, Tennessee, securing an historic fourth consecutive championship with a 5-1 victory over the Niagara County (New York) Thunder Wolves. The team won their final eleven games of the 2017 season with an impressive overall record of 41-20.

This remarkable accomplishment cannot be possible without the determination and hard work of every team member, along with the skill and experience of a dedicated coaching staff led by Head Baseball Coach Doug Wren, who has escorted the Apaches to six World Series appearances in eight years as Head Coach. Assisting Coach Wren are Assistant Coaches Chad Sherman and Garrett McMullen; Student Managers Colter Dosch and Cody Jamison; Student Trainers Justin Smith and Chase Day; Assistant Athletic Trainer Travis Gray, and Head Athletic Trainer Eddy McGuire.

My most enthusiastic praise and congratulations goes to national champions Braden Wise, Jarrod Wells, Payton Adams, Matt Mikusek, Travis French, Justin Roach, Taylor Broadway, Corben Henry, Ryan Lawhon, Blaze Beason, James Kuykendall, Jarel McDade, Austin Cernosek, Tyler Abney, John Gillett, Chase Evans, Garin Shelton, Beau Buesing, Colton Whitehouse, AbeRee Hiebert, Blake Maddox, Cameron Carver, Mason Whitmarsh, Daniel Priddy, Luke Boyd, J.P. Gorby, Austin Tambellini, Marco Gutierrez, Daniel Bogue, Jordan Trahan, Trevor Parker, Andrew Nichols, and Eric Bullock.

Tyler Junior College has been a beacon of academic excellence for more than ninety years. So it comes as no surprise the warrior spirit of pride and achievement extends to its athletic accomplishments under the leadership of TJC President Dr. Michael Metke, Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs Dr. Juan Mejia, Assistant VP/Athletics and Student Life Dr. Tim Drain, Assistant Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Kelsi Weeks, Associate Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Chuck Smith, and Administrative Assistant of Intercollegiate Athletics Sherry Harwood.

These exceptional student athletes have added a spectacular chapter to the legacy of Tyler Junior College. No matter how talented and committed the team, the path to a national championship would be much more challenging if not for the enthusiastic support of a fiercely loyal network of players' families, faculty, staff members, alumni, and community.

May God continue to bless these young people, along with their families, friends and neighbors in east Texas and beyond. It is a tremendous honor to recognize the 2017 NJCAA World Series Baseball Champions, the Tyler Junior College Apaches.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to finish his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my friend for pointing out the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

One thing about that group, when I was a judge, or assistant DA, if you needed somebody's banking records, then you would have to get sworn evidence--normally in affidavit form--and take it to a judge, and there had to be sufficient detail in the affidavit to establish--again, under oath--that a crime had probably been committed and that the person whose banking records we were seeking had probably committed the crime.

If that could be done, then the judge would sign the warrant. Like my years as a judge handling felony cases, there were some warrants I turned down. There is just not enough particularity here. There is not probable cause that this person committed the crime, or I don't see probable cause that a crime was committed. But, normally, law enforcement was good about making sure that probable cause was there, and the DA office would help them.

But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has come in and it has basically begun to challenge the Internal Revenue Service for acting in the most unconstitutional ways. It may be a toss up now which one uses more unconstitutional authority than the other.

For the CFPB to gather people's financial records when there is no evidence that they committed a crime, no evidence that any crime had been committed--they just gather evidence, purportedly, to make sure nobody is taking advantage of people--well, that is not the way our Constitution works. It is supposed to be that if a bank or a lender takes advantage of an individual, then the individual can complain; then their banking records can be obtained.

But for a governmental entity to just gather people's financial records, it is not just Orwellian; it is outrageous, and it needs to stop. And as my colleague, Mr. Palmer, was pointing out, they have gotten--it was set up back when the Democrats had the majority, and they intentionally set up this governmental entity that would basically be beyond control by the Congress. They intentionally set up a group that could make a living hell for individuals or for banks, for others, because it is the government and it is gathering people's records.

And then along comes--you had ObamaCare get passed. Well, in order to help people, just like the CFPB--and for my liberal friends, that is sarcasm--well, you are going to get everybody's healthcare records, that way the government can help people better because they will have all of their records.

Well, some people, some liberal left-leaning folks would say: Well, we call that helping people. We gather all of their medical records and we gather all of their financial records so we can help them. But those who are Libertarian, Conservative, we don't consider that helping; we consider that abusive, and we don't need it.

One of the great honors and developments since I have been in Congress has been the development of a friendship with just an absolutely great patriotic American. He is a friend of mine, and he has come twice to sit in my seat in the gallery, most recently to hear President Trump deliver a State of the Union Address.

Here is a story by Sean Hannity. It is entitled, ``Pull the plug on the Mueller-Comey witch hunt.''

It says: ``Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is turning into a witch hunt and it needs to be shut down immediately.

``Ex-FBI Director James Comey, who admitted sparking the probe by leaking information to The New York Times, is nothing more than a calculating, cunning partisan political hack at home in the D.C. swamp. During last week's hearing, Comey admitted that he intentionally gave a memo to his friend hoping it would lead to appointment of a special counsel.

``'I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,' Comey told lawmakers. `Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.'

``What Comey is admitting to under oath cannot be overlooked here or understated. His end goal was the appointment of the special counsel, which just so happens to turn out to be his longtime friend, Robert Mueller.

``By leaking information, Comey could be putting himself again in serious legal trouble. If those memos were classified--and several legal experts are arguing they are--Comey may have broken the law. Comey created those memos on government computers in a government truck, making it property of the U.S. Government, not James Comey. In addition to that, there are nondisclosure agreements that the FBI rules that exist that Comey also could have violated.

``Leaks aside, Comey's relationship with Mueller is a massive conflict of interest. It is why it is time to now shut down this political witch hunt that is really aimed at stopping the President, delegitimizing him and hopefully, in the minds of some, making sure he gets thrown out of office. It is that serious.

``We have a guy, Comey, who is beyond disgruntled and angry after being fired by the President and now one of Comey's closest friends is leading the investigation as the special counsel. I don't care if you are left, right, Republican, Democrat, does that sound fair, honest, objective to you? Of course not.

``Conflict of interest rules disqualify Mueller from being special counsel in a case involving his pal. And if that is not bad enough, four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats.

``Not to mention, why did James Comey wait until his hearing last week to actually mention the fact that Loretta Lynch, the then-Attorney General, tried to interfere with an FBI investigation? He testified that she instructed him to soft-pedal his investigation by calling it a `matter.' This on top of her infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.

``The real collusion that Mueller is never going to probe is not with President Trump and the Russians, it appears to be between the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, Loretta Lynch and James Comey.''

And I would add Mueller himself.

``Let's pull the plug on this witch hunt and go after the real lawbreakers.''

So that is from FOX News.

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary what has come out. I already knew before all of this started that Robert Mueller--a great patriot who served this country in the Vietnam war, Bronze Star for courage and bravery--but he got into government, and he apparently wanted nothing but yes-men. He wanted yes-men and -women. He didn't want people who had been around for a while that could point out when he had a suggestion that was going to lead to trouble. He would rather have the trouble than have anybody point out such things. So he created a policy he called the 5-year, up-or-out program.

We have FBI offices all over the country and local law enforcement that I have worked with so many times through so many years. And, as people know, you will have bad apples in every crowd, but I would submit that when you are talking about law enforcement, the percentage of bad apples is dramatically lower than you find in the general population at large. We are greatly blessed in that respect. But with all of the massive number of employees with the Department of Justice, Mueller has this 5-year, up-or-out policy.

So if you were in a supervisory position of any kind for 5 years anywhere in the country, then at the end of the 5 years, you had to uproot your wife and your children--your family--and you had to move to Washington and be a minion among minions in the office here at the Department of Justice; or, if you weren't willing to uproot your family in the communities where they had gained so much credibility and were considered such an important part of law enforcement in the area, then you had to get out of the FBI. It is not that you weren't absolutely priceless and invaluable to law enforcement, it is that Bob Mueller did not want your experience where you might ever question him.

So as an article--I believe it was in The Wall Street Journal--years ago pointed out, under his leadership, the FBI lost thousands upon thousands of years of experience. So we keep having people get killed around the country, and people wonder: How did the FBI not pick this up? How did the FBI not recognize this?

Well, I recall when I got out of law school and I was an assistant DA, I would see criminal defense attorneys. I would think in my head--I would know in my head--I knew a whole lot more law than they did. Heck, I had won moot court; won a trip to London, England; at Baylor Law School, I won an award for best brief award--for that I had a partner. I won an award for a Law Review article on torts that I did. Gee, I was coming up against lawyers who hadn't won awards in law school like I had. So I am going: gee, this ought to be pretty easy. They are not near as smart as I am when it comes to the law.

What I learned rather quickly in courtroom work is that knowledge of the law is extremely helpful, but experience is even more helpful: getting a feel and an understanding of human nature, learning to pick up different signs

from people, what they think about different things, when they are holding something back; when you are cross-examining somebody, when to know to keep going or when to know to stop. There are a lot of things you pick up over questioning thousands of people.

Somebody right out of law school that knows every bit of the law is going to have a hard time competing with somebody that has a tremendous amount of experience in the courtroom with human nature.

That is true of law enforcement. I have known law enforcement that just had an incredible knack for just knowing when people were lying. It is amazing to see some of our great law enforcement at work, as I have through my career.

But FBI Director Robert Mueller didn't want them around. After you have been in a supervisory position for 5 years or more, you either come to Washington and take up your little cubicle or get out. Again, Robert Mueller did incalculable damage to the FBI, to its experience, to its ability to root out and find criminals. That experience that he ran off from the FBI was absolutely incalculable. It is just priceless.

He also spent millions on a software program. Many tried to tell him: Wait, you have got us inputting stuff in a system that is not going to work. It doesn't fit our needs.

I don't know if he had some relative there he got it from, why he was so sold on this terrible program. People tried to tell him, but those are the people he wanted out. He didn't want anybody questioning his brilliant intellect.

As a result, they wasted a massive number of hours by FBI employees and wasted the millions that were spent on the program trying to make the program work. Later they had to scrap it. Why? Because he was talked into a bad program, and he wouldn't listen to anybody that tried to tell him about the problems.

We also know that one of the reasons we continue to have people who were on the radar of the FBI--even questioned by the FBI--continue to get away with murder, literally, or be able to commit murder in America and commit terrorism involving murder, is because Robert Mueller tried to make radical Islamists who hate America and who want to overthrow our way of life feel better. So he brought in people to purge our training material in the FBI so that we wouldn't offend radical Islamists who want to kill us.

Michele Bachmann and I reviewed much of the material that was purged. Lynn Westmoreland viewed some of it and he had to go, but it involved hours going through.

Unfortunately--and obviously it was intentional--but the FBI, under Mueller, classified the purged materials so I couldn't have a blowup poster here to show something very important that FBI agents would need in order to understand radical Islam. So they classified that so I can't bring it down here and show people. Once again, the damage that FBI Director Robert Mueller did to the FBI was basically incalculable. I mentioned before, one of our intelligence guys said: We were blinded of our ability to see our enemy.

We have Robert Mueller to thank, or CAIR, the Council on American- Islamic Relations, that is always there to rush in and have a press conference after violence and say: We don't support this kind of violence.

Though, clearly, when the evidence is reviewed, the Council on American-Islamic Relations--individuals involved in CAIR--ultimately wants to see sharia law as the law of the land. There are principals that should have been prosecuted as supporting terrorism.

There were scores of people that were listed as co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. Instead of pursuing those after the Holy Land Foundation trial convicted the principals involved--I think it was over 100 counts of supporting terrorism--instead of being alerted and being more on his guard, FBI Director Mueller bent over backwards more and more to accommodate those who want to see Sharia law take over America and be the law of the land, scrapping our Constitution.

At one time it was considered treason to want to scrap the Constitution and replace it with anything, but in Bob Mueller's America, people that wouldn't mind seeing the Constitution go away and be replaced by Sharia law, you want to develop an outreach program for those people.

So instead of going to the Boston mosque, where the Tsarnaevs surely had to have indicated and shown signs of being radicalized, Robert Mueller and his FBI went to the mosque as part of an outreach program to make merry and play patty cake with people who could have established, if they were honest, that the Tsarnaev brothers had indeed been radicalized, the information from Russia was correct.

Yet because, under Bob Mueller's leadership, the training materials were purged, FBI agents didn't know what they were looking for. They didn't know what scriptures in the Koran were referred to, were quoted by people who had been radicalized.

They had no idea what to look for in speaking to Kim Jensen, who prepared over 700 pages of training materials so people in the FBI could learn radical Islam. His training materials were banned. They were supposed to have been destroyed, but after it became clear that the FBI could not recognize radical Islamists, that Mueller had done so much damage in regard to training FBI agents, it was finally decided that we kind of need to get somebody back in here and get some materials back in here so maybe we don't keep getting people killed in the country after we are alerted to somebody who has been radicalized as an Islamic terrorist and we let them go because we don't know they are radicalized because FBI Director Robert Mueller prevented our FBI from being trained to recognize radical Islam.

I know there are some people who--not because they are aware of his virtues, but have heard other people say he is a great guy--just extoll his virtue, not realizing the kind of damage that has been done.

As I mentioned last night, Mr. Speaker, you look at the damage that James Comey and Robert Mueller--really tight friends--have done to the country to an extent I didn't even realize until we started looking at the article by Mollie Hemmingway in The Federalist, which is rather breathtaking, and I had no idea until I read that.

According to the article, Comey talked a very fine man, John Ashcroft, into recusing himself so he would not appoint a special prosecutor to find out who leaked the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. He commits to Ashcroft: Recuse yourself and I will find somebody good.

Mr. Comey likes to talk about conflicts of interest, unless they apply to himself.

So Ashcroft recuses himself, and Mr. Comey, who convinced him to do so, looks high and low: Who could we possibly find to investigate and prosecute whoever it was that leaked information about Valerie Plame? Oh, how about my very dear friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, who happens also to be the Godfather of my child?

So he likes to talk about conflict of interest and chummy relationships, unless they are his chummy relationships, in which case he just puts them in places which appear to be clear conflicts of interest. Which is no surprise that he was supportive and even manipulative in creating what appeared to be a need for a special prosecutor, which actually there was not a need for a special prosecutor at all. He just leaked information. There was a good chance he probably violated the law. He certainly should have violated his FBI employment agreement.

Memos that he prepares as part of his job regarding meetings he had as part of his job, those should belong to the FBI under an employment agreement. I am sure that he has seen Presidents for whom he has worked take their own memos and take them back and use them to write books. Perhaps that is what he is thinking: I will take my memos that I personally prepared and I will be like a President and I will save my memos and use them to write a book.

Of course, it turns out, with regard to this one memo that he wrote about his conversation with President Trump, he consulted with other members of the Justice Department, who all need to be fired, and colluded with them to figure out what should be done.

There is no question these people are smart, or they wouldn't be where they were. They knew that if there was an obstruction of justice in which Trump

had engaged, then they would have to report it. Failing to report it would be a crime. They didn't. So we know there was no crime. What we know is they were conspiring and colluding to hurt the President of the United States.

So we don't need a special prosecutor. We certainly don't need Mueller. He has done enough damage. It is time to let the special prosecutor go that Comey needlessly created.

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 6 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.