Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Tyler Junior College Apaches Women's Tennis Team on winning the 2017 NJCAA Division I Women's Tennis Championship.

This is the 18th national championship in the women's tennis program's outstanding history and the 55th national title for Tyler Junior College.

The TJC Apaches won their 2017 championship in a hard-fought victory against ASA Miami (FL), winning with 46 points to ASA Miami's 44, at the Reffkin Tennis Center in Tucson, Arizona. The Apache's victory capped off an undefeated 21-0 regular season.

Aside from winning the overall tournament, several team members excelled individually as well. Three TJC freshmen, Jasmine Asghar, Kalani Soli, and Yuna Ito each earned a singles title. Ms. Soli and Montana Moore also brought home a doubles championship, winning 6-2; 6- 2 in straight sets.

Congratulations should also be extended to team members Mekeila Erspamer, Oceane Garibal, Elena Tendero, and Michelle Walker for their significant roles in bringing the entire team to victory.

This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the athletic staff including Head Coach John-Paul Connell, Assistant Coaches Kimm Ketelson and Brent Krivokapich. We must also extend accolades to TJC President Dr. L. Michael Metke, Assistant VP/Athletics and Student Life Dr. Tim Drain, Assistant Athletic Director Kelsi Weeks, Associate Athletic Director Chuck Smith, and Administrative Assistant Sherry Harwood.

The faculty, staff, and friends of Tyler Junior College and the entire community of Tyler have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these outstanding young athletes in the pursuit of their dreams.

It is my most esteemed honor to acknowledge everyone involved with this endeavor. May God continue to bless these students, their families and friends, and all those individuals who call Tyler, Texas their home.

Congratulations to the 2017 NJCAA Division I Women's Tennis Champions, the Tyler Junior College Apaches, as their championship legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues' tribute to the victims of that terrible tragic murder spree by a radical Islamist who said he was doing it for the Islamic State. The attorney general herself indicated that we have a tape of him saying he is doing it for the Islamic State.

There is nothing that justifies such an outrageous murder of even one innocent victim, much less the dozens that were mowed down by what could normally, in the old days, be said to have been a crazed killer. But he wasn't so much crazed as he was driven by a radical Islamic agenda, the same radical Islamic agenda that caused 30 million, mostly Muslim, Egyptians to rise up. Coming near the anniversary of that event in Egypt, the greatest peaceful uprising in the history of the world, the Egyptians said: We don't want a Muslim brother, we don't want a radical Islamist controlling our country.

It was rather tragic that the shooter--and I don't want to give him any more notoriety than necessary, so I won't mention his name--was not a lone wolf, as is so often supposed and we were led to believe repeatedly during the Obama administration. But as Reporter Patrick Poole indicates, he was yet another known wolf. The FBI knew he was and the local law enforcement knew who he was, which brings me to a point I wanted to discuss tonight.

Robert Mueller is the special prosecutor who now needs to resign. He was the FBI Director that had the FBI training materials purged so FBI agents could not know what they were looking for in a radical Islamist. He changed the training. He purged it to please the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

As one intelligence officer said: We blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy.

That is what FBI Director Robert Mueller did.

When challenged in a hearing where I was questioning him over the pitiful investigation of the Tsarnaev older brother after Russia had notified us twice in the United States of his radicalization, after the second time, finally, ho-hum, Mueller's FBI not being adequately trained to recognize what a radical Islamist believes, how they act, what they do, what they are studying, what they are memorizing, what they wear, what their personal appearance is, they are not trained to recognize, they didn't know what they were looking for.

They didn't know what they were looking for. They go out. The best we can find out, they talked to Tsarnaev, and he said, ``No, I'm not a terrorist,'' basically.

So, not knowing what else to do, since Mueller had destroyed the proper training to recognize radical Islamists, they went and talked to his mother who assured them, ``No, he's a good boy; he's not a terrorist,'' and the result was people murdered and maimed at the Boston Marathon.

The result of the FBI going after those who would try to teach others what real radical Islam was, the results of dumbing down the FBI and their ability to spot people who wanted to kill others in the name of Allah: people killed at Boston, people killed in Orlando. And it wasn't any more the fault of guns in Orlando than it was the fault of a white truck in London.

It is the people who use those weapons to kill; otherwise, it is a matter of defense, the great equalizer. The truck is a great means of conveyance.

But Robert Mueller has created problems for this country, and there are a lot of people that are buried now. Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not be deceased if Robert Mueller had done his job and had been as concerned about finding radical Islamists in America as he was--as he told me, they didn't go to the Boston mosque where Tsarnaev surely gave evidence of being radicalized. That is not his words. I said: You didn't even go to the mosque to find out, to talk, to investigate.

The best he could do is come back and say: We did go to that mosque as part of our outreach program, part of the lovely sit down, chat, have some tea, whatever--I don't know what they had, water, whatever it was--make merry, chat. While Tsarnaev was plotting to murder many people, as many as he could at the Boston Marathon, Bob Mueller and his FBI are making merry at the Boston mosque that he did not even know who started it. I asked him that. He didn't know.

I said: Did you even know that al-Hamoudi started that mosque? No, he didn't know that. Al-Hamoudi is doing 23 years--23 years--in Federal prison for supporting terrorism. And as I understand, I had heard that that was more to the credit not of Mueller's folks, but of help from England. How ironic is that?

But I see that I have a friend here. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Honoring the Life of Coach Spike Dykes

I thank my friend from Texas, a great, noble tribute.

I wish that it were I who was standing here to say glowing things about people that have been running the FBI; but President Trump as a candidate said he wanted to come drain the swamp, and the more we dig, the more it appears to be a swirling cesspool up here.

We had a man who had been running the FBI who came before the Senate, a Senate committee and testified that he did a memo after talking to President Trump, that he had never felt the need to do a memo after talking to President Obama or President Bush or to take notes like he did; but he was afraid that Trump might lie sometime in the future, and so he felt it important to do a memo, to write some notes. That is what he said.

Rather incredibly, he didn't find a need to do a memo after Attorney General Loretta Lynch, according to him, told him what really has to be a lie. She knew that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for a crime. It was a criminal case, a criminal investigation. She directed FBI Director Comey not to use ``investigation,'' use ``matter.'' Well, it was an investigation, and to say anything other than that was a lie.

But how ironic that he was afraid Trump might lie in the future; whereas, he had an Attorney General that made him feel a little uneasy, but he didn't write any notes. So what about his credibility?

Well, he said he took those notes as a recollection refreshed. And those of us that have tried cases, been judges, you know, we know that past recollection recorded can be an exception to the hearsay rule. But if he signed an FBI employment agreement, which people are supposed to sign, it should have included these words: ``All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon demand by the FBI, or upon my separation from the FBI, all materials containing FBI information in my possession.''

That means that if an FBI agent, Director, FBI employee makes notes, makes a memorandum to refresh his recollection later, it is not a personal piece of property any more than what Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks was personal property to him. It doesn't matter that he prepared it. It was done while being paid by the FBI, on FBI time, regarding FBI matters. As FBI Director, he was talking to the President.

How ironic, also, we have no memos after President Obama made the basic statement that he didn't think Hillary should be prosecuted. We haven't heard any outcry from the great Director Comey about how wrong that was. What an obstruction of justice by President Obama. We didn't hear any of that.

I mean, that is about as direct as you can get when the President was talking on television and told the world, and the fact that you may say it out front to the world doesn't make it any less intimidating or directional than if you look somebody in the face one on one and tell them. It is not a defense to say it on television, and yet he wasn't concerned by that.

So we start looking a little deeper since it appears he wasn't being honest about being his personal property, and you would like to think that he had a good legal education, but Alan Dershowitz has made clear that the FBI--there is nothing wrong if the President tells him we are not prosecuting this individual for this crime. I am pardoning him here and now. He has the power.

All power that Director Comey has is derived from his boss, the President. So why would he go back and do a memo and consult or, I believe the more proper word is ``collude'' with others at the Justice Department about what the President said?

Because, make no mistake, if any of those individuals at the Justice Department who were colluding with James Comey after he met with the President, if they thought there was an obstruction of justice and they didn't report it as they did not, then they committed a crime. So why would they not report it?

It appears there can only be one answer. Surely they did not intend to commit a crime by misprision of a felony if they really believed it were obstruction. So it appears, since they clearly did not think that there was obstruction of justice in the President's use of the word ``hope,'' then they must have surely applauded James Comey's writing of a memo, writing of notes so that he could pull it out later and use it to go after the President. There can be no other reason that he did what he did.

He either committed a crime by not reporting obstruction as soon as he possibly could, or he was colluding with his colleagues to bring down the President of the United States. So, the more we find as we dig, the more of a cesspool it appears to be here in Washington.

Mollie Hemingway has done an extraordinary job today from The Federalist. She goes through, she has an article: ``James Comey Has a Long History of Questionable Obstruction Cases.''

I wish I had remembered these, and I feel a bit guilty that I didn't realize at the time these things were going on, the miscarriage of justice that was occurring at the hands of James Comey and Bob Mueller.

She brings up Frank Quattrone, ``a banker who Comey pursued relentlessly on banking-related charges without fruition. But while he couldn't find any wrongdoing or criminal conduct, he went after him for supposed `obstruction of justice' because of a single ambiguous email. Sound familiar?

``Before he was indicted''--talking about Quattrone, before Quattrone was indicted--``Comey made fall statements about Quattrone and his intent. The first trial ended in a hung jury, but the second one got a conviction.

``That conviction was overturned in 2006. Quattrone was so scarred by the harassment''--by Comey--``he began funding projects designed to help innocent people who are victims of prosecutorial overreach or other problems.''

``He said his motivation for supporting such projects was that at the very moment he was found guilty in the second trial, he realized there must be innocent people in prisons who lacked the financial resources to fight for justice. He also started the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

``Quattrone has noted, with interest, the disparities in how he was treated by Comey for a single ambiguous email compared to his handling of Hillary Clinton's email server scandal,'' with thousands, tens of thousands of email.

How about Martha Stewart? ``You might remember Martha Stewart being sent to jail. You might not remember that James Comey was the man who put her there, and not because he was able to charge her for anything he began investigating her for. The original investigation was into whether Stewart had engaged in insider trading. They didn't even try to get her on that charge. Gene Healy wrote about it in 2004, warning about Federal prosecutorial overreach.''

By Comey, of course. He said, ``Comey didn't charge Stewart with insider trading. Instead, he claimed that Stewart's public protestations of innocence were designed to prop up the stock price of her own company . . . and thus constituted securities fraud. Stewart was also charged with making false statements to Federal officials investigating the insider trading charge--a charge they never pursued. In essence, Stewart was prosecuted for `having misled people by denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged,' as Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds put it.

``The pursuit was described as `vindictive' in The New York Times and `petty and vindictive' in The Daily Beast.

``But she still served a 5-month prison sentence.''

Stephen Hatfill, and this is one that really gets me to my core. I did not remember the outcome, and I feel guilty, but I was handling felony cases back in Texas at the time.

``The FBI absolutely bungled its investigation into the Anthrax attacker who struck after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Carl Cannon goes through this story well, and it's worth reading for how it involves both Comey and his dear `friend' and current special counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI tried--in the media--its case against Hatfill. Their actual case ended up being thrown out by the courts:

``Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the

Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

``More from Cannon, recounting how messed up the attempt to convict Steven Hatfill for a crime he didn't commit was:

``In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters--including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI. So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they had `alerted' on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

``When Bush administration officials were worried about the quality of the case Mueller and Comey had, the two men assured them. `Comey was ``absolutely certain'' that it was Hatfill,' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.

``Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life,'' Cannon wrote. He shouldn't have been certain in this case. After the six years the FBI spent destroying his life, they settled a $4.6 million lawsuit he filed and officially exonerated him.''

Good work, James Comey and Bob Mueller. You ruined the life of a man with no evidence at all, but told the Bush administration, oh, we are absolutely certain this is the guy.

What about Scooter Libby, and Judith Miller? I didn't remember this: ``After pressuring John Ashcroft--I am reading through the article-- ``After pressuring John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the responsibility on the grounds of potential conflicts of interest, Comey gave Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend and godfather to one of his children, the role of special counsel into the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. Some conflicts of interest are more important to Comey than others, apparently.

``Fitzgerald immediately discovered that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. Of course, the FBI and Department of Justice had known that all along, so Comey's push for a special counsel is . . . intriguing.''

There was no reason for a special counsel. The FBI knew it. The Department of Justice knew it. They pushed for one anyway. Comey was at the middle of it.

Mueller, you know, his close friend, of course, but Fitzgerald was the godfather of one of his children, for heaven's sake.

``The 3-year investigation was a cloud over the Bush administration''--which didn't seem to bother Comey at all, oh, of course not--``and resulted in nothing but the jailing of a journalist''--who was protecting a source, even though they didn't need it. Wow, how mean-spirited--``. . . and a dubious prosecution of Scooter Libby for, 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.''

And it talks about Hillary Clinton in this article, but I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, this is a scary time in America.

You have this article from John Hinderaker, June 10, Power Line, quoting Senator Warner:

``And so, in all of your experience''--he is talking to Director Comey--``this was the only President that you felt like, in every meeting, you needed to document, because at some point, using your words, he might put out a non-truthful representation of that meeting?''

Comey says: ``That's right, Senator.''

He goes on: ``. . . I had a one-on-one meeting with President Bush about a very important and difficult national security matter.

``I didn't write a memo documenting that conversation either--sent a quick email to my staff to let them know there was something going on, but I didn't feel, with President Bush, the need to document it in that way, again, because of--the combination of those factors just wasn't present with either President Bush or Obama.''

This article goes on to point out that is simply not true. That was a lie.

And whoever remembered that a book named ``Angler'' was written by Barton Gellman, with Comey as his big chief source, went so far as to be able to quote the conversation after working with Comey, and in the footnotes from the ``Angler,'' it says: ``Quotations from the Bush- Comey conversations are taken verbatim from unclassified notes describing Comey's report of the meeting shortly afterward.''

But Comey's email that he says he just let them know that there was something going on, here is what he said in his email, because it was printed in ``Angler.''

``The President just took me into his private office for a 15-minute, one-on-one talk. Told him he was being misled and poorly served. We had a very full and frank exchange. Don't know that either of us can see a way out. He promised he would shut down 5/6 if Congress didn't fix FISA. Told him Mueller was about to resign. He just pulled Bob into his office.''

Yeah, he didn't just say something was going on. He told him what happened. He memorialized that visit with a note, and then in the book, it is word-for-word, according to Mr. Comey, what was said, and it makes him to be out all American, clean, honest, upstanding, fine law enforcement officer, when it turns out he was anything but that.

``The real pattern,'' as it says here at the end of the article is that, ``Comey is a snake in the grass who creates tendentious, self- serving memos that can later be used to cover his own rear end or to discredit presidents, but only if they are Republicans.''

Gellman's phrasing was clumsy in the article, but this is serious stuff that it turns out, oh, four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats. Well, isn't that cozy? Comey closely coordinated with Mueller on Trump testimony. We heard from the FBI Director that he actually did collude with other members at the Justice Department.

It is so clear. There are people at the Justice Department out to get President Trump, out to get Attorney General Sessions. They are out to get every one of them, and just the way they did, the man they said there was no question was the culprit in killing people with anthrax, that was a lie.

And they don't care who gets hurt. It is time to dismiss the special prosecutor; see if we really need one because now we know that Comey manipulated the system exactly the way he manipulated it when he told John Ashcroft he should recuse himself so he could appoint Patrick Fitzgerald, give him the appointment, that is.

Enough is enough of Comey, of Mueller. It is time to drain the swamp, and they will go down the drain when we do.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 26 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to come before and stand before the Speaker and stand on this floor where so much great debate has occurred over the decades, even back to 150 years ago.

Now, I have been heard to say over the last few days a number of times that I thought the Comey testimony was ultimately the most overhyped event since Y2K, much ado about nothing, but one thing came through very, very, very clearly. I didn't watch the testimony. I was busy presiding over a hearing involving the Justice Department and grants to local communities and how that money is being spent, but I have gone back and been reviewing the testimony. The thing that strikes me most clearly is that our President, Donald J. Trump, is one of the most perceptive, intuitive leaders this country has ever had. He wasn't sure, apparently, if he could trust Comey.

Now, we have heard from a lot of other people in the administration, some still there, some not. This issue about the President's concern for loyalty with Comey indicates our President's gut instinct was right on. He was dealing with an FBI Director who was such a political animal that he would listen to the Attorney General of the United States and instruct him to change his testimony to--I would submit, when you know it is an investigation that you are engaged in, looking at the emails and the potential criminality of Hillary Clinton, and your boss, the Attorney General, said: No, no, no--obviously it is an investigation-- call it a matter.

Nobody calls the FBI investigations matters. So he has no problem changing his statement from the truth to political manipulation to cover for Hillary Clinton and to immediately do

what his boss tells him to do: Lie about it. You know it is an investigation and I know it is an investigation, but we need you to lie about it. Just call it a matter.

I have dealt with some of the finest people I have known in my life that happened to work for the FBI at the time we were working together. I worked with them, and I have never, ever in any Federal court setting or Federal investigation setting heard any FBI agent in charge--field agent, leader in the FBI, the Justice Department--call an investigation a matter. But Mr. Comey is such a political animal that he was willing to salute not the flag, but Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch and change what he knew to be the truth so that his answer was more misleading.

So it is really interesting. Comey used the word, or said that Trump used the word, hoped that he would let it go.

Let's visit the Constitution briefly here. The Constitution does not mention an Attorney General. The Constitution does not mention the Federal Bureau of Investigation and does not mention a Federal Bureau of Investigation Director. It mentions Congress, it mentions the courts, and it mentions the executive branch, the President. It doesn't mention FBI Director, Attorney General. It is the President, under our Constitution, who is charged with seeing to the prosecution or the failure to prosecute as he believes is appropriate.

So, of course, somebody had to have been committing crimes in the Fast and Furious project, whatever you want to call it. I am not sure what it was. It sure appeared to be a criminal enterprise with people involved from DOJ conspiring to make sure that weapons got into the hands of criminals, which, in and of itself, was a crime.

We also know that by the Department of Justice's representatives getting involved during the Obama administration as part of this Fast and Furious effort, they called it, guns got into the hands of criminals, and Brian Terry was killed, a Federal agent doing his job. There is no indication that if the Department of Justice had not forced those guns to be sold and to get into the hands of criminals that Brian Terry would not be dead.

If the Department of Justice had not forced this issue, forced guns into criminals' hands, we may very well have been hearing Brian Terry testify a number of times instead of pointing back toward his murder at the hands of criminals who our Department of Justice representatives under Eric Holder got guns to.

It might have been good to have a special counsel in the Fast and Furious investigation--or, as Loretta Lynch and Mr. Comey liked to use to deceive people, matter, Fast and Furious matter--because the truth is they didn't do much of an investigation.

We saw emails indicating that there was an effort to try to use getting those guns into the hands of criminals, drug cartels, as an excuse to take away law-abiding Americans' Second Amendment rights and continue to pursue that effort.

We also know that the IRS had people who were working to prevent conservatives from having an effect in the 2012 election the way they did in 2010. As the movement was growing, the Obama administration used the IRS as a political weapon to disarm those who would bring together funds and try to defeat President Obama in a second term. That certainly deserved a special counsel since all we seemed to get in our investigations from Congress' angle was a coverup.

It harkens us back to the Clinton administration when this tactic was discovered by people within the Clinton administration: Just cover things up. Just deny, obfuscate, and refuse to allow people to see the documentation. Destroy it after somebody dies. Get the records out of their office before anyone else has a chance to properly investigate what happened.

Somebody is alleged to have killed themselves at Fort Marcy Park. Then as I heard from my friend Dan Burton, they were questioning the person that supposedly found the body out there: Well, that is not where it was. That is not where the gun was. Everything appears to be changed.

Well, the Clinton administration discovered this wonderful tactic of obfuscating: just keep denying and denying the ability to get information and records, and if you do it long enough, you run out the clock and people don't get prosecuted.

We have seen that occur for 8 years. There were very, very serious matters in which somebody committed crimes. We didn't get a special investigator. We didn't get a proper investigation. We got a stonewall protecting those who must have done wrong. I am hoping the current Attorney General will dig and people that are responsible for crimes will be held to account.

But the fact is it is the President's obligation under the Constitution to either pursue people or not pursue people. That is why, even though many of us were extremely upset that President Obama kept pardoning people who were convicted felons, and as much as it upset us that he, in a literal sense, not only obstructed justice, he destroyed it, unfortunately, the President has authority to demand people not be prosecuted.

So we heard new priorities around the country when President Obama took office. He didn't want his Justice Department spending a lot of time on enforcing drug laws. It turns out they hardly ever prosecuted. Compared to other administrations, they hardly ever prosecuted criminal gun violations--far fewer than past administrations--because what they wanted to do was allow the gun crimes to continue to ratchet out of control and then use that to demand more gun control when they weren't even using the laws that were in effect. Instead of enforcing the laws in effect, they continued to demand more gun control.

Just enforce what we had. Most all the crimes that were brought up during that period were crimes already without any other gun control laws needing to be passed and signed into law. Just enforce what we have.

But that wasn't happening. Nobody stood up and said President Obama should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, because as distasteful as it was to me and so many others, the President has a right to set priorities as to what his prosecutors will pursue and what will be left alone.

So it is interesting on the Flynn matter. President Trump had every right to say: Look, I am giving a pardon, a pass, to this person and to that person. Let's move on. I hope you will find something else to do.

Trump didn't even do that. President Trump said he hoped, an aspiration, but there was no obstruction of justice.

How do we know that? Because we have found, through the testimony of former Director Comey, an incredibly innate ability to see everything through a political lens instead of a law-and-order lens. That is why he could have one Attorney General telling him, ``Change what you are going to say so it deceives the public,'' and that is not a problem, we don't do a memo about that, but another President indicates: He is concerned about my loyalty and he brings it up, so I better do memos so that I can take him down later because he doesn't trust me.

Well, for good reason. The loyalty was to Loretta Lynch, the loyalty was to Hillary Clinton, the loyalty was to Barack Obama.

And Trump, what an incredible innate ability. He knew Comey was not a loyal, law-and-order man. He would twist the truth, as he was directed by someone else, but he would also twist an untruth through, hurting the current President.

It appears President Donald J. Trump was exactly right in firing Comey. We didn't need to continue to have a politically astute diplomat wannabe running our FBI. We needed somebody that was law and order, no matter what.

Alan Dershowitz is a staunch Democrat, but through the years and with the things I disagreed with him on, I know he is a smart man. Here are some of the things he tweeted out:

``Comey says he understood word `hope' to be a direction. If so, why didn't he tell the President that such a direction would be violation of DOJ rules?''

Well, here, again, the fact is, if Director-at-the-time Comey believed there was any effort to obstruct justice, then he was committing a crime, a felony, by not reporting it.

I was surprised that he went as far as he did today--because he did-- by pushing as hard as he did on this idea that

saying ``hope'' might have been a direction. The more he pushed that, the more he exposed himself to prosecution for a felony because he didn't report it.

But the truth is, even though he wrongly believed that there was something--a violation of law or obstruction--it wasn't. If he honestly believed that, he had to report it, and he didn't.

Oh, yeah, he did a memo. I wonder if we would have ever seen that memo if he had not been fired. I can guarantee if he had not been fired, from what we have now learned today, you can count on the fact that he, as Director of the FBI, would make memos any time it might help him harm President Donald Trump, but he would continue not to do memos when somebody, a Democrat, told him to mislead the public.

Alan Dershowitz said: If President commits independent crimes, for example, Nixon telling the staff to lie to the FBI, that is a crime.

You can't tell somebody to commit a crime, even if you are President.

Alan Dershowitz said: Paying dollars to silence witnesses is a crime.

You can't commit a crime or tell somebody to commit a crime even though you are President. That is obstruction. You should be prosecuted.

Mr. Dershowitz said: ``Comey confirmed my view that, under the Constitution, the President would have the authority to order FBI Director to stop investigating Flynn.''

He would. Just as Barack Obama says: I pardon you, I am taking away the justice that has been done in your case. I am obstructing justice.

In pardon after pardon, he obstructed justice. But when a President does it, as Obama did being President Obama, it was not a crime when he pardoned people.

Now, if you have a President that has somebody rich, whether that is their name or just their monetary status, and they give you a bunch of their richness and you pardon them, then you may have sold part of your office, which could very well be a crime, and probably is.

But in the case of President Obama, there is no indication anybody paid him to pardon people. If nobody paid him, he just did it because he thought it was a good idea to have people involved with drugs out on the street again, or people at Guantanamo Bay back killing Americans. If he thinks that is a good idea, then he can legally obstruct justice, which President Obama legally did time and time again.

Alan Dershowitz also says, talking about Comey: ``He confirmed that the President can order anyone to be investigated or not be investigated.''

Dershowitz also said: ``Comey stated the constitutional principle: President has authority to direct FBI to end a criminal investigation. Can also pardon anyone, ending investigation.''

There is somebody on the internet that goes by the pseudonym ``Ace of Spades.'' This guy has a wicked wit.

Ace of Spades sent out this tweet as if he is quoting Comey. These are Ace of Spades' words--an interpretation of the testimony today--he says, Comey: Loretta Lynch told me to lie and I didn't write that down, but I wrote down Trump's stuff because I was afraid he would lie.

Wow. It has got the networks all stirred up that former FBI Director Comey came in today and actually exposed the disloyalty to the President of the United States, to the Constitution, to the things he swore to uphold and protect.

Let's look at one other thing I hadn't heard anybody else mention. When you have an attorney as the FBI Director and he is talking to the President of the United States, there is a privilege involved there. Even the least modicum of loyalty and honor and integrity would cause someone who is taking an oath as an attorney, someone who has taken an oath as Director of the FBI, someone that knows their boss is the President and that all power is in the President for the executive branch and the FBI Director entirely gets his power from the President, it would be some smidgeon of honor to want to protect those private conversations.

As far as we know, they weren't classified, but it is something called privilege, it is something called loyalty, and it is something called honor.

The testimony we heard today was the former FBI Director saying: When it came to President Trump, I wasn't going to honor our privileged conversations. I wasn't going to honor the executive privilege. I wasn't going to honor the fact that my power as FBI Director and the authority to investigate someone or not investigate someone is derived entirely from the President of the United States. I will honor a person that tells me to misrepresent the truth, but I am not going to honor someone who is concerned about fairness.

Even though the FBI Director knows better than most anyone else there is no evidence of collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump, there is no evidence of collusion with anybody in the Trump administration at this time, yet there was no sense of loyalty there.

Think of Shakespeare's words and the sarcasm of Marc Antony. Brutus says he is an honorable man. They are all honorable men. These are honorable people who told me to misrepresent the truth to the American people and to the press. These are people that love me because I leak things.

I was hoping for one question that I should have contacted one of my Senator friends and told them to ask, because I would like to know the truth. I know that my Democratic friends were so furious, just livid at Comey when, just days before the election, he announces he is reopening the investigation.

The rumor around here was that there were FBI agents who had been investigating and they knew that Hillary Clinton had violated the law all kinds of ways. Intent was not an issue. She had taken classified material into an unclassified computer and sent it to unclassified computers.

Comey said: Clean bill of health. Everything is good.

And they knew it wasn't good. So when they saw this was the rumor floating around, I would like to know the truth.

You know some FBI agents had to have found Anthony Weiner's computer and found tens of thousands of emails that we were told had been destroyed. Oh, we can't get those tens of thousands of emails. They are gone. And then they found them. Not only were they not in a classified area, not in a SCIF, not in a classified connection, laptop, not even in a government employee's laptop. They were on the laptop of someone who had shown the worst judgment in the world.

You want to talk about the potential for blackmailing--although, probably by this time, I don't know what you would have to come up with to blackmail him, because it is pretty well all out there. Nonetheless, all of these emails were found that were supposed to be gone. There is absolutely no question that some of them came to Hillary Clinton, were sent to an unclassified setting, and now, not only that, they are in the hands of Anthony Weiner, who has had his own criminal justice issues.

The rumor continued that we had such honorable FBI agents that they said, in essence: Mr. Director, clearly, this is criminal material and evidence. If you don't announce you are reopening the investigation, we are going to resign, have a press conference, and show the world that you have been covering for Hillary Clinton the whole time.

Now, that was the rumor. If that were true, and, under those type circumstances, Director Comey then rushes out just days before the election and said, I am reopening the investigation because we found these emails, then that would make sense. He certainly would want FBI agents to completely destroy any election chances just days before the election of Hillary Clinton.

If Director Comey went out and said: I am reopening the investigation, even though Republicans were rejoicing and Democrats were livid, as I pointed out to someone back at the time in the media, I guess it could hurt Hillary Clinton.

But if Director Comey comes out a day or two before the election and says there is nothing here, clean bill of health, Hillary Clinton is great, no problems, when we knew he didn't have time, nobody had time to adequately review the tens of thousands of emails, you could run a few algorithms. Real law enforcement means looking at the evidence line by line--I have known people who did it; I have done it in a civil setting--until you find the smoking gun. But you have got to go

through the monotony of reviewing each of those.

They had no time to do that, and yet former Director Comey came out, clean bill of health. It could not have been discerned in that amount of time like that. So it appeared pretty clearly the reason he said we are reopening the case was so he could say we closed it, to eliminate any chance of even a non-FBI person who comes forward and says, you know, there are classified emails that ended up on Anthony Weiner's computer that came from Hillary Clinton, to Huma, and to Weiner. There were crimes here, and the FBI Director is covering for him. That would likely have brought down Hillary Clinton much worse than the defeat she suffered.

So it is just interesting, but, Mr. Speaker, the irony with which former Director Comey's testimony drips this evening is that our President, Donald J. Trump, he has got good gut instincts. He had concerns that former Director Comey was disloyal, was manipulative, that he may be someone that the United States Government should not trust, and it turns out President Trump's gut instincts were exactly right.

He committed no crime. That has become clear. And so now we expect we will see the media and my friends on the other side of the aisle quit talking about Russia--there is nothing there, there has been nothing there--unless we start looking at potential prosecution for taking millions and millions of dollars from owners of Uranium One, who gave those to the Clinton Foundation, which then again ended up benefiting the Clinton family, and Hillary Clinton then approves Russia getting around 25 percent of our uranium production, to the potential detriment and, possibly in future altercations, death of Americans at the hands of the uranium that Hillary Clinton profited from potentially mightily, even if it wasn't directly, and yet America suffered.

Look, it is time to talk about real crimes, investigate real crimes, investigate racketeer influence of corrupt organizations that would pay for people to commit violence at Trump events. Now we are talking.

America deserves better, and thank God we are going to have a new FBI Director. Former Director Comey did some good things while at the FBI, but, unfortunately, we saw the extent that politics tainted the Director today.

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 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 12, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to be here. I do greatly appreciate my friend from Hawaii, her views. I know she is a person of integrity; calls them like she sees them. I appreciate her very much.

There are just a number of things that really need to be called out. Here is an article from the Guardian. Julian Borger, June 6, that would be yesterday. The headline is: ``Cancel Donald Trump state visit, says Sadiq Khan, after London attack tweets.''

It states: ``London mayor says U.S. President is wrong about many things and that state visit to Britain should not go ahead.

``The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has called on the British Government to cancel a planned state visit by Donald Trump after being criticized in two tweets by the U.S. President.''

Now, it really is interesting that the London mayor, after he has his citizens--his people are viciously mutilated, killed in the streets of his city, and, instead of being--going through a self-examination, is there something more I could have done as mayor of this town? Is there something more I could have encouraged? Is there something more we could have done here in England, in Great Britain, in the U.K.? Is there something we could have done that I, in a position of authority, could have done to stop this, to help, at least help stop this?

But Mr. Sadiq Khan apparently didn't go through that, as people were grieving, not just in London but all over the world, here in the United States, praying for the families, grieving with those who were attacked, so many attacked, dozens attacked, instead of perhaps wondering, maybe we don't have our policies quite right, this is yet another attack, and maybe the Britain leaders should have thought, you know, we have been saying that the real key--it has been said around Europe, maybe the real key to stopping radical Islam and the mutilation of innocent people, the slashing of throats, the beheading, the terrible things that have been done by radical Islamists, maybe the way to stop them we were told--not maybe--they said the way to stop them is the Paris climate accord.

If we just show them enough love as they are beheading us, or slashing our throats, and we have signed on, and we are fully part embraced in the Paris climate accord, you know, the radical Islamist murders will stop. That is the kind of baloney we have been told.

And in England, there are people who have indicated as much, how outrageous it was that President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris accord, because he saw the damage that was going to be done to the United States economy. He saw the damage that would be done to the United States jobs.

I talked to people in east Texas last weekend, different places around east Texas, and they kept coming back: I am so grateful that Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris accord. One of them has a new-- some type of concrete business. They have got rights to a specific process that is great for the environment. It is green.

So then we find out our business was going to be devastated if we stayed in the Paris climate accord. It would have gutted our business. We would have been having to file for bankruptcy. Others, you know, the same day, last Saturday, were telling me the same things, different places, same song. We found out how much our business would have been gutted if the President had not pulled out of the Paris accord.

And, of course, we want to be fair to the 160 countries or so that have condemned the United States, said that we are the one partner in the Paris climate accord, just like in Kyoto, and Reykjavik, and all these others, the United States is the most important partner in those accords. Well, yeah, I guess so.

We were going to be the one country that was going to pay billions of dollars to other countries because we have been successful, and we have been innovative, and our Constitution, the brilliance of the Founders to ensure in our Constitution that we were going to reward intellectual property, intellectual thought, would stir intellectual creations. And we loved this idea of private property, you know, before the

last 50 years, we loved this idea of private property, and the Nation has grown.

But as, you know, people have continued to make inroads, taking away private property rights, of course, the economy doesn't grow at the rates that it has in previous days. But at least by pulling out of Paris, we have got a shot to continue to be the most humanitarian, the most charitable Nation, I believe, in the history of the world; that even Solomon's Israel did not have the kind of freedoms and the kind of individual ability to be charitable.

Billions of dollars that have been given. I don't know. Maybe trillions over the years in today's dollars around the world for so many good purposes. And yet if we had stayed in the Paris accord, we would have done so much damage to our own economy.

So I have told many people, thank God, and thank Donald Trump that he got us out of that mess, so that we can continue our climb out of the economic malaise of the Obama years; that we can continue to get back a thriving economy that has been so sluggish for so many years now; not the artificial growth bubble that was created late in the Clinton years, that was bound to burst, not that kind but based on real jobs and manufacturing jobs coming back.

I know from studying history, I think President Trump knows just from his business acumen, that any nation that is considered an international world power, that cannot produce and manufacture the things that are needed in a time of war will not remain a world power past the next war. It won't. So it brings us back to a great thing to get rid of the Paris accord.

Now we have got to cut taxes. And I know there is a lot of screaming from the left about how, gee, wanting to cut taxes for the rich. Well, actually, under President Obama, there was so much damage done to the middle classes. The middle class shrunk in numbers of people, it appears, while the gap between the poor and the rich got even bigger. And as President Obama is on video admitting, it must have been tough, but he admitted, yeah, it is true. It was true.

It is true that, under President Obama, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, first time, 95 percent of the Nation's income went to the top 1 percent. So we have heard all this stuff about Republicans helping the rich and hurting the poor.

There is no President's policy in the history of our Nation that has done more damage to the poor, to the middle class, than the policies of the Obama administration. There is no President's administration that has done more damage to shrink the middle class and to widen the gap between the poor and the rich. And most of those rich who give money seem to just keep giving to the Democratic Party.

You know, I love, whether it is Republicans, Democrats, or Independents coming up with a great idea and making money on it. It is fantastic. You know, as long as it is legal, but it is fantastic.

With all of my faults, jealousy is not one I suffer from. It is great to see anybody work hard or come up with something innovative, and make money. I think it is fantastic. I love the fact that this Nation, for most of our history, has done what we could to incentivize that process.

So the mayor of London condemning President Trump.

Well, who is this guy?

He has got plenty of his own problems. He has got plenty of his own issues. But it wasn't just the mayor of London, Mr. Sadiq Khan. We also heard from the Acting U.S. Ambassador over in London, Lewis Lukens, and he sent out this message: ``I commend the strong leadership of the mayor of London as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack.''

And by virtue of this statement, of course, he is incorporating the decisions by the mayor of London, the decisions by those with whom the mayor of London is consorting, those decisions that have allowed so many radical Islamists to be creating plots and plans to kill Londoners. That has been going on, we find out after this attack. We should have known from the one before, the one before, the one before, that this has been going on.

Lewis Lukens, our highest U.S. ranking official in London, basically condemned President Trump by siding with the mayor of London, who is more concerned about condemning the President of the United States than he is about grieving for his own people, or doing everything within the mayor's conceivable power to stop the next radical attack.

Under the thinking of people like the mayor of London, there should not have ever been an attack in England, not recently, for sure, because they didn't pull out of the Paris accord. And if the Paris accord was going to save the world from radical Islam, then, wow, all of the attacks should be happening in the United States of America.

Unless we get our friends on the other side of the aisle to help us as we need to do to pass legislation that give us the protection we need, the attacks will be coming. But it wouldn't make sense--if you believe people like this, and those that say Paris is the key to ending radical Islam, it wouldn't make sense that London would be hit twice instead of the United States. They didn't pull out. They condemned us for pulling out.

So it makes you think, when you really look at everything, maybe the key to defeating radical Islam is what Americans who have fought them know: there is only one way to defeat radical Islam, and that is to defeat it; to fight it, kill it, defeat it.

I saw President Carter here on television here in the last few days. I had it on mute, so I don't know what he said. A sweet man. Of course, he does seem to have some pretty strong anti-Semitic feelings, so it is hard to feel too much about the sweetness when you see and hear comments that make you know he really doesn't care much for certain Jews or Israel. But I know he meant well when he abandoned the Shah of Iran, not a nice man like Qadhafi--not a great man, not a nice man, but at least he was keeping radical Islam in the box, keeping it boxed up.

When President Carter saw the Shah deposed and the Ayatollah Khomeini comes into Iran, he didn't recognize that he had literally opened Pandora's box, and it was going to be a plague upon the world for years and years to come, and that thousands and thousands of Americans would die trying to put radical Islam back in the box from which President Carter let it escape and from which President Obama encouraged more-- not intentionally, but the actions have consequences, and Americans have continued to die and will continue until radical Islam, with the help of our Muslim friends that don't want to be ruled by radical Islamists, with their help--we have got to have their help--we can get it back in the box the way it once was.

But there are people like Lewis Lukens, our highest ranking U.S. official in London, who don't recognize this. But the name to so many sounded familiar, Lewis Lukens. I know I have heard that name before. Oh, well, after tweeting out, or sending out the message from the U.S. Embassy in London, taking sides in favor of the mayor of London over the President of the United States--let's see, who is this--as the article from Monica Showalter says:

``So who is Acting Ambassador Lewis Lukens anyway?

``Turns out he's a career diplomat, with nearly 30 years' experience in assorted outposts. His most prominent positions, however, have been at the side of the person who must have served as a sort of mentor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, serving as her chief administrative officer. In that time frame, he managed to reach the inner circle of Clinton's tight little circle of acolytes--on the same level as Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.

``In testimony to Congress, Lukens claimed to have come up with the idea of having Clinton set up a private server.''

Oh, that is right. He is the genius that came up with the idea of having Hillary Clinton have a private server so it was more easy for our enemies to hack classified information. But then again, we find out, well, it really didn't make that much difference because she was sending it to Huma Abedin, who was sending it to Mr. Weiner.

Anyway, it turns out, all kinds of felonies were being committed, Federal laws being violated. Of course, under Director Comey, he didn't want to pursue anybody like that because he is

sure they meant well, even though they were violating the law right and left.

But Lukens takes the side of the mayor, and he is the same guy that came up with the private server idea for Hillary Clinton. So I know, on behalf of those who supported President Trump, we greatly appreciate the damage that he did to the Democratic Party. Lukens--and, hopefully, he won't be long for being the highest ranking U.S. official in London. Hopefully, we can send somebody over there that doesn't have great ideas like he had for Hillary Clinton that causes our British friends the kind of trouble he caused for Hillary Clinton.

And then we have got this from Will Carr, WGMD News Radio:

``Concerns are being raised on Capitol Hill about whether partisan politics could impact the 2020 Census and swing congressional redistricting in favor of Democrats.

``FOX News has learned that last summer, a pro-Democratic analytics firm that described itself as `a platform for hope and change'. . . .''

Wow. Yeah, as we saw over the last 8 years, 95 million Americans--the highest number in our history--even gave up looking for work. So they weren't reflected in the unemployment numbers, but they just gave up. It was so hopeless. So much for hope and change.

Anyway, this analytics firm is ``a platform for hope and change,'' but it `` . . . included as a subcontractor in a $415 million advertising contract for the 2020 Census.

``The data firm, Civis Analytics, was founded by the chief analytics officer on former President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

``Since congressional redistricting, which occurs every 10 years, is based on the results of the national Census, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now asking the Secretary of the Department of Commerce to ensure that the Census will be conducted in a nonpartisan fashion--and that redistricting will not be impacted.

`` `In 2016, the Bureau awarded an advertising contract that included a subcontractor with close ties to the partisan politics that reportedly ``spun out of'' the reelection campaign of President Obama,' Senator Ron Johnson''--our friend from Wisconsin--``wrote to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a letter obtained by FOX News.''

Our friend, Senator Ron Johnson, says: ``This partisan lineage raises concern in light of a Democratic initiative to use the results of the 2020 Census to draw district lines in a manner favorable to Democratic candidates.''

So, wow, what a deal. The Obama administration has got their own consulting firm helping with the 2020 Census. That ought to concern a lot of people that want to make sure that our little experiment as a democratic republic does not come to an end. As Ben Franklin warned, we could have it as long--if we could keep it, that is.

But the shocking story today that I am not hearing enough talk about, and printed out by Circa, John Solomon and Sara Carter today: ``A former U.S. intelligence contractor tells Circa he walked away. . . .''

This is a U.S. intelligence contractor.

Where have we heard that term?

That is what we were told that Edward Snowden was.

Well, this says: ``. . . he walked away with more than 600 million classified documents on 47 hard drives from the National Security Agency and the CIA, a haul potentially larger than Edward Snowden's now infamous breach.''

But it sounded like a good thing.

It says: ``And now he is suing former FBI Director James Comey and other government figures, alleging the Bureau has covered up evidence that he provided them showing widespread spying on Americans that violated civil liberties.

``The suit, filed late Monday night by Dennis Montgomery, was assigned to the same Federal judge who has already ruled that some of the NSA's collection of data on Americans violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, setting up an intriguing legal proceeding in the Nation's Capital this summer.

``Montgomery says the evidence he gave to the FBI chronicle the warrantless collection''--not just phone metadata--``of phone, financial and personal data and the unmasking of identities in spy data about millions of Americans.

`` `This domestic surveillance was all being done on computers supplied by the FBI,' Montgomery told Circa in an interview. `So these supercomputers, which are FBI computers, the CIA is using them to do domestic surveillance.' ''

Gee, we have been assured that does not happen. We have been assured in hearings in our Judiciary Committee over the last 12 years I have been here--and we have had a lot of hearings on these issues. We have been assured this isn't happening. This guy who knows enough to steal 600 million classified documents on 47 hard drives without getting caught says it is happening.

Mr. Speaker, let me parenthetically insert here, we have had a number of conversations with FBI and different intelligence officials, because section 702 that allows this kind of widespread collection, if we are going after what we were told would be foreign terrorists, known foreign terrorists, and they happened to capture an American, the name is masked. You can't get that information. There has to be probable cause to get anything about the American. We are finding out names have been unmasked.

Now, this information by Montgomery is that things are leaked about Americans. Widespread information is being collected on Americans with no probable cause they committed any crime.

I have told numerous DOJ and intelligence officials--and I am very serious about this--they must show that they can police their own ranks of people who are violating Americans' civil rights and gathering information in ways Orwell could never have dreamed of. As my friend Thomas Massie was pointing out today, Orwell thought it would take people to spy on other people. He never dreamed that we, the government, would be able to collect warehouses full of information on little disks that would be used and pulled out later any time they wanted to go after an individual--but it sure looks like it is happening.

If our own justice and intelligence officials cannot police themselves and produce the very people who have leaked information and who have unmasked information, I will join with many of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to vote against them ever having those types of powers again. They are going to have to police themselves. They are going to have to produce the people who have been leaking, who have been unmasking, and who have been spying on Americans without legal authority. They are going to have to produce those people, because if they can't and if they don't, they have no business having this kind of power. I know it has got a lot of our justice officials and intelligence officials upset.

Based on the way things have been going and from what we keep finding out, I am sure somebody has been going through my background with a fine-tooth comb looking for anything so they can take me out, but good luck.

I am sure, as Heritage Foundation has written before, probably most Americans are committing a number of Federal crimes a day we don't even know about. So, apparently, it can be done if Heritage is right, as I think they are. But the fact is it ought to scare every American that there is this much Federal intervention in their own personal lives.

The truth is we have got to get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They have no right and they have no authority under our Constitution to gather people's financial information unless there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that this person has committed the crime, and then get a warrant to get it. It is time to end that for real. It is time to end this kind of personal snooping on American citizens.

This article goes on and says: ``Documents obtained by Circa outside of the lawsuit show that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington in 2015 approved a grant of limited immunity for Montgomery so he could explain how he managed to walk out of his contract and the buildings he worked in with

the classified material'' on 47 hard drives.

``He said he returned the hard drives to the FBI, a fact confirmed in government documents reviewed by Circa.

`` `They're doing this domestic surveillance on Americans, running a project on U.S. soil,' Montgomery alleged. He did not disclose the classified name of the project but said he revealed all aspects of the project during his interview with the FBI.

`` `Can you imagine what someone can do with the information they were collecting on Americans, can you imagine that kind of power.'

``Officials with the FBI and CIA declined to comment due to current and pending litigation.

``The FBI contacts with Montgomery were encouraged by a senior status Federal judge who encouraged the two sides to meet rather than allow for any of the classified materials to leak, according to interviews Circa conducted.

``Montgomery's lawsuit, which included his lawyer, the well-known conservative activist Larry Klayman, alleges Montgomery provided extensive evidence to the FBI of illegal spying on Americans ranging from judges to businessmen like the future President Donald Trump.

``The suit did not offer specifics on any illegal spying, but it accused the Bureau of failing to take proper actions to rectify Montgomery's concerns.

``Montgomery divulged to the FBI a `pattern and practice of conducting illegal, unconstitutional surveillance against millions of Americans, including prominent Americans such as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court' ''--wow--`` `other Justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as plaintiffs themselves.' ''

That is the allegation in the suit.

`` `Plaintiffs were assured that the FBI, under Defendant Comey, would conduct a full investigation into the grave instances of illegal and unconstitutional activity set forth by Montgomery. However, the FBI, on Defendant Comey's orders, buried the FBI's investigation because the FBI itself is involved in an ongoing conspiracy to not only conduct the aforementioned illegal, unconstitutional surveillance, but to cover it up as well,' the suit added.

``Klayman and Montgomery also alleged that they have evidence that they themselves have been improperly spied upon by U.S. intelligence. The suit named numerous other defendants as well, including NSA Director Mike Rogers, former CIA Director John Brennan, and even former President Barack Obama.

``Court records indicate the suit was assigned in Washington to U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who in 2015 issued an historic ruling that the NSA's past bulk collection of Americans' phone records most likely violated the Constitution.''

Thank God he ruled as he did.

``The agency has since ended that practice but the pending case, which is winding its way through appeals and motions, is likely to shine a light on whether Americans' civil liberties were violated during more than a decade of the war on terror.''

This is incredible.

Then, when we hope the courts may be our help, we see another answer that is incredibly discouraging, Federal courts stepping in where they have no authority. Federal court, district court, court of appeals, they have no authority to grant standing to people that are not in the United States, standing and rights to people that are not American citizens and not on American soil. But that is the effect of what they are doing when they say that the President and, actually, Congress, which gave the President much of the power he has on the issue of travel bans and immigration, that we don't have the authority.

Well, under the Constitution, we do have the authority. Congress has the authority and the President has authority to protect us when it comes to national security. He has authority to make decisions like he has. There is no constitutional right under the United States Constitution for someone in another country to have a right to come into the United States. There is no such constitutional right.

For any harebrained judge in America to say that indicates that this is like artificial intelligence becoming self-aware: Wow, I can do whatever I want.

Once it becomes like AI, once it becomes self-aware, then it begins to protect itself. Anyone who has authority or ability to rein them in: We have got to slap them down and limit their ability to rein us in with our artificial intelligence--which is more than some of the judges have.

Mr. Speaker, I am not singling out an individual so I am not violating the House rules.

But this is serious. This is a blow to our experiment as a little, self-governing republic. It is a threat to our ability to proceed as such.

But every Federal court except for the Supreme Court owes its entire existence and jurisdiction to the United States Congress. Congress brings those courts into being, and we can take them out. Congress gives them their jurisdiction, and we can take them out.

I think it is time to begin to take out some of these courts that, like artificial intelligence, have become self-aware and now are trying to lash out and take power away from those under our Constitution that have it and to take it unto themselves in a self-protection mode.

It is getting dangerous in the United States of America for a number of reasons. Radical Islam is only one of the reasons, but courts are going so far to overrule common sense and overrule the words of the Constitution and overrule the words of lawfully passed bills in the House and the Senate signed by Presidents and approved in other case law.

Courts are coming back now and just deciding: We are like artificial intelligence. We are most important now that we are self-aware as the courts, and we are going to do everything we can to limit congressional authority and executive authority and bring all power and protection unto ourselves in the courts.

It is getting dangerous from a constitutional standpoint. All of this is occurring.

There is an article from Conservative Review by Daniel Horowitz, June 5: ``7th Circuit Codifies Transgenderism into the Constitution.''

The courts did such a great thing in America pointing out the importance of immutable characteristics. Characteristics that are immutable are not changeable, whether it is the color of the skin, a race, or a gender. Things that are immutable need to be protected from discrimination.

Once the courts began to get into protecting characteristics that change on the whim of the carrier of those characteristics, then the courts started getting us into an area that also is a threat to a constitutional republic with private property rights, with privacy rights, and with the freedoms that we used to have and that are being infringed.

When the courts come back and say that you have to protect non- immutable characteristics that may change day to day wholly in the mind of the proponent, where does it stop?

It is a destructive force. We all agreed on race, everybody I know. I am sure there are some racists in America. In fact, I know there are still some. We have got some people who, I can't believe, after the lessons that should have been learned from the Holocaust, hate Jews, hate Israel, want it destroyed, removed. Incredible.

The courts are saying we have to preserve some right that none of the rest of us can know, some characteristic none of the rest of us can know. It could change moment by moment. One moment someone is saying: I feel like a girl; I am going in the girl's restroom; or I feel like a boy today.

Who can know? If it is not apparent, then how can somebody be said to be bigoted against or take some action against when you couldn't even know what was in their head? How did I know?

I didn't discriminate against somebody for something I didn't know they had. It was all in their mind. How can I know? When the courts get us into that kind of quagmire, we can't recover. It will sink our ship.

In this case, as Daniel Horowitz says:

``Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest Federal appeals court to codify

transgenderism into law and the Constitution.

``Although Obama's executive mandates for transgender bathrooms have gone by the wayside, thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruling the liberal whims of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the courts are engaging in their own social transformation on behalf of the defeated Democrats.

``In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, a unanimous opinion from the three-judge panel ordered a Wisconsin school district to allow a girl to use the boys' bathroom in school. Following in the footsteps of the Sixth and Fourth Circuits, this Seventh Circuit panel, which included GOP-appointee Ilana Rovner, ruled that the 1972 title IX education law and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause cover transgenderism as a protected class.

``As the courts redefine our national sovereignty, rewrite election laws and redistricting in favor of Democrats, redefine criminal justice law for mass murderers, and mandate publicly funded abortions, they are using their self-acclaimed status as kings to redefine sexuality retroactive to laws and amendments codified long before the sexual- identity movement was in vogue.

``In an emotional screed disguised as law, this opinion uses male pronouns to describe a woman with female parts. In any other era, these judges would have been deemed mentally unstable to serve on a bench.

``While refusing to recognize biological sex as immutable--or, even significant--the court contended that there is absolutely no disruption or privacy concerns over opposite sexes using the wrong bathrooms:

``A transgender student's presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students' privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions.

``The court then appealed to common sense to disregard any remaining privacy concerns as `conjecture and abstraction.'

``Why is it I have a sneaking suspicion that when title IX was drafted in 1972, much less when the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1867, they completely understood the privacy concerns but would have never fathomed judges maniacally referring to a Y chromosome as an X chromosome?

``Amazingly, the legal liberals are the ones with the hypocritical arguments, even according to their own twisted logic. How could this school district be guilty of violating equal protection and engaging in stereotyping for actually applying science equally, and not going along with the deliberate stereotyping requested by the plaintiff?

``There is no greater stereotype than saying that a girl, despite being a girl, should be treated like a boy because she acts out in a `manly' way. The entire sexual-identity movement is built upon the very sex stereotypes they want to codify into law but also protect from discrimination.

``This is part of a broader hypocrisy in which the transgender lobby is filing lawsuits to apply disability laws to gender-confused individuals, but, on the other hand, are suing on discrimination grounds for stereotyping and recognizing this `disability' as a disability and not as a natural phenomenon.

``Either way, the courts will always reach the legal conclusion that best promotes the socially licentious political outcome . . . even when the `jurisprudence' is contradictory.

``Last year, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits said that transgenderism being codified into civil rights and the Constitution is `settled law,' demonstrating how irremediably broken the courts are. This is not just the Ninth Circuit; we have yet to find a single circuit willing to understand the most immutable laws of nature. Thus, it is not surprising that almost every court is creating a right for Somalis to immigrate. If marriage and human sexuality are subjective, so are the borders of a nation.

``Although the Supreme Court punted the Fourth Circuit case, Grimm v. Gloucester County, because that one was built upon Obama's obsolete transgender mandate, it is quite clear that another case will end up before the high court within the next year.

``Given Justice Anthony Kennedy's history on this issue--and his penchant for being influenced by growing momentum in the lower courts and the legal profession--it's fairly safe to say we will be confronted with the transgender version of Obergefell in the near future.

``The transgender case comes just 2 months after the Seventh Circuit codified sexual orientation into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.''

That is a court passing legislation illegally, unconstitutionally, just by fiat by the court. Their signature, just like any good oligarch.

``This circuit, like many others, is drifting more and more to the far left. A number of the GOP appointees, such as Richard Posner and Ilana Rovner, are among the worst offenders.

``There are only two reliable originalists on the court, Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes. That is why it is so important for Trump to immediately fill the two vacancies on the court with known originalists. Even more importantly, this is yet one more reason to make the courts less consequential by reforming their jurisdiction and scope of power.''

And I would add, taking them out. If they are that irresponsible, let's take them out.

What they refuse to look at is real science--real medical science. That is exactly what Dr. Paul McHugh did. He published this article in The Wall Street Journal on May 13, 2016. It was updated, apparently, from June 12, 2014.

This was the head of psychiatry, Dr. Paul McHugh, at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the first hospital in America to have actually carried out sex-change operations in America.

These were liberal, far-thinking, far-reaching ideas within surgery at Johns Hopkins. Well, yes, we can cut off organs, change their sexuality. Dr. Paul McHugh was head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Dr. McHugh is a man who knows the medical science, not some idea that fleets by that may be gone tomorrow about someone's sexuality.

Dr. McHugh says:

``The transgendered suffer a disorder of `assumption' like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature--namely one's maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.''

He goes on and says:

``With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption `I'm ugly.' These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects' mind and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

``For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of `gender' is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this `personal truth' but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for `transgender equality,' the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.''

He goes on and says:

``We at Johns Hopkins University--which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into `sex-reassignment surgery'-- launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as `satisfied' by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we

stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a `satisfied' but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

``It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause,'' including the courts that think that they can see a fleeting thought in a litigant's mind and say, Oh, there is a fleeting thought, that is an immutable characteristic. Therefore, we are going to give it rights, even though we can't see it, we don't know what it is. We have just got some idea, so we will call it an immutable characteristic.

But according to the Karolinska Institute study--which is a long-term study, and, for 30 years, they followed 324 people who had sex- reassignment surgery.

``The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost twentyfold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.''

Some of these Federal judges don't realize they are contributing to problems of indescribable proportions that may not be known, as the study indicated, for 10 years or so.

As Dr. McHugh points out:

``Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from `everything is normal' sex education, amplified by internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. `Diversity' counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.''

``Then there is this subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous--even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80 percent of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse.''

And that is basically what these Federal courts are contributing to. As Dr. McHugh says, they come close to child abuse themselves. He didn't say that about the courts; that is my insertion. But as Dr. McHugh, after being open to helping the transgendered every way that was available, he bases his decision on science, on medical science, on study, not on some whim of someone with a fleeting idea in their mind, maybe it lasts for decades, maybe it doesn't.

But Dr. McHugh says: ``A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.''

It is not taking them away by the government or some busybody leftwing kooks that think they know better than their own parents. Of course there are parents that aren't fit. I have sentenced some to prison, and I hope some of them never get out of prison. They are a danger. But for heaven's sake, let's allow good parenting.

Dr. McHugh says and finishes: ``At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. `Sex change' is biologically impossible.''

Those are Dr. McHugh's words: ``Sex change is biologically impossible.''

He says: ``People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.''

That is what our Federal courts are engaging in. They are promoting a mental disorder, as it has been called in the DSM.

We ought to be about helping these people, not dividing America. But as the studies have indicated, 80 percent of these children that have such ideas, as others have said and he has said, how many of us know girls that were tomboys growing up but ended up being some of the most beautiful and feminine women later. Some may say that is sexist, but there are men who may grow up acting feminized and they grow up to be some of the most handsome, beautiful men you would ever know, but quite masculine.

These courts are not helping. They are playing with the latest fad, and their playing is doing massive destructive damage to our United States Constitution, to our court system, to our freedom, and to what is left of our Republic.

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 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 8, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for those remarks. Mr. Gaetz represents the First District of Florida, a brother in arms,

since I represent the First District of Texas.

We are very grateful for Brian Mast and what he has given for his country, what he has been willing to give for his country; and it is an honor to serve with him in the trenches--sometimes literal trenches around here--a great, honorable patriot for America.

On Monday, that is what we will celebrate, Memorial Day, and I want to talk further about that.

Right now I want to touch on an issue that has occupied a lot of people's concern and time this week over CBO scoring, rather important, but it should not be.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Commission do the scoring. Historically, the projections by CBO seem all too often to be far too out of line that any governmental entity would base important critical decisions over people's lives, their healthcare--it will certainly affect their lives--and base it on a group that, as they have explained: We set up models. And we feed the garbage--they don't use that term. But, as far as I am concerned, they feed garbage in and they get garbage out.

And projections: Oh, we have to wait and see what CBO says. People waiting with bated breath: Oh, is it going to be in line?

For heaven's sake, anybody that waits on a score for the JTC or the CBO in dealing with the tax reform that we should do doesn't have much sense. And there is nothing wrong with not having much sense. It just hurts the country when people without much sense are here in Washington making decisions about people's lives and encroaching on their liberty and freedom.

So we have people like Brian Mast, and we have those who have given all, the last measure of devotion, for our liberty. Then we turn around and have a Federal Government that passes laws about healthcare reform and decides that they have to have all of the medical records here in the Federal Government.

And do you know what? We need to have a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to protect people from unscrupulous bankers, so we are going to get everybody's banking records.

Well, as a former judge and as a former prosecutor, if you wanted somebody's banking records, you had to have sworn proof rising to the level of probable cause that a crime was committed and this person committed it, and then you got the records when a judge signed off on it. Not now. Not with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They just get everybody's records.

And then, without reining in ObamaCare and if we did not rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington continues to gather people's medical records through sweetheart deals with private entities, a hypothetical I raised many years ago as ObamaCare was being pushed through, came ever closer--really, is here--to the point that we could reach a day--it is not quite here. We have still got a chance to save America from the Orwellian nature of ObamaCare and the CFPB combined.

But years ago I said, you know, if we don't stop this craziness, we are going to reach a point where you could get a letter from the Federal Government, saying: Hey, we have got your medical records, but we notice that you made a purchase at the grocery store this last week and bought some bacon, a pound of bacon. We know, from having your medical records, that your cholesterol, weight is not at a very healthy point right now, so you are either going to have to quit eating bacon or we are going to be penalizing you substantially, since we are in charge of your healthcare, your health insurance. We are in charge of it.

That is where we have been heading. And it is something the Founders, who would not have seen the advent of the computers and the IT age, but what they did foresee, whatever developments in technology that came along, they foresaw this ongoing battle to keep government from controlling people's lives and eliminating their liberty. That is what they saw coming. They didn't have to see the technology. They knew what was coming if we didn't keep the Federal Government reined in.

I know there are groups out there that are gathering information that say: Well, this Member of Congress, this Senator, he doesn't get many bills passed. Well, if you look at most of the things we have passed, other than funding bills, so often they are creating more government agencies and more government power. Each time we do, no matter how noble the purpose is, we are taking just a little bit of freedom and a little bit of liberty away from individuals and giving more power to the government.

Why I think it is appropriate to bring this up as we approach Memorial Day is people have not fought throughout our history--going back to 1775, 1776, on to 1783 and the winning of the American Revolution, on through each of the wars that has been fought in the name of liberty--they didn't fight so that we could come to the floor and pass more and more bills and create more and more government. Even when we are told, ``Oh, but CBO says this will only cost $5 million this year, or only cost $5 million, so it is not that big a deal,'' it is still eroding people's liberty. It is still taking away freedom and giving more control to the government.

So, as we look briefly at some of the history on CBO scoring, this is an article by Paul Teller, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. He says:

A new report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation calculated average monthly premiums

for health insurance in the 39 States that use

healthcare.gov. The research found that from 2013 to 2017 the

average ObamaCare premium increased by 105 percent across the

country. The report also looked at the cost spikes by State.

While we await further analysis of the CBO score for the

American Health Care Act as passed by the House, this

information is an important reminder about the negative

impact of ObamaCare.

Besides just how unaffordable ObamaCare has been for

hardworking Americans, you might consider three key things

about today's CBO score in the context of this new report.

Number one, the original CBO estimate of ObamaCare

premiums, November 30, 2009, said that premiums for the

``nongroup'' exchange markets would increase slightly and

``would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016.''

CBO has the gall to act like they are so important and so accurate, but over and over, if you look at critical projections they have made and for people to have said, and CBO, in 2009, you know, by 2016, you might have a 10 to 13 percent increase in your premiums is, or would be, laughable except for the crying of Americans across the country who can't afford the premiums that have gone up 2, 3, 4, or 10 times.

One of our small-business employers said he paid, a couple of years ago, $53,000 for his employees' health insurance, and the following year it was $150,000 for his employees. That leaves him without personal income because he had such a dramatic increase in the premiums. But how could that be? CBO said maybe a 10 to 13 percent increase over that 7-year period.

It comes back to show, once again, as I told Bloomberg this morning, it appears those folks, figuratively speaking, couldn't find their rear end with both hands.

Number two, even if you assume CBO's AHCA estimate is

completely accurate, the first score, March 17, 2017, showed

that the bill would bring down nongroup premium costs over

the next 10 years. While CBO did say that premiums would rise

slightly over the transition period, attributed to the repeal

of the individual mandate, by 2020 the AHCA would change the

trajectory of premiums and ``By 2026, average premiums for

single policyholders in the nongroup market under the

legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower.''

So you hang around and wait for 10 years under the original AHCA and you might have a 10 percent decrease 10 years from now, which is absurd. They were so desperately wrong on their projections.

And I don't have it in front of me. It may be in one of these articles here, but I think originally their projection of cost of ObamaCare was about 1.1, $1.2 trillion over 10 years; and then, of course, the President got upset, because he had said: Oh no, it is going to be under $1 trillion for 10 years.

He calls the Director of CBO over to the Oval Office. They have a conversation and, amazingly, the Director of CBO comes out and says: You know what? After meeting with the President, while I--things came clearer for

me, and turns out it probably will be $800 billion or so. It will be like the President said. I just needed to speak to the President to all of a sudden have a lot more clarity than I did before I went to the Oval Office. But it is under $1 trillion, like the President said, now that I think about it with more clarity.

And then, of course, after ObamaCare passed, very quickly we started learning, no, it wasn't going to be under a trillion; it was going to be over a trillion; maybe 1.7, 1.9. And before long, we start seeing projections more like $2.6 trillion over 10 years. And even one that I had seen that said, you know, maybe 3.6, roughly $4 trillion over 10 years.

As I have said a number of times, you know, any scoring agency whose margin of error is plus or minus 400 percent really shouldn't be relied on by anyone trying to create meaningful law in Congress. That is why for a number of years I have been pushing for the elimination of CBO for a better system, where, as Americans, we believe in competition--or we used to.

Now, I know we have got some folks that can't compete. They need a safe space if somebody is going to compete with them. But what made America great was American competitiveness. We could compete with anybody and prevail.

So why wouldn't we have scorers compete so that we could score the scorers, so that every critically important bill to the American public didn't get sidetracked by some bogus models?

And I am not saying they do it intentionally. You don't have to do it intentionally to have a margin of error plus or minus 400 percent. You can be legitimately that bad at projecting what things will cost; and it has happened throughout the time that we have had projections.

So what I was proposing--and I got my friend, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee, to agree to sit down to dinner with a dear friend of his, Dr. Arthur Laffer, former economic adviser to Reagan, now an adviser to President Trump, and also a friend of both of ours, Steve Moore, who had been the senior editor with The Wall Street Journal. I asked if the Budget Committee chairman would sit down with me and Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore and talk about CBO.

This has been a number of years ago. We sat down at the Capitol Hill Club one evening and, of course, my friend, Dr. Tom Coburn, walks by and says: Okay. Is this one of those puzzles? Figure out which piece doesn't belong here? I get chairman of the Budget Committee, I get Wall Street Journal guy, Steve Moore, I get economic adviser Art Laffer. Louie, what are you doing at this table?

But it was my idea. We needed to come up with a way to have competitive scoring by competitive scorers, and then get to where we can score the scorers, so that when we look at a score that is presented to us on a bill that is being proposed, you can look at the score of that scoring entity. And if they have a score, say, of 10 percent, being right within 5 percent, plus or minus margin of error, then we can probably take very seriously their scoring in the future.

My friend--at that time he was Chairman Ryan--was very open to discussing it, but really kind of felt like we needed to keep CBO and have an official government scorer.

But since then, Dr. Laffer called sometime later to let me know that he had received a private grant, and that he, his firm, and his son would be working on a model that could work for Congress, the House and Senate, to begin having competitive scoring and scoring the scorers so we could have something more reliable, so that we didn't have a bunch of bureaucratic melees from models created that kept us from doing what was good for America.

So, as I think has been pointed out before, whether you ask CBO, ``How much Federal revenue would we have come in if we had 100 percent income tax or 200 percent income tax,'' or if you said, ``Tell us how much Federal revenue comes in if we create a 200 percent income tax,'' since they are not allowed to consider reality and history, but only the models they create mechanically, it's probably a good chance that they would probably dutifully come in and say: You know what? If you set up a 200 percent income tax in the United States of America, then next year you will bring in twice as much money to the Federal Treasury as all Americans make in that year.

Because they are divorced from reality, it doesn't work into their models they create.

In talking to my friend, I hope he doesn't mind my sharing it. I hope he will invite me to have spaghetti with his family at his home in Nashville again sometime. I love visiting with him there, being with his great family.

But he was very encouraging. I was a little depressed. He said: You are a big-idea guy. Don't get discouraged when you propose big ideas like the CBO, getting rid of them, having competitive scoring, or having a--

See, we get beat up every time we say: You know what? Like Dan Webster had found, we have 82 Federal programs charged with getting people to and from appointments, and we don't need 82 Federal agencies. Most of them have white, 20-seat vans, carry three people when they ever carry anybody.

But if we try to eliminate one of the 82, well, you Republicans hate seniors or children or puppies or whatever it is. You are evil. So we keep 82 Federal programs to get people to and from agencies; whereas, if we could create--maybe it is a standing committee and we pull people from different committees--a public assistance committee where we have all 82 of those in every area of public assistance, we see all the duplication because it is all in the same committee, then we can start getting some kind of reasonable Federal Government back under control. Another idea that we just need to move on.

But I have been joined by my friend, and I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

African-American History Commission

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those important observations. I would like to point out something that is not getting enough attention, as the media seems to be driven over issues like charge of misdemeanor assault on a reporter, or a Russian connection, these kind of things.

This story by Luke Rosiak, May 22, ``Democratic Aide Suspected of Major Security Breach Under Government Protection in Pakistan.'' There are some really critical issues here. These Pakistani individuals--we don't know if they have fled now from the U.S., some gone back to Pakistan, but they have been working for our Democratic colleagues in the House--some of them--like my friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz, been working for her since 2005; may have worked for the DNC.

Now, there are allegations of stealing, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more of computer equipment from people here at the Hill; accessing the government information they should not have been allowed to access. They were banned from accessing the House system. One of them, particularly the one that has been working for Ms. Wasserman Schultz, apparently, according to the story, had stolen or taken a laptop of hers, hidden it, and a Capitol policeman found it.

It is kind of important to us, even though the DNC never let the FBI, CIA, NSA, or any Federal agents examine the DNC computer system before they said: Oh, yeah, it is definitely the Russians.

Really? How can you say it is definitely the Russians? You didn't even examine it.

But that is the way things have been going lately. But this is regarding Congressional computer systems, and we need to get to the bottom of how badly our system has been compromised.

In addition to the thefts and, you know, making over $4 million since 2010, having people they owed money to--at least one--put on the system, now we learn he may have never visited the Hill, and still gotten over $200,000. Just a lot of issues need to be dried up, cleared up, but those are major issues that need to be clarified.

No evidence of Russian collusion, but there is definitely evidence of Pakistani collusion and corruption through the fine Democratic Congress Members that they worked for. We just don't know how badly they corrupted the system. We know they got money that they surely should not have. But let's have an investigation into that.

In the meantime, we owe it to all of those who gave their last full measure of devotion for this country, we owe it to them to do a better job here in Congress, passing better laws of giving people more liberty and more freedom for those who died for it.

There is one thing that is absolutely certain, and Jesus knew what He was talking about--John 15:13: ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' He knew. He did it.

And for all of those, Mr. Speaker, who have laid down their lives for Americans and for those around the world for their liberty, we just say thank you. Thank God for you. May God continue to bless America by giving us such patriots in the days ahead.

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 16 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 26, 2017, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from College Station for the profound tribute to a great man, great people.

It has been an interesting week. Our President is headed for the Middle East, and it has gotten rather vitriolic, condemnation of our President for firing the FBI Director.

The FBI Director is supposed to be more concerned with law enforcement than with press conferences. Since he is not elected, his job is not to go out and appear to be, politically, a substitute and, particularly, not to help one party over another.

It seemed that under Director Comey's tenuous head of the FBI--I was thrilled when he replaced Mueller. Mueller did a lot of damage to the FBI with his 5-year up-or-out policy, where anyone in a supervisory position for 5 years anywhere outside of Washington, at the end of the 5 years, had to either leave the FBI or come to Washington and be a minion up here for the Director.

We lost thousands and thousands of years of valuable FBI experience under Director Mueller. In fact, no one has done more damage to the rank and file of our outstanding FBI agents than Director Mueller. I keep hearing all these glowing things. Well, he did a lot of damage.

Plus, under his time as FBI Director, Mueller had the training material that would help FBI employees and agents understand more about radical Islam.

The FBI, in the 1990s, had done an outstanding job of gathering information about radical Islam, of groups like the Holy Land Foundation, individuals associated with supporting terrorism. After the 1993 attempt to bomb the World Trade Center, he did a good job gathering evidence for that trial. By the time Director Mueller came along under President George W. Bush, they had gotten pretty good at figuring out what radical Islam was.

Kim Jensen, with the FBI, had a 700-page program to train FBI agents on what radical Islam was, how you go about spotting people that had been radicalized, the things they believe, understanding which scriptures in the Koran they focused on. It really helped FBI agents figure out how to stop radical Islam.

But the reason the FBI took so much criticism after so many people across America have been killed needlessly from people who were on the FBI radar is because, under Bob Mueller, the FBI agents were not allowed to know how to spot radical Islam, and, in fact, they could hurt their career if they attempted to point out that someone had been radicalized.

So that is why, when Russia told the United States twice--once, directly told the FBI, as I understand it--that the older Tsarnaev brother had been radicalized and where he had traveled and where he had been radicalized over in the former Soviet Union area, the FBI, the best we can find out from the public hearings we had, apparently, under Mueller, they sent somebody to ask Tsarnaev if he was a radical terrorist, and he assured them he wasn't. And they sent somebody to ask Tsarnaev's mother, and she, in essence, said, ``No, he is a good boy; he is not a terrorist,'' and that was their investigation.

I challenged Mueller: You didn't even go to the mosques, the main Boston mosque where these guys attended to see and investigate whether they had been radicalized.

He refuted that. He said we did go to those mosques, but then he added: ``In our outreach program.''

It turns out, as he admitted, he did not even know that the Boston mosque where the Tsarnaev radicalization was heightened was started by a man named Alamoudi. Alamoudi helped the Clinton administration back before they started making so much money on who they were. But the Clinton administration used Alamoudi to help them find the perfect Muslims to be chaplains at prisons, the perfect Muslims to help advise the government, the perfect Muslims to plug in to help our United States Government.

And it is what I have asked more than once and have gotten no answer: Who was it that encouraged or placed Huma Abedin Weiner next to Hillary Clinton as an intern in 1996? Who was it that put her in that position next to the First Lady, where she grew from being intern to being helper and ultimately her number one closest adviser as secretary of state?

Had Hillary Clinton been elected President, she would have been the foremost closest adviser to the President of the United States with some strong direct ties from her family to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, Osama bin Laden had indicated that a couple of things that radicalized him, made him want to kill people like Americans for being infidels, was a booklet written by an Egyptian Muslim brother named Qutb--Q-u-t-b--called ``Milestones.'' He also gave great credit to a guy named Naseef, who was head of a number of Muslim activities--still is. But he had a journal that was a favorite publication of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And come to find out that, gee, back when she was working for Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin was listed on the masthead as being a part of that publication, contributing to being part of that publication, along with, at different times, one or two other family members. That is the journal that Naseef started for the Muslim group.

Quite interesting, the ties that she had. Some of us asked for the inspector general--all we did was ask five different inspectors general and five different departments or agencies if they would investigate the extent of Muslim brother influence in their particular department or agency, and one was the State Department. There is not one single thing that we put in any of those five letters that was inaccurate. They were all factually correct. But there was a firestorm. John McCain rushed to the Senate floor to condemn us. We were right about everything we put in those letters. We are still right.

Bob Mueller did a lot of damage to our ability--as one of our agents told me, we have been blinded of our ability to see who our enemy is.

In recent days, since Director Comey was fired by the President-- which he totally has the authority to do for any reason or for no reason--there have been all these glowing comments by my Democratic friends in the House and Senate condemning the firing of Comey. President Trump has been vilified even for commenting today and yesterday that he thought when he fired Comey he would have wide bipartisan support. Because he had heard so many comments, he thought that would be widely appreciated on both sides of the aisle, because clearly the FBI had become about Comey and not about law enforcement.

It certainly seemed inappropriate, what he said last summer, when basically he laid out the case of how Hillary Clinton had committed a Federal crime that did not require intent, but then he added an element to the offense that Congress didn't add, that is not part of the law, of specific intent. Didn't exist. Not necessary to prove. It hadn't been proved in other cases where we have got people that have been put in the penitentiary for a lot less than what Hillary Clinton did. But he exonerated her. No prosecutor in his right mind would prosecute this case, when, actually, there are a lot of prosecutors who would have prosecuted that case if they were not so politically attuned as Mr. Comey was and is.

I thought it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to just go back and revisit comments from some of our friends across the aisle about the FBI Director Comey. In fact, nobody has been more vocal since Director Comey's firing than our friend down the hall, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York.

I am quoting from my friend Chuck Schumer. He came out bluntly on November 2, 2016: ``I do not have confidence in him any longer.''

Published in Bloomberg. So being a man of his word, we know that as of November 2, Senator Schumer had no confidence in Director Comey any longer.

Despite what he has said in recent days, beloved Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont did an interview with ABC News in January of this year. The headline from the ABC News story: ``Sanders: `Would Not Be Bad Thing for the American People' if FBI Director Comey Steps Down.''

Then the story went on to say: ``Asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview on `This Week' if Comey should leave his post, Sanders responded, `I think he should take a hard look at what he has done and I think it would not be a bad thing for the American people if he did step down.'

`` `I think that Comey acted in an outrageous way during the campaign,' Sanders said. `No one can say that this was decisive, or this is what elected Trump, but clearly his behavior during the campaign in terms of what he said during the week or two before the election was unacceptable.' ''

Then we have former Senator Harry Reid. All those who know him to be a man of his word can take his comments seriously because as of October 30, 2016, Senator Harry Reid from Nevada said in a letter to Director Comey: ``Dear Director Comey: Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.''

Again, this is Harry Reid to Director Comey. Harry Reid goes on: ``The double standard established by your actions is clear. In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian Government, a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.''

And I will insert here parenthetically, we now know that the FBI did not possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian Government. In fact, the Obama administration, intelligence, law enforcement officials have repeatedly testified that despite all their inferences, despite all the things they wanted to find, they could not point to any evidence of the Russian Government affecting our election, of the Russian Government colluding with the Trump administration or with Donald Trump's campaign to affect the election. No evidence.

Anyway, we know more now than we did at the time that Harry Reid wrote this letter.

Senator Reid went on: ``The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

``By contrast, as soon as you came into possession of the slightest innuendo related to Secretary Clinton, you rushed to publicize it in the most negative light possible.

``Moreover, in tarring Secretary Clinton with thin innuendo, you overruled longstanding tradition and the explicit guidance of your own department. You rushed to take this step 11 days before a Presidential election, despite the fact that for all you know, the information you possess could be entirely duplicative of the information you already examined which exonerated Secretary Clinton.''

Well, again parenthetically, we know now it actually condemned Secretary Clinton, showed she committed a crime. She may not have had the intent to violate the law, but had the certain intent to do what she did, and that was a violation of the law.

He goes on. This is Harry Reid talking to and about Comey. He says: ``As you know, a memo authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on March 10, 2016, makes clear that all Justice Department employees, including you, are subject to the Hatch Act. The memo defines political activity prohibited under the Hatch Act as, `activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.'

``The clear double standard established by your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.

``Please keep in mind that I have been a supporter of yours in the past. When Republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, I led the fight to get you confirmed because I believed you to be a principled public servant.

``With deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong.

``Sincerely,

``Senator Harry Reid.''

So as of last October 30, Reid believed Comey was not fit for being Director of the FBI.

On May 5: ``Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on Friday that the letter FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress days before the 2016 election notifying lawmakers of the reopened investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices was `probably the lowest moment in the history of the FBI' next to wiretapping Martin Luther King Jr.''

Tim Kaine, Senator Kaine, went on: `` `It will go down as probably the lowest moment in the history of the FBI, probably next to the decision of J. Edgar Hoover to wiretap Martin Luther King. And it was unfortunate,' Kaine said.'' That was from the Free Beacon.

Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, November 6, 2016, had this to say about Director Comey of the FBI: `` `The FBI has a history of extreme caution near election day so as not to influence the results. Today's break from that tradition is appalling.' ''

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, said this on May 10 on MSNBC: `` `It is absolutely true the Democrats have been very critical of James Comey, and many of us did call for his resignation.' ''

Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey, back on November 6 of 2016, said: ``Hillary Clinton was sharply critical of the FBI in the wake of the surprise announcement that investigators were examining newly discovered emails that could be related to her former private server, but she has avoided the issue more recently.

``So it was striking that Senator Cory Booker took a swipe at the law enforcement agency on Sunday when he introduced Clinton at a black church here.''

This actually is a story from the LA Times.

``Without mentioning the email probe specifically, Booker said there have been `reruns' in this election.

`` `We saw what the FBI did in MLK's day,' he said, a reference to how it targeted the civil rights leader decades ago.

``FBI Director James B. Comey has faced withering criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans for notifying Congress so close to the election that the agency was examining additional emails.

``But Booker's reference to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was also interesting in light of how Comey has required FBI trainees to study the lessons from the `shameful' investigations of the civil rights leader.''

In an interview with NPR back on November 8, 2016, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey had an interviewer say this to him: ``Now, earlier today, we had House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calling the FBI Director James Comey's recent announcements a Molotov cocktail. And she was saying it might have affected down-ballot races for House and Senate, saying it might have made things more of an obstacle for Democrats. What concerns do you have about that in the Senate?''

Senator Booker, again this is November 8, 2016, said: ``Well, I really think that it was a big impact on the election. I don't have any, obviously, data to back that up, and hopefully through an analysis we will see. But clearly our Senate candidates and our Presidential candidates were surging--or at the time that news came, it sucked the momentum out a lot of those races. And we think it could likely affect the outcome of some very

tight Senate races as well. It's unfortunate that he would break with precedent. It's--to me, it showed a grave lack of judgment, to put something like that into an election days before it would come to pass. And I think he did a disservice to the United States of America.'' That was from NPR on condemning the actions of Director Comey.

Just so that we know what the theme is we are talking about here, basically Farewell to Director Comey as FBI Director, and I am just giving quotes that our friends across the aisle, Democrats, have made about Director Comey.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said this November 2, 2016: `` `Maybe he's not in the right job,'. . . .

`` `I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.' ''

Our friend, Representative G.K. Butterfield, Democrat here in the House, serving nobly, former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, he said this year, January 24: `` `I can't speak for Democrats, but I can speak for myself, and I think that James Comey needs to fade away into oblivion.'

`` `He embarrassed this Nation, he possibly influenced the outcome of a presidential election, and he should not hold any position of trust, whatsoever, in our government.' ''

And my friend, Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee, we serve together on the Committee on the Judiciary. This was his press release October 30, 2016. The press release his office sent out said: ``Congressman Steve Cohen, ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, today called on James Comey to resign as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Then it has a quote in the Cohen press release: `` `FBI Director James Comey's recent public comments on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her emails, apparently before seeing any evidence, and against the advice of the Justice Department according to press reports, and even, some have suggested, in violation of the Hatch Act, make it clear that for the good of the FBI and the Justice Department, he should resign his position effective immediately,' said Congressman Cohen. `In the past, even quite recently, I have expressed my appreciation for Director Comey. I appreciated his courage as Deputy Attorney General when he stood up to President Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales when they attempted to persuade hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal. When, in July of this year, Director Comey recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State but added his own sidebar of opinions to the announcement, I gave Director Comey the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that his making such highly unusual remarks was called into question by many.'

``Congressman Cohen elaborated, `While I cannot know Director Comey's reasoning for his recent letter to House Members notifying them about the FBI's review of emails that he deemed ``potentially related'' to Hillary Clinton's personal server, it was plainly premature, careless and unprecedented in its potential impact upon a Presidential election without a speck of information regarding the emails in question, their validity, substance or relevance. Director Comey stated in the letter that he had no idea of ``the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails,'' which makes his decision all the more disturbing.

`` `There is a reason that FBI investigations are not usually made public until they are completed. To do so gives an impression of guilt before all the facts have been determined. That was the case during the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails that led Director Comey to state that there was no evidence that Secretary Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information and that ``no reasonable prosecutor'' would bring a case against her. In light of that finding and the Department of Justice's prohibition and practice against influencing elections, it is clear that Director Comey's actions, no matter his motivations, have called into question his judgment and ethics. That is unacceptable as the FBI Director must, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. I agree with CNN's Paul Callan who, in calling for Director Comey to resign wrote `Trashing the Justice and FBI rule books in the interest of `openness' is likely to put the FBI front and center in one of the most contentious Presidential races in recent U.S. history.' ''

``Congressman Cohen continued, `Additionally revelatory is The New York Times opinion written by Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, in which he states: Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending FBI investigation involving a candidate that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers' professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime.'

``Congressman Cohen concluded, `The fairness of our electoral system is like the fairness of a trial, and no justice official should act in such a way to potentially influence an election whether intended to or not. Standards must be upheld and an FBI Director needs to investigate, not inject issues into a Presidential election when no investigation dictates action or basis for action. At a minimum, Director Comey's actions are, to use his own verbiage, ``extremely careless'' this close to the election and without any apparent substance. If Director Comey cares about the Bureau and the rule of law, as I have felt he has in the past, I'm sure upon reflection of this action, he will submit his letter of resignation for the Nation's good.' ''

So that is my friend, Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee, saying, for the good of the country basically, Comey ought to submit his letter of resignation back last October.

Also, when Congressman Cohen appeared on MSNBC, he said: `` `What he's done'--talking about Comey--`is put the FBI in a position that it has never been in. The FBI Director is supposed to investigate and keep his judgments quiet and not get involved in elections . . . and while he's made the right decision, even though he went too far, this summer in not indicting the Secretary, what he did here was just wrong, and something the FBI Director needs to exert extreme control over themselves not to get involved, and he just made a mistake, and I think he should resign, because he's damaged the FBI's reputation.'

`` `. . . in fact, he's been excessively careless now. I gave him the benefit of the doubt I guess based on the result but I didn't like the way he had cut to the process in which he got to the substance of the decision.' ''

October 31, 2016, also Congressman Cohen from Tennessee appeared on CNN, and the CNN reporter said: `` `Congressman, up until the last few days, you didn't just think the FBI Director was doing a good job--you thought he was doing a great job. You told him last month in a hearing, you said ``You are a credit to the FBI, you are a credit to government service.'' How do you explain you're . . .' ''

And then Congressman Cohen said: `` `Because he went too far with this one.' ''

November 3, 2016, The Hill said this: ``As a nearly ten-year veteran of the House Judiciary Committee--the committee responsible for oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice--and ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, earlier this week I called on FBI Director James Comey to resign his position after his recent communication with Members of Congress regarding the Bureau's review of emails potentially related to Hillary Clinton's personal email server.''

Anyway, it goes on--it is a long story--but again feeding Congressman Cohen's call for FBI Director Comey to resign.

December 16, 2016, in a tweet attributed to Congressman Cohen of Tennessee: `` `#Comey was wrong to hide hacking of #DNC #DCCC, but he should not resign. Trump would appoint worse. #FBI & Senators bulwark for next admin.' ''

So by December he was already thinking differently.

But December 10, in a statement, he said: `` `I applaud Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for also calling on FBI Director James Comey to resign after new information came to light that Director Comey may have known the CIA had secretly concluded that the Russians were trying to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. . . .' ''

So, anyway, back and forth. But our friend, Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, November 6, 2016, from Twitter said: ``I'm not surprised at all `Comey says latest emails don't change decision.' ''

Representative Elijah Cummings from Maryland, my friend, a Democrat, January 13 of this year, said: ``I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Today, I must tell you, when I left the hearing, I felt a great sense of disappointment.''

My friend, Ruben Gallego, a Congressman from Arizona, a Democrat, said: ``What I heard in the briefing made me not trust him, that's all.''

My friend, Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, said: ``My confidence in the FBI Director's ability to lead this agency has been shaken.''

On January 13, Hank Johnson also said: ``He should pack his things and go.''

He was talking about Comey.

Johnson said: ``I don't have confidence in this man to lead the FBI in the coming weeks and months ahead, with all the work that must be done to get to the bottom of Russian hacking into our electoral process.''

Then my friend, Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, November 14, 2016, said: ``The President can fire him for cause and ought to. He violated all the guidelines and put his thumb on the scale of an election. Whether it was decisive or not is a different question.''

House Democratic Caucus vice Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, my friend from California, said: ``I don't believe that Director Comey conducted himself during the election in a way that was impartial. I have concerns about that. But I also have concerns about who would the replacement be.''

Also, my friend, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida, said: ``I think Director Comey has taken enough actions that call into question his ability to continue to serve credibly. I would lean in the direction that he no longer is able to serve in a neutral and credible way.''

My friend, Representative Mark Takano from California, said: ``I'm extremely concerned--extremely. I'll just--I'm very angry.''

He was talking about Comey as FBI Director.

Representative Tim Walz, my friend from Minnesota, said on January 13: ``I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him.''

And then so many of the media have been condemning President Trump for firing the FBI Director. Yet, if we just go back a little bit, those same people in the media--Paul Callan from CNN, on October 30, 2016, said: ``Perhaps it's time for the embattled FBI Director who seems to have forgotten how to conduct a proper investigation to resign.''

Kurt Eichenwald said on November 7, 2016: ``James Comey should not simply be fired as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He must be barred forever from any form of public service.

``He has done more damage to the reputation of the FBI than any Director since the Nixon administration. Comey will, without doubt, be listed as second only to Hoover as the worst Director to ever hold the office because of his willingness to abuse his power.''

Ian Millhiser, on October 31, 2016, said: ``We also know that Comey violated longstanding Justice Department protocol when he decided to disclose the very few facts that he actually did disclose in his letter to the Republican chairs. And we know that he wrote the letter over the explicit objections of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Taken together, these actions constitute a fireable offense.''

The New York Daily News editorial board called on Comey to resign, and said: ``FBI Director James Comey's democracy-bending decision to inform America, 11 days before its Presidential election, that the Bureau is digging into a trove of additional emails demands the highest condemnation. And he must resign.''

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said: ``But if the FBI Director has demonstrated anything in the last year, it is that he has lost the trust of nearly everyone in Washington, along with every American who believes the FBI must maintain its reputation as a politically impartial Federal agency.

``The best service Mr. Comey can render his country now is to resign. Failing that, Jeff Sessions should invite him in for a meeting after he is confirmed as attorney general and ask him to resign. If Mr. Comey declines, Donald Trump can and should fire him in the best interests of the Nation's most important law enforcement agency.''

Keith Olbermann with GQ tweeted out: ``Very simple: FBI Director Comey needs to clarify--today--that these are not emails from, or withheld by, Clinton or resign immediately.''

The Washington Post said on October 29, 2016: ``James Comey is damaging our democracy.''

Michael Cohen with The Boston Globe on October 21, 2016, said: ``FBI Director James Comey should resign. James Comey really messed up. The FBI Director did not commit some garden-variety mistake. This is not an `oops' moment. For reasons that have more to do with protecting himself from dishonest Republican attacks, Comey committed an overly egregious and political act that roiled the Nation's politics 11 days before election day--and undermined public trust in the Nation's criminal justice institution. And he needs to go.''

That is The Boston Globe.

Anyway, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, chairman and editor of U.S. News and World Report, on November 4, 2016, said: ``Time to resign--FBI Director James Comey needs to step down over his handling of the Clinton email investigation.''

This is what they said.

``The self-righteous James Comey has served his country badly. Comey seems oblivious of the effect of handing Trump a piece of dynamite.''

And he goes on condemning Comey over and over.

Jeff Jarvis from Buzzfeed said on November 6, 2016, in a tweet: ``Now resign, Comey, resign.''

On October 31, 2016, a tweet from Bret Stephens of The New York Times, said: ``FBI Director James Comey needs to resign now, while he can salvage his honor. My Wall Street Journal column explains.''

You have the Clinton campaign on May 10--it was republished on May 10, but it first went out on October 30, 2016, and it talks about having worked with Director Comey: ``But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just 11 days before a Presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed.''

It went on to say that they were ``moved'' to speak out publicly because Comey's action violated ``settled'' DOJ tenets.

And Hillary Clinton herself said: ``It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information, right before an election. In fact, it's not just strange, it's unprecedented and it's deeply troubling. I was on the way to winning until the combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off. If the election was on October 27, I would be your President.''

John Podesta, it turns out, is on the board of directors of one or more companies and had dealings with Russia. He said: ``It's extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a Presidential election.

``Light on facts, heavy on innuendo, knowing full what Republicans would do with it. It is not up to him who owes the public answers to questions that are now on the table.''

He also said that he has ``not been forthcoming with the facts.''

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it would be interesting to understand

why President Donald Trump would have said in the last 2 days he thought that firing Comey would be applauded in a bipartisan fashion, because he knew all of these quotes from Democratic leaders, mainstream leaders that are mainstream media-leading publications weighed in demanding Comey's resignation. President Trump demands his resignation or fires him.

So it seems to me President Trump is in a situation where it is understandable he would think the Democrats would appreciate him firing Comey, just like Republicans.

I know President Trump is relatively new to politics, but hopefully this is a lesson to President Trump. Just because Democratic leaders and the mainstream media say one thing in righteous indignation one day does not mean they are not going to turn around and say exactly the opposite the very next day or the next month.

The President, I know he is learning--he is a quick learner--but he is bound to learning as he goes. You can't always trust what a Democratic leader says one moment, because they may turn around and completely contradict themselves immediately thereafter.

So I think if the President just relies on what our Democratic Senators and House Members said, he will be in good stead. And I think the country is better off, depending on who is appointed, but I have faith it will be an improvement.

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 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 22, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Kilgore High School Bulldogs on achieving the title of 2017 Texas State Soccer Champions. This is the third straight appearance for the Bulldogs in the state soccer showdown, but this is Kilgore High School's first state team title since 2004.

Despite losing their team captain to injury during the state semifinals, the Bulldogs pulled together and made their way to the state final against the Bridgeport Bulls. After the end of grueling regulation play, the match was tied 2-2, and went to penalty kicks. Two brilliant saves by keeper and championship MVP Kaleb Jett, on back-to- back shots, brought the Bulldogs a hard-earned 4-2 victory on penalties.

Congratulations should be extended to team members Kaleb Jett, Yonatan Contreras, Jesus Gonzalez, Jovany Gonzalez, Noe Zavaleta, Raul Cedillo, Jamie Veloz, Elian Torres, Mateo Meraz, Brandon Espinoza, Daniel Sifford, Tucker Konczak, Jordi Contreras, Diego Huerta, Wayne McIntyre, Jose Gonzalez, David Garcia, Jose Arrendondo, Jackson Hatcher.

This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the athletic staff including Coaches: Austin Walker, Mark Roskos; Trainers/ Managers: Head Trainer, Darrell ``Red'' Ganus; Student Trainer, Brandon Mayers; Manager, Carlos Godoy; Videographer, Josue Reyes. The staff and faculty who led and inspired the Bulldogs in pursuit of the state crown include Superintendent Cara Cooke; Principal Greg Brown; Athletic Director Michael Wood; Assistant Athletic Director Doug Duke.

The faculty, staff and friends of Kilgore Independent School District and the entire community of Kilgore have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these outstanding young athletes in the pursuit of their dreams.

It is my most esteemed honor to congratulate everyone involved with this endeavor. May God continue to bless these students, their families and friends, and all those individuals who call Kilgore, Texas their home. Congratulations to the 2017 Class 4A State Soccer Champions, the Kilgore Bulldogs, as their championship legacy is now recorded and will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, so many say TGIF. My late mother passed away in 1991, but she said TGIF one time, and the lady responded, S-H-I-T, and mother looked shocked. She said: ``Sorry, honey, it's Thursday.'' But this is not Thursday, it is Friday, and I really hoped we would be voting on a bill that wouldn't totally repeal ObamaCare, but it would give people a great deal of relief.

I know with all the talk from the other side of the aisle about how great ObamaCare is, when we look at the numbers, we know that promise after promise was broken in the passage of the ACA, or ObamaCare. People lost their insurance, they lost the medications that they were eligible to have under their prior insurance, they lost their doctor, and they lost their treatment facility. That does take a toll on people's lives.

There was bragging about the people that now had insurance that didn't have it before. But we know it was clear, most of that was people that got stuck on Medicaid. It wasn't real insurance. As we look at the evolution of health care in America, we see that insurance has changed to where it is no longer insurance.

Right now in America, people who are actually medical doctors are some of the best and brightest that America has ever produced. But as an old history major and someone who continues to read and learn from history every week, it is worth noting that there have been strides made in health care and in medicine in the last 100 years that are unparalleled in the entire history of mankind.

There was a book called ``The Five Thousand Year Leap.'' I don't want to do it an injustice, but basically it points out that when settlers came to North America, not the immigrants that came perhaps from Russia who then later were referred to as Native Americans, but immigrants coming from Europe, the English, and even from Norway, during those years, they came in boats that were not powered other than by sail or by arm strength. Mankind had not made a lot of progress over 5,000 recorded years of history. If you looked at the implements that were used in farming when settlers in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries came to North America, there really had not been any great developments in production of food and in farming tools over the thousands of years that mankind had existed.

Yet I think largely because the Founders of the United States of America recognized the importance of ingenuity and rewarding not only hard work but intellectual developments and processes--in fact, in the Constitution, the Founders had the incredible foresight to provide for something called copyrights or patents because they wanted to protect intellectual property. They felt that if we protect and reward intellectual property, then it will encourage people to develop new ideas and find new and better ways. Within the last 100 years, we have made much more than a 5,000-year leap, and that is also certainly true in health care in the realm of medicine.

I don't think it is just pride in America. I think anyone objectively will have to note that if not for the Presidents of the United States of America and the medical breakthroughs in the United States of America and the contributions of medicine in the United States, we would not be where we are now with so much potential to cure diseases, to prevent diseases, to improve quality of life, and to elongate people's years on the Earth.

Some medical historians would say it was around 100 years ago that for the first time--some believe in the entire history of the mankind, recorded or otherwise--that for the first time, about 100 years ago, a person had a better chance of being healed or getting well after seeing a doctor than they had of getting sicker. It is extraordinary to think that for the thousands of years of man's existence it is only in the last 100 years that physicians actually were able to have a better chance of healing than harming.

We saw an old Saturday Night Live skit that played out where the barber was often also the doctor because he had sharp instruments to cut with. But even going back 200 years to 1799, just over 200 years, George Washington got ill. He had been out in the land that he loved there at Mount Vernon, just southwest of here, a place that he longed to be all during the Revolution. For the 8 years he served as the commander to the Revolutionary forces, all of those days, nights, and weekends, he longed to be back at Mount Vernon. But for the good of his country, he stayed with his troops.

There were entries in journals and letters from people who served under him and were stationed at Valley Forge: Why, even though they weren't fighting? Because Washington knew if he let the men go home, there was a good chance they wouldn't come back. If they didn't come back, then the Revolution was going to be over, and all of those who had participated would be killed by the British forces. So he stayed with the troops. He often allowed the officers to take leave and go home at night or on a weekend perhaps, but he stayed with the troops.

After the war was won, he went back to Mount Vernon. He thought he was done. He had served his country and done what no one else had ever done in history. Although Cincinnatus did an incredibly selfless thing, it still wasn't to the level of selflessness of George Washington. When he thought he was done in 1787, here came leaders begging him to come back and lead the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia because, as they eventually made clear to Washington, if he did not come back and reside, all would be lost. All those who fought during the Revolution would have fought for nothing: it would all go away, and the British would be back in charge. There would be chaos.

So he agrees to come back. Then an incredible thing happened at the Constitutional Convention. After they

could not reach any agreement on much of anything, as Ben Franklin pointed out, Randolph made a motion that they recess until after a celebration of the country's birth, its anniversary in early July.

Why don't they go to church together, worship together, celebrate God's love and his gift in this country, and then come back and try what had been so unsuccessful for the 5 weeks or so to that point?

The motion passed. They went to church at the Reformed Calvinistic Church, a Christian church, and they worshipped God together. They asked for his leadership. The Right Reverend William Rogers, pastor of the Reformed Calvinistic Church in Philadelphia, did a powerful job of leading the worship of God in this Christian church. It was a nondenominational service. We still have a record of the prayer that was prayed by Reverend Rogers at that celebration.

People noted after they came back that there was a different spirit. Yes, there was disagreement, but it wasn't as rancorous as it had been before that. It eventually came to the great compromise that allowed one body to have equal numbers of representatives from each State, no matter what size, and another body would have equal power and its representatives would be chosen according to the number of people who lived in that State. That was one of the great compromises.

We end up with a Constitution. George Washington thinks he is done, but after the Constitution is ratified, they begged him to allow them to elect him unanimously to be our first President. He doesn't want to do it. He eventually agrees, gives in. They elect him unanimously. They have a contested vote for Vice President, but John Adams wins. After 4 years, he was ready to go home. They begged him again to allow them to reelect him unanimously. He eventually gave in and served 4 more years as President.

Some did become disappointed with Washington during those 4 years because he would not allow the United States to get involved in the French Revolution. That irritated some people, but Washington believed that America was so weak in that time, that if we got involved in a foreign war, albeit a civil war, we would end up losing what had been gained to that point. So he didn't let the United States get involved.

When he was begged to stay and let them elect him to a third 4-year term, it would not have been unanimous. He said, basically, that it would look too much like a monarchy if someone served 12 years. He refused and could not be deterred. He went back to Mount Vernon.

There at Mount Vernon, as he loved to do, he was going around assessing what improvements needed to be made there on his property. It was cold. It began to rain. He was marking trees as to which ones would be cut and which ones would be allowed to remain.

It got dark. He came to the house, not realizing that visitors had come. Since the Washingtons were always so hospitable, even if they didn't know people were coming, Martha would provide food for them.

George Washington came in. He was wet, he was cold, and Martha implored him to go change clothes, as did the guests, but he wouldn't have of it because he was so polite, always more concerned about others. So he remained, ate in cold and wet clothes, and ended up developing some kind of cold or infection, and it turned into a very serious infection.

A doctor was called, and he couldn't understand why Washington wasn't doing better. They were draining blood from Washington. It should have healed him. It should have made him all well. If we are getting the bad blood out of him, we don't know why he is not getting better, but got weaker.

Imagine that: you drain a man's blood, he gets weaker. They didn't understand what they were doing. That was 218 years ago.

Washington got weaker. They were able to get ahold of the doctor, who was one of George Washington's best friends in the world, Dr. Craik. Dr. Craik loved George Washington. Washington loved him like a brother. Craik wanted to do all he could to get him well. This man who loved Washington and cared so deeply was one of the better doctors of the 18th century. He bled him again. He drained more blood from Washington's body, thinking that would help, and it didn't. As we know now, that was not helping. It was hurting. It was doing great damage.

That is what they thought just 218 years ago. In that intervening 218 years, the advancements in medicine have been staggering. We know now what helps and what doesn't help. There will probably come a time when, if we continue to develop research, as we have in the past, we will be able to look back at the year 2017 and say there were things that we were doing that were not as helpful as we thought, may have been harmful, but never again to the extent as occurred where the doctors actually were responsible for killing their friend, our American hero. I don't think we will get to that point again.

It is worth noting historically the developments of health care so that we can adequately see what has happened in the 7 years since ObamaCare got passed. We have done damage to health care in America under ObamaCare.

I know people talk about all the people that have health insurance now that didn't before. So many lost their policy. They got a much worse policy. ObamaCare basically outlawed catastrophic insurance policies, which are those that have a high deductible with a low premium and ensure against basically something catastrophic, disease, injury. Yet, because of the problems that ObamaCare created, premiums skyrocketed for so many people and the deductibles dramatically increased.

So many people have told me about their deductibles going from $250, $500 to $6,000, $7,000, $10,000. There are so many paying more than $10,000 for their health insurance with a high deductible that they can never pay. We have done great damage to people's ability to get the health care they need, that they used to be able to afford.

It was in the last 40 or 50 years that, when people brought up health insurance, it really was insurance. You paid a very small premium each month against some unforeseeable event out there in the future, a catastrophic disease or injury. So you just paid a small premium, like term life insurance, to ensure against something you hope never would happen. In the meantime, you just paid for your health care.

I know that while growing up in Mount Pleasant, Texas, everybody knew the doctors that were there. We went to more than one. It was sometimes dictated by who raised their prices and who hadn't. Now we don't know who raises their prices. You get a bill from a healthcare provider and there is no way in the world to know how much the procedure costs, how much the visit costs, how much anybody is actually going to pay to satisfy this massive indebtedness. Chances are, maybe less than a tenth of what the bill says that the government will pay if it is Medicaid, Medicare, Blue Cross, Aetna, Anthem, or any of these health insurers.

You can't improve the cost of health care if you don't know what it costs. You can't have free-market principles bringing down the cost of health care when nobody knows what it costs.

We have gone from the days of having health insurance ensure against a distant catastrophic event to paying behemoth companies to manage our health care, to tell us what doctor we can see, which hospital we can go to. We pay for so many other people who come into the country illegally and don't have insurance. We pay for people in the country legally that don't have insurance.

We pay exorbitant amounts for people that go to an emergency room because the Supreme Court has told us that, regardless of whether someone can pay or not, they have to be seen and treated. What happens at the emergency room costs those who do pay dramatically more than if those individuals had just gone to a health clinic and had the same treatment for the same problem.

So there have been some great solutions proposed, none of which have been to have the government have more role, turn all of the Nation's health care into a big Veterans Administration where things can often be catastrophic.

One of the things that has really broken my heart to be a servant of the people of east Texas is so many veterans' stories of how they were not properly cared for medically. They

didn't get the care they need. They were waiting for months. Then I will have people tell me they got treated very well. They are in the Lufkin Clinic named for Charlie Wilson.

Overall, I think our veterans would still be better off if all of them were given a card and told: If you want to go to your local VA clinic, if you have one close, fine. You just go to whichever is closest and it gives you the best health care. That provides competition and it keeps our word to the veterans that they will have the health care they need.

Veterans should not be penalized because they served our country and put themselves in harm's way. My 4 years on Active Duty in the U.S. Army did not entitle me to life health care, so I don't have that personal experience of dealing with the VA health care. I was not disabled. I still feel guilty because during my 4 years, 1978 to 1982, we were never in combat.

We were put on alert in 1979 that some of us, at least, might be going to Iran, and we should have. I still feel that thousands of Americans would be alive today if we had been sent back then and had done the job of the radical Islamists that President Carter had been welcomed in. Ayatollah Khomeini, President Carter welcomed him as a man of peace, and he has done anything but provide peace.

But we owe our veterans so much. George Washington knew that, and that is why in that picture just down the hall, that huge painting that John Trumbull had painted, Washington has his arm outstretched, piece of paper in there. On that piece of paper was his resignation. He had also sent a copy to all 13 Governors. Amazingly, the last part of his resignation was a prayer for the Nation. In that prayer for the Nation, he included that he prayed God would ensure that we would never forget those who had served in the field; talking about our veterans who had fought for this country because Washington knew if we were going to remain a free nation, then we would have to honor those, take care of those who suffered as a result of giving us, protecting our freedom. That is why also, if we ever fail to honor those who have honored us by serving us in the military, we won't last past the next major conflict. It is important we do that, and Washington knew that.

So, since Washington's death was certainly propelled by blood being drained, we know draining somebody of their life-giving blood is not normally a good idea, but in the last 100 years, just thinking about you have a better chance of getting well than you do of getting sick, look at the progress that was made in medicine in 100 years and look at the developments in medicine since ObamaCare came about.

Yes, we know the big pharmaceutical companies signed on to endorsing ObamaCare, as did the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association and AARP. For every organization that signed on endorsing ObamaCare, if you read the ObamaCare bill, as I did, you could normally find where they got their payoff. You could normally find something that they were given to buy their support.

AARP has made more money than they would have ever dreamed before ObamaCare through the health insurance policies that they endorse. So, yes, there was a great deal of self-service for AARP to endorse a bill that did massive medical damage to retired people, a bill that cut $716 billion out of Medicare.

When people realize AARP endorsed a bill that did so much gutting of Medicare, how could they do that if they really care about retired people?

Well, how they could do it is that they were going to be rewarded by selling or endorsing insurance that wouldn't have the 2 percent tax on it that most insurance would have. They got some other benefits out of it. I haven't seen how much profit they have made for a nonprofit organization, but I believe it was in 2008 that they made over $400 million, basically profit for a nonprofit, from their insurance sales. There is no telling how much that has increased. I would love to see the number since ObamaCare came about. But they got a big payday because they endorsed ObamaCare.

The pharmaceuticals, we knew they were going to make tens of billions of dollars more than they ever had after ObamaCare. They were bought off to endorse it. But for some of us who could see clearly down the road where it was heading, as I have told some in the pharmaceutical industry: By endorsing ObamaCare, if it is not changed, you will have signed the death warrant for your own industry because eventually it will lead to failure to recoup research and development.

Not initially, but by then the people who had endorsed ObamaCare from the pharmaceutical industry will no doubt have gotten their golden parachutes and could own an island somewhere. Who knows? But they will be plenty wealthy. They would have overseen the steps that would lead to the demise of the greatest developments in health care in thousands of years, really just in the last 50 or 60, extraordinary developments.

Something has to be done. That is why a majority of Americans did not support ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010. It is why a majority of Americans wanted change. They had to have change.

Like the old joke about the guy up in the tree who went up to get the gorilla out. After tangling for so long, he yells at the guy: Just shoot up in the tree.

He said: Yeah, but I might hit you.

And the guy yells: Yeah, but one of us has got to have some relief.

People suffering from health care under ObamaCare have been crying for relief: Just do something. We have got to have relief.

I have heard that from so many in east Texas. Look, something has got to be done. We can't keep going like this. We can't afford the premiums, and it is not going to get me help with health care because I can't pay the deductibles. Something has to be done.

I was hoping we would have a full repeal. The bill 2 years ago didn't fully repeal ObamaCare. It did more than we have done in the bill we have now, but the reason I agreed to sign on was so many people were saying: We don't like ObamaCare, but we have got to have some relief. We have got to have relief.

We finally got concessions that would ensure that people's premiums would come down in 2 years--too late for the year, but would come down in 2 years, and then would continue to make progress in the area of premiums.

We would make great inroads in encouraging people. Instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to health insurance companies, they would have a big hunk of that money going to their own health savings account. That was clearly going to lead us--and still can--to a place where patients control their own health care again, where they can go talk to a doctor and not have an insurance manager intervene and say: Uh-oh, you can't do that. Nope, you can't go see that person. Nope, we haven't given approval to this or that.

It is a doctor and a patient relationship the way progress has been made in the last 100 years that has given us, to a point, the best health care in the history of mankind.

Now, in the 1970s, when I was in the Soviet Union as an exchange student for a summer, I saw socialized medicine. We are talking real socialized medicine, the same kind of socialized medicine that President Obama and so many others called--they put this lovely sounding name--single payer. Now, it is socialized medicine. The government controls it all. You don't have any choices. It is in the hands of the government. They see all; they know all.

Once the government has that power, then they have the right--and an obligation even--to tell you what you have to do physically, what you can eat, who you can see, where you can go, when you can go. People who want total government control over people's lives--not of their own, but everybody else's--they understood, they had the vision that if we can get government control of health care, then we will be able to control all these minions all across America.

There are a lot of people in this body who I disagree with, but I know they want to do what is right for America. But it is not right for America and for Americans to have the United States Government dictating every aspect of our lives.

I long for the days when my liberal friends used to yell: We don't want the government in our bedroom.

Because since then, they have been saying: Yeah, let's get the government in our bedroom, in our bathroom, in our kitchen, in our living room, in our garage. We want government control of everything.

As I have said before, the only thing it appears that George Orwell got wrong was the date. It wasn't 1984. But we still have a chance to get off this miserable road we are on. That is why the huge bulk of geographic America rose up on election day in November and said: We have got to have some relief. Whether we like Donald Trump or not, we have got to have some relief, we have got to have some change.

That is why the huge geographical United States voted for Donald Trump. The fringes of the United States, the coast and a few major cities said: No, we like the government telling us what to do, how to live, what we can have.

But across America geographically, that was not what people wanted.

This is our chance. I really had hoped that by compromising again, as the Freedom Caucus, that we could have a vote by today on a bill that would start us down the road of getting rid of ObamaCare, getting us back on a road toward freedom. We knew it was going to be tough.

If you don't think it would be tough, look at the Soviet Union after the fall of the wall and the Soviet Government. There were so many Russians who said: What are we going to do? We have to look for a job-- find our own job. We don't want that kind of freedom.

Well, they are finding out that perhaps they do.

One of the things that we had gotten as a compromise to try to help Americans in the agreement that has developed to this point was the elimination of the taxes that would have been kept in place under the proposed bill that was first filed by our leadership.

Another thing that would be in there is a requirement that if you are going to now be part of Medicaid, as we have had millions now having the government pick up the insurance through Medicaid, then we are going to put a similar work requirement, as was put on by Congress in the 1990s by the Republican House and Senate.

And though President Clinton didn't want to agree to that, once he saw they had the votes to override another veto, he agreed to sign it because rather than have his veto overridden--and now it is one of the things he brags about: Oh, yeah, while I was President, I reformed welfare, so you had to work.

As a result of that reform in the 1990s--it was not a callous move. It was a caring move by Republicans in the House and Senate who understood that it is not a punishment to have a job. It gives you a feeling of self-worth.

We are not going to get back to the days where as many people have jobs as used to until we restore that freedom and a requirement that, if you are going to make the American taxpayers pay for everything that you want and need, then, if you are able to work, you are going to have to do something.

As a result of that work requirement in the 1990s, income for single mothers, when adjusted for inflation, for the first time since welfare began in the 1960s under the so-called Great Society, for the first time, that income increased for single moms when adjusted for inflation.

The Federal Government, since the Great Society legislation, had begun to lure young women into holes, into ruts, from which they could not extricate themselves. After 30 years of the Federal Government luring people into holes they then could not get out of, they were required to get out of the hole, they did, and their lives improved.

Now, I know the mainstream media has been there to defend every bit of government control as it took over more and more. They would take their potshots at people like me that probably were more intelligent on national testing than they were. But, nonetheless, used all kinds of excoriating terms, make fun. Like the time I mentioned that I was told by somebody that they were in line to get groceries and the person in front of them had crab legs that were expensive, and this person said: Gosh, I am wishing I could have afforded crab legs.

But it turns out, when they pulled out the card, which let them know taxpayers were paying for those crab legs, he realized the reason that he can't afford crab legs is because he is paying for his and this other person's food.

Well, the press went nuts over that. It has been some years back. It wasn't long after that, after the media here in Washington belittled me, the media in New York belittled me, never brought it out, but we got a picture. They said nobody can get crab legs with money from food stamp programs, CHIP, any of that. You can't do that. We have got pictures of crabs for sale and the sign saying ``we take food stamps.''

Anyway, it is very clear that, when you see the signs that say ``we take food stamps'' for the crabs, that the media that belittled me back in those days, they had their fun, but they were just wrong, and they were lying to cover for more and bigger intrusive government.

I want to also thank my friend Tom MacArthur. I am not crazy about the amendment that he provided, but Tom is making a real effort: let's reason together. Let's come together on a bill. We compromise, and we get to a point where we can help our respective constituents. We can help America.

I felt like, with all of the compromises, we were going to bring down premiums more quickly. We were repealing at least some of ObamaCare-- not enough, but at least some of it--and we were going to be able to move the ball forward so that we could get back to great advancements in improving people's health care and getting away from the insurance monopolies that have developed in each State. It has been reported that in around 30 States there is only one company left providing the insurance.

Well, this body did a great thing, and I appreciate very much Speaker Ryan agreeing to do it. But he and Kevin McCarthy allowed a bill to come to the floor. Our whip, Steve Scalise, found: Gee, this is a lot easier doing a whip on this thing than we thought.

But it would eliminate the exemption for health insurance companies from antitrust laws. Under the state of the law since 1945, under the McCarran-Ferguson bill back then, health insurance companies have been allowed to monopolize. They can take actions that, in some other industry, would cause the Department of Justice to come after them and sue them, take very strong actions, and could even result in criminal actions if someone is trying to monopolize. But, in health care, it has been allowed for years.

You can go in and tell somebody: We want, in our agreement, that if you take any of these other upstart insurance companies' insurance, you are going to be out of our network; and we are the big dog, so you will be out of luck.

Well, you can't do that when you are under the antitrust laws of the United States, but you can when you are exempt.

That bill came to the floor. We had over 400 people on both sides of the aisle vote for it. And I know good and well that if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would bring that to the floor of the Senate, it will have probably every bit as high a percentage. It could even be unanimous. I can't imagine somebody in the Senate voting against it.

But, if we simply change the law to allow people to buy across State lines and we don't eliminate the exemption from antitrust laws, then instead of having 30 monopolies in 30 States, you will have one monopoly for the whole country. The one big company can drive everybody else out because the healthcare providers will know, if they are going to survive, they have got to have this one monopoly paying them. And the monopoly can put in the contract: You won't be in our network if you accept insurance from any other place.

So that has to go. The House did that. I look forward to the Senate doing that.

Our revised version that I was hoping we would vote on today still does not fully repeal ObamaCare, but by the negotiations that have occurred in the Tuesday Group, Freedom Caucus, Republican Study Committee, committee of jurisdiction, we have made a great deal of progress, and I thought we were there. We didn't have any assurances that the Senate would pass exactly what we did, but we were going to move the ball forward.

Now, today was as close as we have gotten to repealing and getting into law a big repeal of a big part of ObamaCare, but it didn't happen today. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen very soon.

But what did happen in the White House, the President has stood undeterred. Again, today, he signed another executive order. This one didn't do as the prior administration and usurped power that was not his, that only Congress has. He is working well within the law and gets good advice on this stuff.

I have got to say, even when I have talked to the President over the last few weeks, more than once, he wants to make sure that he is following the Constitution, and he is careful to say that. I like that. Let's check to see and make sure we are following the Constitution and we are not missing something here. I love having a President that is concerned about that. For all of the grief that President Trump has taken, he is concerned about it. He does not want to exceed his authority.

Unfortunately, we have judges in the Ninth Circuit, particularly, that exceed their authority on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am hoping that, in the very near future, we will break up the Ninth Circuit. It would be okay with me if we restricted the Ninth Circuit, who doesn't have one care about precedence, about the Constitution. They just have their political agenda. If we are not going to get rid of them altogether, then let's at least restrict their jurisdiction to controversies that arise within their building and then divide up the rest.

We need a new circuit. Let President Trump appoint all of the new 12th Circuit that will be created. I am very pleased that our Judiciary Committee is wanting to do something major regarding the Ninth Circuit being out of control.

And I do think an important step will be, when we eliminate the jurisdiction of a district court over immigration and naturalization matters, we have authority to create courts--all but one. The Supreme Court is the only one formed under the Constitution. All the rest of them, we brought them into the world and we can take them out. We give them their jurisdiction and we can take it away. We need to do that if we are going to save this constitutional Republic.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to finish by mentioning the National Day of Prayer recognition that is coming up on Thursday. Anne Graham Lotz took over the gavel from Shirley Dobson. Both are dear friends. Shirley Dobson has done an extraordinary job over the last 25 years.

The National Day of Prayer has continued the tradition for many years now. We do have an observance at the Capitol. For a couple of decades, it has been at the Cannon Caucus Room. It seats more than the rooms here at the Capitol do. We had hoped to have it in the rotunda. It is nondenominational. There are others than Christians. There are Jewish leaders that will participate and always have.

This coming Thursday is that day. Thousands of cities around the country will observe the National Day of Prayer that President Trump will do, as all the Presidents for many decades have done, and sign recognizing that as the Day of Prayer. Congress has passed it recognizing that. Though Senator Schumer wouldn't let us have it in the rotunda, it will be in Statuary Hall, and it will be a day of prayer, thanksgiving, and fasting for some.

Our National Day of Prayer is really a day of celebration. I think it is something that has characterized this Nation from our very beginning. We had an order like none other from any commander I am ever familiar with. In my 4 years in the Army, we never had a commander issue an order like this. And certainly if one had been issued under the Obama administration's generals and admirals, the administration would have, no doubt, fired them immediately.

Washington issued an order for all its commanders that they had to allow our military members fighting for the United States to worship on Sunday. They were to set up chaplains in each unit if there was someone who could fulfill that role, and, if not, they would be allowed to go to another unit's worship of the Lord on Sunday.

Now, that was back in our founding. That is when we were fighting for existence. And for all those who have turned a blind eye to the real history of America--which is really hard to do with all of the evidence that is so overwhelming. But if one would just go down to the State Department down the road here, within the glass case there at the State Department, they have a copy of the original Treaty of Paris, 1783.

It surprised me. As much as I have studied history, I did not know how it started until I saw that. And I was actually with our pastor from Green Acres Baptist Church there in Tyler. He and his wife, Cindy, were with me and my wife, Kathy.

I have actually not been on a tour of the State Department since. A lot of it is pretty boring, but this is intriguing. This is the front of the Treaty of Paris, 1783. This was the document that required England, Great Britain, to recognize, in writing, that the United States of America was an independent country, that we did not have to do what we were dictated to by Great Britain, and that we were free and independent. There was still concern there in 1783.

Yes, they surrendered at Yorktown under General Cornwallis' command, but it is still 1783, the delegates are there at Paris, and the United States delegates are trying to figure out: How do we get these people to swear that they recognize we have a right to be independent? What can we get them to swear under that is so important to us and so important to those delegates from England that they would not dare break that oath?

Should we have them swear in the name of Allah, or Muhammad, or Confucius, or Buddha? What could we get the representative delegates from Great Britain, the United Kingdom, the most powerful empire in the world at that time, the most powerful military, navy to swear to? They are a lot bigger than us. What do we get them to swear under so that we know they have to take it seriously?

Well, they came up with it, and it starts the treaty, and it is the only thing in the Treaty of Paris that is huge lettering. And even I was surprised. In huge lettering, it says: ``In the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. . . .'' That is how the Treaty of Paris starts. That is what the United Kingdom Representatives had to swear under: ``In the name of the most holy and undivided trinity.''

It is also worth noting, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the planner of 9/ 11--thank God he is still in Guantanamo Bay--he noted in his pleading, he gave the reference to the verse in the Koran that says that anyone who attempts to attach someone else to God, to Allah, should be killed. It is a capital offense. It is a death-penalty offense the way Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, ISIS, and others read the Koran, the way the radicals read it. It is a death-penalty offense, as he points out in his pleadings, if you say God has a son. If you say there is a Holy Trinity, that is worth the death penalty for the radical Islamists--not for the moderates, but some estimate 10 percent of Islam.

It is a capital offense, and both the United Kingdom Representatives and the United States of America Representatives signed proudly the Treaty of Paris, recognizing our independence, proclaiming what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says is a death-penalty sentence. ``In the name of the most holy and undivided trinity.'' They said right there. It started our country, independently.

We recognize there is a most holy and undivided trinity. We say the Declaration of Independence started us, but that didn't really happen until somebody else agrees it is true. And our enemy, at that time, agreed it was true, and we began our Nation. And this National Day of Prayer is a day of rejoicing, a day of thanksgiving to the most holy and undivided trinity. And it would have been awesome if it could have been in the rotunda, but, under the rules of the Senate, if any Senator puts a hold on the bill, then it doesn't go forward for unanimous consent.

Hopefully, Senator Schumer is still there next year when it comes time. Hopefully, he won't put a hold on it if Anne Graham Lotz still has a vision of having the National Day of Prayer

celebration there in the Nation's rotunda.

But instead, next Thursday, it will be after 5 so it doesn't interfere with the normal workings. I had no problem with having the Holocaust recognition at 11 a.m. in the morning. Not only did I not have a problem with it, I was proud that we did it during the day like that. It should be noted. People should understand that unless you stand up for freedom, stand up for the teachings of Jesus, stand up for things that are actually in the Bible, you are not going to have the kind of freedom that allows people to be part of the greatest country in the world because that greatest country in world history will end up sliding down to the dustbin of history.

So it will be a great day. Mr. Speaker, I hope to see you there.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting hearing about a situation in the country--and it is amazing how some of us can look at the same thing and see very different situations. I know there are some that think we should stay in session all the time, but as is normally said back in Texas about the Texas legislature--and it applies even more so to the U.S. Congress--and that is, when legislature is in session, neither man nor property is safe.

We are voting on bills every day we are in session. As I understand it, there was a time when Congress could be in session, have hearings during the day, maybe vote in committee but not actually have votes on the floor during the day. But I think over the years, the concern has been if we are not voting on the floor where it is recorded, then people might not show up. There is certainly a body of evidence to support the country being better off when Congress doesn't come into session.

I had read that one of our Founders, Thomas Jefferson, for all his wisdom and his incredible draft--his was the first draft of the Declaration of Independence--Jefferson was not actually there in Philadelphia to help draft the

Constitution in 1787. But I had read that he sent a letter and remarked that if he had one thing that he could get into the Constitution-- realizing, of course, it was too late at that point--but it would be a requirement that no bill could be voted on in Congress until it had been on file for a year.

Some might immediately respond: well, gee, there are so many bills that we pass as emergency bills; and I would respond that yes, and usually those things that are drafted so quickly are more problematic than other legislation that goes through a lengthy and more diligent look at what is in the bill before it is passed.

In fact, if we had such--and I am not advocating that we have this constitutional amendment--but I am noting, Mr. Speaker, the merits of having bills on file for a lengthy period of time so people have a chance to think about it, talk about it, weigh the merits, and go back to our districts and talk about the merits there.

Of course, I am not talking about going back and having these fake news townhalls where people who supported opponents demand townhalls, and they have their playbook for how you go about trying to intimidate your Member of Congress and keep intimidating until your Member of Congress becomes a coward and he is afraid not to have, or she is afraid not to have, a townhall. And then once you have cowarded them into having a townhall, then they have the playbook for how you totally disrupt the townhall.

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about going all over your district talking to people eye-to-eye, heart-to-heart, and finding out where people are. It is incredible how people have come to be hurting over the last 8 years.

For all the talk that President Obama had about Fat Cats on Wall Street, it was as if there was a wink and a nod: Okay, I am going to refer to you guys on Wall Street as Fat Cats, but I am going to make you richer than you have ever been. I am going to stack the deck in your favor. All you have to do is endure me calling you Fat Cats, making references to you being so greedy. I may even refer to you being Republican, even though probably more of you donate to me than did my opponents. But that will be our little game. Then, of course, when I am out of office, you can pay me $400,000 for giving you an hour of my time. That is another wink and nod. It is just a friendly reward for how good I did for you while I was President.

Let's face it, the Democrats got through the Dodd-Frank bill that was supposed to punish the banks that brought us to the brink of ruin, but instead of punishing or reining in the investment banks on Wall Street that brought us to the brink of ruin, Dodd-Frank has overseen the demise of hundreds, even thousands of community banks that did not bring us anywhere close to the brink of economic disaster. In fact, they were the backbone.

As President George W. Bush was going out of office, he got $700 billion handed over to the Treasury Department so they could reward people like those at Goldman Sachs who helped bring us to the brink of desperation. In fact, I only saw one of the contracts that were drafted by the Treasury Department some years back. Lo and behold, it was one of the firms that was listed as being appropriate for the Treasury to contract with. Goldman Sachs was right in there.

Of course, with the disdain that Secretary Paulsen had for Goldman Sachs, he wasn't about to let their competitor, Lehman Brothers, survive. He was able to keep them from surviving, not helping them. God bless Ford Motor Company. They were able to turn down any government assistance that GM and Chrysler took.

There was a remedy, if we hadn't panicked and followed the advice of former FDIC Chairman Isaac. I found out from my Democratic friend Brad Sherman that he actually was the one that first brought former Chairman Isaac to the Hill. He had a good solution that would not have caused us to take what was referred to by socialists the day after it passed as the biggest step toward socialism in the last 50 years, and that was the Federal Government crawling in bed and calling the shots with the investment banks on Wall Street, much to the ruin of so many community banks.

We gave advantages to the big banks. We hurt the community banks who were not able to compete as well. God bless all of those that have hung in there. I hope that we can rectify things better than that.

The bottom line, I think, testifying about what the Obama years were about--and was even acknowledged by President Obama--a few years ago, he actually acknowledged that his Presidency oversaw a record that had never happened before in U.S. history. Ninety-five percent of the income in the United States--that was under Obama's policies--95 percent of all American income went to the top 1 percent in America.

If you were looking for one fact to really characterize the abuses of the preceding 8 years, I think that would be in contention. Ninety-five percent of the income went to the top 1 percent, not under George W. Bush, not under George H.W. Bush, not under Ronald Reagan, not under Richard Nixon, not under Dwight Eisenhower, not even under Harry Truman, but under Barack Hussein Obama's policies.

During his Presidency, the way the deck was tilted against the middle class and shrunk as the poor in America grew under Obama's policies, we actually hit a milestone in American history. Ninety-five percent of the income went to the top 1 percent income earners. That is pretty amazing.

I do personally, Mr. Speaker, think that has something to do with the Republicans gaining the majority in the House, in the Senate, and getting the Presidency. Americans, by a huge margin of electoral votes, and if you look at the map, who voted for Donald Trump and who voted for Hillary Clinton, it pretty well establishes the Democratic Party as the fringe party of America. They won the fringes, other than some major cities here and there. They are the fringe party.

All across America--the bulk of America, when you look at the map, voted to change course. Let's try something different so that 95 percent of America's income doesn't end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent--those same 1 percent that will be paying former President Obama $400,000 for 1 hour of his time.

Where have we heard that recently?

Well, I don't believe that was George W. Bush speaking to the disabled veterans getting that kind of money. Oh, yes, I recall now. It was Hillary Clinton. It was Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton earned massive amounts for speeches while his wife was the Secretary of State. And, wow, all of those tens, hundreds, millions of dollars coming to the Clinton Foundation amazingly at the time that this company that ends up being controlled by the Russians are allowed by Hillary Clinton to buy 25 percent or so of our uranium production.

Let's recap briefly what the Clinton family has done for us. Well, we know that in the nineties, when it comes to foreign affairs, North Korea was a threat to the world, to freedom, because they had a crazy leader, Kim Jong-il, and the world was concerned that North Korea might get nuclear weapons.

So what happened through the Clinton administration?

Well, they sent Wendy Sherman and some other folks and they negotiated with the North Koreans and said: If you will just sign and say you are agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, we will make sure you have everything you need to make nuclear weapons, but you will have to sign saying that when we give you everything, make sure you have everything to make nuclear weapons, you just won't make them into nuclear weapons.

I mentioned before, it reminds me of that routine Jeff Foxworthy talks about when he was not doing very well financially and a guy comes to take his car because he hasn't been able to make his payments, and he said: Look, man, please don't take my car. If you take my car, I can't do any more gigs and I can't make any money, and then I have no chance of paying you.

The guy said: Buddy, I am sorry, but my instructions were to either take the car or cash or a check.

Foxworthy said: Check? You mean I can just sign something and you will take that and leave me alone? Oh, I can give you a check. I didn't know that was going to be good enough.

I thought about Kim Jong-il thinking: You mean you will give me everything I need to create a bunch of nuclear weapons and you will accept my signature and that is good enough for Wendy Sherman and all those other people--our Under Secretary of State under Bill Clinton?

It is amazing that she has had the nerve to come out critical of any other Secretary of State after the disaster she presided over.

Yes, he was glad to sign whatever the Clintons wanted him to sign. He said: Sure, if Ms. Sherman wants me to sign something, I will sign whatever you want.

And in no time, what does he have?

Nuclear weapons.

President Obama comes into office and the whole world is concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons.

What do they do?

They said: Let's send Wendy Sherman and some of these smart people like John Kerry, who doesn't now how to pronounce Genghis Khan. Let's send them over there to negotiate with Iran so that maybe we can keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons the same way some of these same people kept North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

So what happens?

They go over and they give the largest supporter of terrorism in the world massive amounts of cash. By massive, I mean pallets of cash and checks; however you may want it. There is no telling. They may have sent some gold or platinum. Who knows? Plutonium.

It will be interesting in the years ahead to just see how terrible the agreement was and how we are finding out--it seems like almost every night in the news we find out some other disaster that the Obama administration provided the crazy supporters of terrorism in Iran. I don't mean the rank-and-file people.

We get the impression possibly a majority of Iranians like Americans. They wish they did not have radical Islamists in control, but they are. The Obama administration provided them murdering thugs who have killed, been responsible for the death of so many in the past, and no doubt will be again in the future, and they are on their way to having nuclear weapons, just like the Clinton administration oversaw with North Korea.

In the meantime, though at the end of the Bush administration, the President Bush administration actually was making progress in making our borders more secure. It never came out during those days, but the Republicans in the Texas delegation in Congress were having meetings once every couple of weeks with people in the Bush administration--Karl Rove, Chertoff--a lot of good that did. But we were getting reports every couple weeks. We wanted to know what advancements, what progress had been made in the preceding two weeks in securing our border. They were taking steps to do that.

President Obama takes over, and what happens? It is like the floodgates were opened. As the Border Patrol have said to the drug cartels who were responsible from the Mexico side for every inch of the border, if you cross over in one drug cartel's sector, you must make sure you have their permission. Normally that means you must pay or agree to work for them when you get to the U.S. city where you are going.

That is why they called the Department of Homeland Security their logistics, that all the drug cartels had to do is get these people across the border. They would pay thousands to the drug cartels to get them across. They were used as a distraction. They sent them across. The Border Patrol would have to in-process them in accordance with the Obama policies. While they were doing that, they would tell you privately, yes, we know there are drugs coming across at other points in the river down there south of McAllen and southwest of McAllen, but they knew. We are doing our job. We know they are bound to be bringing drugs over while they keep us tied up. What a business model.

Then the Department of Homeland Security would ship many of those people to the places that they would have addresses for, and, as I witnessed myself, there were times when our Border Patrol would say: well, you certainly didn't come up with all the thousands. And ultimately they finally admit: no, they are going to let me work some of that off when I get to the city where I am going.

In other words, they would be their drug mules, they would be their drug salespeople. Some, God forgive us, would get into sex trafficking. The Obama administration allowed this massive network to take off.

At the same time, we heard from FBI Director Comey, we ended up with ISIS cells in every State, we had the drug cells locating all over the country in the last 8 years, we had ISIS creating cells that would be activated at some point and begin to kill Americans, and so it shouldn't have been that big of a surprise to those who were really paying attention that Americans were ready for a change. Not on the fringes, but Americans across the heartland were ready for a change, and they voted for Donald Trump.

This week, I don't know if we are going to vote tomorrow on the American Health Care Act. I indicated now, with the changes that have been made, I think probably 90 percent or so of the Freedom Caucus has now agreed. Because, I mean, we have gotten the best we can get. If we don't do something, people in my district who are just overwhelmed with the prices of their health insurance premiums, the cost of health care, the high deductibles, meaning they are paying for insurance they are probably never going to get anything out of--they have got to have help.

That is one of the reasons, one of the biggest reasons I was a holdout because even though I think CBO was talking about premiums continuing to increase up to 2026, and then 10 years from now start down a little bit, people in east Texas could not afford for premiums to continue to go up for 10 years. I think it was probably more accurate they would be going up for 3 years.

But with what we have done, and the agreement we got--I am telling you, President Trump is a great man to negotiate with. He does want to get a deal done. He was extremely cooperative. He actually can be quite enjoyable to negotiate with. He is an amazing man. But we were having trouble with leaders in the House and the Senate. President Trump would agree to things, and we would have trouble getting it past our own leadership.

Some of us felt all along, if you let the conservative group sit down with the Tuesday Group, we could probably get things worked out, and, really, bottom line is, that is what happened. Tom MacArthur is a very dear friend. I know he wants what is best for the people in his district. He is doing all he can to serve them. I know that is what the Tuesday Group wants to do. They want to serve their constituents. We all do.

So now where we are--and hopefully we will have votes and we can get this done. But we have gone from a bill that had 17 percent support of the American people, and now we have gotten an agreement to include provisions that eliminate the taxes immediately that would have been kept in place for the future. Under our agreement, the language is there, those taxes are out immediately. There has also been added a work requirement for people who are Medicaid recipients. If they are able to work, then they should work. If they don't have a job, they still will need to do some work under the work requirements, much like the welfare requirements that were passed in the 1990s by the Republican House and Senate. For the first time in 30 years, a single- mom income, when adjusted for inflation, started going up after the work requirement was added.

We have also agreed to language that will make sure that people who have preexisting conditions can't be shunned by the insurance companies. If you are 26 and you are living with your parents, you can still be on their insurance. I don't know why we have even an age limit at all. Those things will still be there, despite all the fear mongering that some on the other side of the aisle have done back in Texas that I know of.

Let's make no mistake, this is not a full repeal. There is still a lot of work to be done. But the MacArthur amendment will allow the repeal of some of the mandates--not the preexisting condition or the 26 being on parents' insurance but some of the other mandates that have spiked the insurance costs so high. While this revised version still

does not fully repeal ObamaCare, it will bring down the costs of health insurance. The people I represent just had to have help. At least 75 percent were saying: We have got to have help. So we look forward to working with the Senate and trying to make it even better as it goes through the Senate.

I think I have got just a minute. I just wanted to note, the observance anniversary of the Holocaust this past Tuesday, April 25, was a very somber occasion held in the rotunda. I know the minority leader, Senator Schumer, wanted it there. I just continue to hope and pray, as I hope most Americans do, that we will never, ever have another Holocaust. I think one of the things that can help prevent that is if we have effective national days of prayer, as have been going on for so many decades, going back to Washington proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer and fasting.

I deeply regret, though, that we thought we were going to be able to fulfill the vision of Anne Graham Lotz, the new chairman of the National Day of Prayer. She took over for Shirley Dobson, who did a magnificent job for the last 25 years as the national chair. She had a vision for doing it in the rotunda, and all that would require, like for the Holocaust observance, would be a unanimous consent agreement in the House and Senate, and then it would have been in the rotunda. It would have needed to have been after 5. Even though the Holocaust occurred during the day, it was clear, and she had agreed, the National Day of Prayer folks had agreed, but any Senator can put a hold on such a thing, and one Senator did. Senator Schumer put a hold on the National Day of Prayer being able to use the rotunda.

I hope and pray some day Senator Schumer will realize that the best way to avoid a Holocaust in the future is to have effective national days of prayer from the rotunda and everywhere else that we possibly can, as the church services have been held in the Capitol, participated in by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and so many others. They were nondenominational; so they thought that didn't violate their Constitution.

But it looks like this will be in the area that Senator Schumer cannot stop from being used. It is totally under the control of the House. I want to thank Speaker Ryan for allowing the use. We will be in statuary hall where nondenominational Christian churches were held on Sunday. It was the largest Christian church in Washington for much of the 1800s. So that is where it will be this year. Hopefully we won't have a Senator who will put a hold on it next year, and Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham Lotz' vision will finally be fulfilled.

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump recently signed an executive order that made abundant sense for those who are in the world of common sense where good sense is common, which at least is not the case in the Federal courthouse in San Francisco.

Our friend, Andrew McCarthy, has written an op-ed for National Review regarding the decision of the oligarch masquerading in the Federal courthouse in San Francisco. Judge William H. Orrick III is amazing. In fact, his arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance.

It is an excellent article. Normally I wouldn't read an entire article, it is not that long, but this is so well written by the prosecutor of The Blind Sheikh that it bears hearing the words from Andrew McCarthy.

He said: ``A showboating Federal judge in San Francisco has issued an injunction against President Trump's executive order cutting off Federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. The ruling distorts the E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the President of usurping legislative authority despite the order's express adherence to `existing law.' Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been enforced, the activist court--better to say, the fantasist court-- dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to actual controversies involving concrete, nonspeculative harms.

``Although he vents for 49 pages, Judge William H. Orrick III gives away the game early, on page 4. There, the Obama appointee explains that his ruling is about . . . nothing.

``That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law. Although that construction is completely consistent with the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as `implausible.' ''

I would interject at this point, Mr. Speaker, that upon hearing President Trump's executive order requiring sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, where their heart is so calloused on the side figuratively facing people like Kate Steinle, innocent people who are just trying to live freely their own lives, and is greatly softened on the side of those criminals who have come into the United States illegally who would tend to shoot lovely, law-abiding daughters like Kate.

So it seemed eminently reasonable what I had read was in the order. I didn't read the whole order originally, but it made eminent sense, of course, the President of the United States saying that he is authorized by the Constitution in carrying out enforcement and by Congress in carrying out enforcement, saying we are not sending Federal money to sanctuary cities--to any cities--that are refusing to use the money for the purpose for which it is intended. That makes eminent sense, because if you are not going to follow Federal law, if it is made clear to the whole world that you would rather see people like Kate Steinle shot and killed dead so that you can have criminals committing the worst kinds of violence on law-abiding citizens. That makes sense to these people who are ruling in San Francisco. One ruler is Judge Orrick who we reference here.

There was a time in America when people in power thought it was a good idea for everyone to follow the law. But we have devolved in some areas of the country where we are no longer a nation of laws, where at least at one time there was a goal of pursuing absolute fairness where everyone could live under the same laws following the same laws. There was that time.

Yet we have people who are educated far beyond their mental ability to absorb education since it has used up all the gigabytes that might have otherwise been used for wisdom for cluttered knowledge that has prevented this judge and others from being able to use common sense to follow the law to protect people who are counting on the courts and law enforcement officers to follow and enforce the law themselves.

There was that time when Manifest Destiny was being pursued, people were moving West. The areas West were not actual States within the United States. There was a lawlessness. People were yearning in those territories to be States so that they could count on the Federal Government to provide fairness--ultimate fairness--and provide a life that would be lived under the United States Constitution. They felt, in those days, if we could just get the Federal Government to have a Federal marshal here and a Federal Court here, wow, life would be so much better. Now we have seen it has lived beyond the usefulness it once had and has become quite a burden to overcome in reaching fairness and constitutionality.

So, Mr. Speaker, before I continue with Andy McCarthy's piece, I want to point out we are in preparation of a bill that would eliminate any Federal district court or circuit court from having jurisdiction over matters regarding immigration. Certainly, we had that power. In fact, we have the power to eliminate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals altogether. We have a bill that would, in fact, limit the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to California, and all of the other States that comprise the Ninth Circuit would be part of a new 12th Circuit. In that new 12th Circuit, whoever the current President is when the law is passed would appoint the entire banc of judges for the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following the Reid rule in the Senate, if we were to get that passed through the House and Senate, I feel sure President Trump would sign it into law, and then President Trump would have an entire circuit where he appoints the judges, where people would know they would have judges of the quality of Judge Gorsuch--at least the quality he is supposed to represent--and people would know they weren't going to get oligarchs as judges, they were going to get people who at least maintain some semblance of trying to follow the Constitution and trying to live up to the oath that they took to defend the Constitution--just support the Constitution for goodness' sake.

McCarthy goes on. He says: ``Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case? Why the judicial theatrics?

``There appear to be two reasons.

``The first is Orrick's patent desire to embarrass the White House, which rolled out the E.O. with great fanfare. The court wants it understood that Trump is a pretender: For all the hullaballoo, the E.O. effectively did nothing. Indeed, Orrick rationalizes his repeated misreadings of what the order actually says by feigning disbelief that what it says could possibly be what it means. Were that the case, he suggests, there would have been no reason to issue the order in the first place.

``Thus, taking a page from the activist leftwing judges who invalidated

Trump's `travel ban' orders, Orrick harps on stump speeches by Trump and other administration officials. One wonders how well Barack `If you like your plan, you can keep your plan' Obama would have fared under the judiciary's new Trump doctrine: The extravagant political rhetoric by which the incumbent President customarily sells his policies relieves a court of the obligation to grapple with the inevitably more modest legal text of the directives that follow.

``Of course, the peer branches of government are supposed to presume each other's good faith in the absence of a patent violation of the law. But let's put aside the unseemliness of Orrick's barely concealed contempt for a moment, because he is also wrong. The proper purpose of an executive order is to direct the operations of the executive branch within the proper bounds of the law. There is, therefore, nothing untoward about an E.O. that directs the President's subordinates to take enforcement action within the confines of congressional statutes. In fact, it is welcome.

``It is the President's burden to set Federal law enforcement priorities. After years of Obama's lax enforcement of immigration law and apathy regarding sanctuary jurisdictions, an E.O. openly manifesting an intent to execute the laws vigorously can have a salutary effect. And indeed, indications are that the cumulative effect of Trump's more zealous approach to enforcement, of which the sanctuary-city E.O. is just one component, has been a significant reduction in the number of aliens seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.''

``In any event, 8 years of Obama's phone and pen have made it easy to forget that the President is not supposed to make the law, and thus that we should celebrate, not condemn, an E.O. that does not break new legal ground. Orrick, by contrast, proceeds from the flawed premise that if a President is issuing an E.O., it simply must be his purpose to usurp congressional authority. Then he censures Trump for a purported usurpation that is nothing more than a figment of his own very active imagination.''

He is talking about the judge here. What an imagination.

``Orrick's second reason for issuing his Ruling About Nothing is to rationalize what is essentially an advisory opinion. It holds--I know you'll be shocked to hear this--that if Trump ever did try to cut off funds from sanctuary cities, it would be an epic violation of the Constitution. Given that courts are supposed to refrain from issuing advisory opinions, the Constitution is actually more aggrieved by Orrick than by Trump.

``In a nutshell, the court claims that the E.O. is Presidential legislation, an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Orrick insists that the E.O. directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to cut off any Federal funds that would otherwise go to States and municipalities if they `willfully refuse to comply' with Federal law that calls for State and local cooperation in enforcing immigration law.

``According to Judge Orrick, Trump's E.O. is heedless of whether Congress has approved any terminations of State funding from Federal programs it has enacted. In one of the opinion's most disingenuous passages, Orrick asserts that the E.O. `directs the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary to ensure that ``sanctuary jurisdictions'' are ``not eligible to receive'' Federal grants.'

``But this is just not true.''

In other words, Judge Orrick lied in his opinion.

``Orrick has omitted key context from the relevant passage, which actually states that `the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are not eligible to receive Federal grants.'

``In plain English, the President has expressly restricted his subordinates to the limits that Congress has enacted. Under Trump's order, there can be no suspension or denial of funding from a Federal program unless congressional statutes authorize it. The President is not engaged in an Obama-esque rewrite of Federal law; he explicitly ordered his subordinates to follow Federal law.

``It is not enough to say Orrick mulishly ignores the clear text of the executive order. Again and again, Justice Department lawyers emphasized to the court that Trump's order explicitly reaffirmed existing law. Orrick refused to listen because, well, what fun would that be? If the President is simply directing that the law be followed, there is no basis for a progressive judge''--like Orrick--``to accuse him of violating the law. Were he to concede that, how would Orrick then win this month's Social Justice Warrior in a Robe Award for Telling Donald Trump What for?

``Orrick can't confine himself to merely inventing a violation, either, because there is no basis for a lawsuit unless a violation results in real damages. So, the judge also has to fabricate some harm. This takes some doing since, in addition to merely directing that the law be enforced, the Trump administration has not actually taken any action against any sanctuary jurisdiction to this point.

``No problem: Orrick theorizes that because San Francisco and Santa Clara receive lots of government funding, Trump's order afflicts them with `pre-enforcement' anxiety. They quake in fear that their safety- net and service budgets will be slashed.''

Mr. Speaker, I would inject that it appears that Judge Orrick and leaders in San Francisco must be deeply in need of a safe space where they can go sit in the dark, suck their thumbs, hold their blankets, and feel comforted somehow because of the illusions that they have generated of all these bugaboos that are threatening in their wild imaginations.

Mr. McCarthy goes on:

``Sanctuary cities? Maybe we should call them snowflake cities.

``As noted above, there is a transparent agenda behind Orrick's sleight of hand. The judge is keen to warn the President that, if ever his administration were to deny funds to sanctuary cities, it would violate the Constitution. It is in connection with this advisory opinion that the judge makes the only point worthy of consideration-- albeit not in the case before him.

``Here, it is useful to recall the Supreme Court's first ObamaCare ruling. While conservatives inveighed against Chief Justice Roberts' upholding of the individual mandate, the decision had a silver lining: The majority invalidated ObamaCare's Medicaid mandate, which required the States, as a condition of qualifying for Federal Medicaid funding, to enforce the Federal Government's generous new Medicaid qualifications.

``In our system, the States are sovereign--the Federal Government may not dictate to them in areas of traditional State regulation, nor may it conscript them to enforce Federal law. The Supremes, therefore, explained that State agreements to accept Federal funding in return for adopting Federal standards, e.g., to accept highway funding in exchange for adopting the Federally prescribed 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, are like contracts. The State must agree to the Federal Government's terms. Once such an agreement is reached, the Feds may not unilaterally make material changes in the terms, nor may they use their superior bargaining position to extort a State into acceding to onerous new terms in order to get the Federal money on which it has come to depend. Whether a particular case involves such an extortion, as opposed to a permissible nudge, depends on the facts. If the Feds are too heavy- handed, they run the risk of violating the 10th Amendment's Federalist division of powers.

``Who knew Federal judges in ur-statist San Francisco had become such Federalists?

``Orrick contends that if Trump were to cut off funds from sanctuary cities for failure to assist Federal immigration-enforcing officials, it would offend the 10th Amendment. This is highly unlikely. First, let's remember--though Orrick studiously forgets--that Trump's order endorses only such stripping of funds as Congress has already approved. Thus, sanctuary jurisdictions would be ill-suited to claim that they'd been sandbagged. Second, the money likely to be at issue would surely be nothing close to Medicaid funding. Finally, Trump would not be

unilaterally rewriting an existing Federal-State contract; he'd be calling for the States to follow Federal laws that, A, were on the books when the States started taking Federal money and, B, pertain to immigration, a legal realm in which the courts have held the Federal Government is supreme and the States subordinate.

``Still, all that said, whether any Trump-administration effort to cut off funding would run afoul of the 10th Amendment would depend on such considerations as how much funding was actually cut; whether Congress had authorized the cut in designing the funding program; whether the funding was tightly related or unrelated to immigration enforcement; and how big a burden it would be for States to comply with Federal demands. Those matters will be impossible to evaluate unless and until the administration actually directs a slashing of funds to a sanctuary jurisdiction.

``If that happens, there will almost certainly be no legal infirmity as long as Trump's E.O. means what it says--namely, that any funding cuts must be consistent with existing Federal law. But it hasn't happened.''

And for our poor, miseducated Judge Orrick sitting on the bench with his head crammed full of mush, but none of it entangled with the U.S. Constitution, he fails to understand that Federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions. There is no standing. There is no jurisdiction of the court. But don't let the Constitution nor Federal law get in the way of Judge Orrick's ego.

McCarthy points out:

``If that happens . . . any funding cuts must be consistent with Federal law. But it hasn't happened. And as long as it hasn't happened, there is no basis for a court to involve itself, much less issue an anticipatory ruling.

``Such niceties only matter if you are practicing law, though. Judge Orrick is practicing politics.''

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of judge that really should be removed from office. He is allowed to sit as long as he exhibits good conduct, but this is not the conduct that is good, when he takes an oath to be judicious, follow the law, and defend the Constitution. It is certainly unbecoming to a judge.

Yes, here in Congress we debate and go back and forth. Before the courts, lawyers go back and forth. But the judge is supposed to be judicious and follow the law.

It is time for us to take away all authority of any Federal district court, any Federal magistrate, any Federal judge of any kind other than the Supreme Court when it comes to issues such as this.

We have created immigration courts, but when it comes to appeals and to lawsuits filed regarding immigration and naturalization, I think, Mr. Speaker, we should restrict that to the one and only Federal court that, as Professor Gwen used to say in constitutional law at Baylor, only one court in the United States Federal system that owes its existence to the Constitution.

All other Federal courts of any kind owe their existence and their jurisdiction to the United States Congress. So the Congress giveth when it comes to courts, and the Congress can taketh away. It is time to start removing authority from some of these courts that Congress has created that have now created more problems than they have solved.

An article here by Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble in The Washington Times basically says what so many of the news media did that a Federal judge, Judge Orrick, says Trump is wrong to tie Federal funding to sanctuary status and blocks the executive order. But really it turns out, when you get the actual order and you find out what really happened, there was no such order because there was no violation. There was no harm. The plaintiffs had no standing. The court had no jurisdiction. This is a zero in the effect in this country other than the politics that this Federal judge was playing.

Unfortunately, when a Federal judge acquires a lifetime appointment and he starts running for an office he already holds when there is no opponent, he is acting outside the realm of the Constitution, and we really should have debates over what good conduct means. It doesn't matter whether or not a judge voted Republican, Socialist, Libertarian, it doesn't matter. If he or she is not acting within the confines of their oath, they need to be removed from the bench.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, we will take up--I know my friend Darrell Issa and others have filed bills about the Ninth Circuit Court that has more cases filed in it because lawyers know it is more likely to gut the U.S. Constitution and ignore the Constitution, so anybody who has a claim that is not particularly meritorious under the Constitution, as written, wants to be in the Ninth Circuit because there they have got a shot that the oligarchs out there will do what a judge basically is quoted as saying before, that, gee, we know we don't follow the Constitution or we don't care about precedent, don't care what the Supreme Court says, but that is why we come out with so many decisions. We know the Supreme Court can't reverse them all.

That is a court that really ought to be disbanded. When you have a court that is ignoring their oath, ignoring the Constitution, it is just really time to get rid of it.

We have a report, too, Mr. Speaker, after the great work of the two main leaders--and I do mean that in every good sense of the term ``leaders''--Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, especially Mark Meadows, working in the last couple weeks, working to try to have a solution even though, apparently, according to one of my colleagues who is not a part of the Freedom Caucus, he was hoping that we would stay here until we got an agreement on a healthcare bill but was told, no, we want the Freedom Caucus to go home and let their constituents yell at them, and then they will be ready to sign or vote for whatever we put in front of them.

Actually, most of us, it sounds like from our discussions, have been reaffirmed and encouraged by our constituents. In my case, it certainly felt like, as I traveled throughout east Texas, apparently not being at the places where the Democrats who call themselves Indivisible were appearing, but going to veterans' groups, chambers of commerce, banquets, meeting with many constituents, but hearing about three- fourths of the time, which was my percentage, basically, with which I won the last general election, people are saying: Hang in there. Don't give up.

So with the encouragement of constituents that most of us in the Freedom Caucus have had, we came back still willing to negotiate, still trying to work. Mark Meadows has done some good work.

I still have trouble understanding why we didn't just go ahead and bring to the floor, bring out of committee--it has been through committee before--the bill 2 years ago. I mean, it had hearings, passed out of the House and Senate. It repealed most of ObamaCare, not all of it, but more than the current bill being taken up in this Congress. Why not just bring that to the floor? Then we pass that, and we could take other steps. One that is absolutely critical--and I do applaud Speaker Ryan for bringing it to the floor. It was a very critical step in getting competition in health insurance, not to be confused with health care.

For too long, going back to 1993 when Hillary Rodham Clinton was talking about everybody deserves health care, she was using ``health care'' and ``health insurance'' as if they were synonymous. Those terms are not synonymous. People can get health care without health insurance. I know because, after ObamaCare was passed, Congress was mandated to have ObamaCare, and then President Obama, Harry Reid, and John Boehner, as Speaker--come to think of it, all three people who are no longer in positions of power--came together, and they agreed to act as if the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, did not say that Members of Congress could no longer receive the subsidy that every Federal employee in America gets to help pay for healthcare insurance. So they just ignored the law, made very clear. Even though every other Federal employee gets that assistance--and with my wife and me paying off kids' student loans, because if I had never run for elected office, they had money set aside, that we had set aside, would have paid for every year of their college. We didn't think that they should have to have big student loan debt because their father felt

the calling to be a public servant. So we are paying off student loans, and this will be the first year that I will be able to file a financial disclosure that doesn't have student loan debt listed because when it falls below $10,000, you don't have to list it. So we have made progress.

But because of that, we were not in a position to pay the massive amount that the insurance was going to cost, so I went without insurance up here in Congress. I know what it is to have health care and not have health insurance. I still don't have government-funded or healthcare insurance here. I have insurance now, but it is not through the Federal Government. So I understand the difference between insurance and health care.

I look forward to the day when we keep blurring that line because, when the line is totally blurred, then Americans are more easily duped into allowing the Federal Government to turn the best health care in the world's history into VA-styled problems of treating people. Most of us don't want that. Most Americans don't want that. They didn't want it in 2010. They don't want it now.

But the bill Speaker Ryan brought to the floor had over 400 votes, and it is an important bill. We are going to bring down the costs, have real competition in health care and in health insurance; and what that bill did was eliminate the exemption from antitrust laws that health insurance companies have had since the McCarran-Ferguson bill passed in 1945. Although people have talked more about buying insurance across State lines, the fact is, if we don't end the exemption from antitrust laws of health insurance companies and we do allow people to buy their insurance across State lines, then instead of having 30 to 50 monopolies as we may have now in the health insurance business, we will end up with one monopoly in the whole country; because, if you don't have to follow antitrust laws, if you don't have to avoid taking actions to create monopolies and to force others out of business using antitrust tactics, then you can become the monopoly, and you will become the monopoly.

If it is legal for an insurance company that is the biggest insurance company in a town, State, or country to go to a hospital or go to a healthcare network and say, you know, we have got most all of the health insurance business in the country and we want to put you in our network, but you are going to have to agree to let us pay you a fraction of what you normally would get, and if you ever allow any of these new entrepreneurial health insurance companies to have you in their network, then we will cut you out of our network.

Well, hospitals, networks in their right minds would say, we can't turn these people down, we will go out of business because they are the big company. If we are not in their network, then we will go out of business. But, unfortunately, that would also mean all these other brilliant entrepreneurial-type insurance ideas, whether it is Medi- Share, Christians coming together and sharing expenses, whatever it is, the big monopoly health insurance company can run them out of business, and that needs to be prevented.

I applaud the Republican leadership for bringing that bill to the floor. I applaud the leadership, people like Paul Gosar, Dr. Gosar, and Austin Scott. They have done a good job, and I would like to think I have been pretty vocal on that issue as well. We had a vote on that, and over 400 people voted to end the exemption from antitrust laws of health insurance companies.

I know good and well, if the Senate brings that same bill to the Senate floor, it will also have a huge--I don't know if it would be unanimous, but it would certainly be a huge victory. It would certainly be bipartisan to pass it. I think that is the kind of thing Americans are wanting to see.

But as I talk to people around east Texas, most people have never heard of that because the newspapers around east Texas are more interested usually in talking about this Democratic group that calls itself Indivisible, as if everybody doesn't know that they are basically Democrats.

I think a meeting that called itself a townhall over in Longview got all kinds of good press. It was sponsored, as I understand it, by Democratic Women of Gregg County and Stonewall, a Democratic group. It wasn't a local group, the Stonewall group. Anyway, I would be busy around the rest of the district at Chamber banquets, meetings, and things like that.

But it has been refreshing to talk to real Americans, people that are just trying to make a living, people that are just trying to pay their bills. I know some people talk in bold terms about how we are on vacation. But it is fantastic when Members of Congress go home and hear from their constituents. And I do. I hear those, Mr. Speaker, that are part of the 26 percent that want to keep ObamaCare. But I sure have my heart set on keeping our promises.

In my district, the 74 percent said: ``We need ObamaCare repealed. We need the Federal Government to get out of our private lives. We need better jobs. We need the economy going much stronger.''

I am excited about President Trump's proposal that he rolled out today. Having talked to my friend Kevin Brady, a good friend from Texas, the plan they are rolling out, I have come to have very grave concerns about the border adjustment tax.

But if we do as President Trump proposed, bring our corporate tax down to 15 percent, as the President proposed today, manufacturing jobs will come rushing back to America. They will.

I know there are the pseudointellectual elites that like to tell themselves that we have evolved somehow into this service society where we don't denigrate ourselves to the point that a lot of us have been throughout our lives, and so no problem, and that is doing hard labor, producing products, and manufacturing. It is a good thing.

America needs manufacturing jobs back. It is a good thing to have a job. I know there are those that are quite cynical, those who are atheist, agnostic, and other religions. But for those who believe the teaching in the Bible, when God created the world and there was a Garden of Eden, everything was perfect. And even in a perfect Garden of Eden, God felt like it was good for people to have a job. So he gave Adam and Eve a job. He said: Your job is tending the garden. And in some form or other, Mr. Speaker, that is the job we have--tending the magnificent garden.

We can use the resources, we can continue to make the world better-- cleaner air and cleaner water. Nobody wants dirty water and dirty air. And it is continuing to be clean in Texas, whether there were a Federal EPA or not. Our agencies in Texas are doing a good job.

Our Federal Government needs to allow the brilliance, the creativeness, and the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans to bloom. If we drop the largest tariff that any nation in the industrialized world places on its own products, if we get rid of that, or at least drop that down to 15 percent, manufacturing jobs will return to America and our economy will explode for the better.

Some of these young people that have come out of school--high school, college, graduate studies--so many have no idea what it is to have countering offers for their employment. They don't know. They had to move home and live at home for awhile. But it is exciting when you are wanted by more than one employer, and money is offered, and it is good money. It makes you feel good about yourself. Mr. Speaker, I am ready, like most Americans, to see that happening in America again so our young people can have that feeling of self-worth because there are so many jobs.

One of the first steps was to repeal ObamaCare and allow health care that would be affordable--insurance that would be affordable. Well, the bill we are taking up is not going to do that. But I have advised the House leadership, Republican leadership, and the President and Vice President that I will vote for the bill in its current form. It is not what I wanted.

It is not a full repeal, but it does enough now that it will bring down premiums. And it won't be 10 years under the law the way it is written right now.

It protects those who have preexisting conditions.

It allows people 26 years of age and younger--I wouldn't mind it being 50,

but it is 26--be on their parents' insurance as dependents. That is not being touched. That is there.

But some of the mandates are being repealed the way it sits now. I am not thrilled with it. But I have talked to enough people that have just got to have help on the premiums. The bill, the way it was, was not going to help them. We have got the bill to a point where it will help much more quickly with premium assistance.

I am looking forward to getting that behind us, moving on to dropping the corporate tax rate to 15 percent so we can return manufacturing jobs in droves, and seeing this economy explode.

There is reason to be optimistic. Not everybody is as mindless as Judge Orrick, so there is reason for optimism.

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