Trent Franks

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 618.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. He and I hold a deep, common conviction that Arizona is the most important and best State in the Union, and I don't think anyone here would debate that.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, October 30, we were delivered the over- hyped ``bombshell'' story that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would introduce some damning evidence about President Trump's collusion with Russia via indictments.

On Friday, October 27, someone involved in the grand jury investigation--now, don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of a grand jury is secrecy, but someone in that organization leaked information to the press, specifically CNN, with no reasonable person being able to count as a friend to the President of the United States; and it caused every political pundit in the country to begin surmising who would be the first to fall.

Reporters were assigned the story, revisiting campaign notes and combing through stacks of research and fact sheets about so-called evidence of Russia collusion.

Then the big reveal: Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted for crimes related to their business dealings with a Ukrainian politician clinging to power in a country undergoing a revolution, back in 2014. The FBI had been trying to indict them ever since. There was no mention of the Trump campaign, not any whatsoever in the 12-count indictment.

In other words, Mr. Speaker the announcement amounted to what many have called a ``nothing burger.''

Mainstream media members, who had spent all weekend promising the viewers and their readers some new damning evidence about Trump, were aghast.

Mueller had let them down. How could they face their audience now with nothing to show? But wait, another indictment snuck in in the last few hours, only a few hours later, right in the nick of time. George Papadopoulos--now, here is our guy. This is the guy. He actually went to Russia, and he proposed Trump meet with Putin. We have got him now.

Well, no. It turns out Papadopoulos was an unpaid intern who possessed a background in researching Russia. When he suggested Trump meet with the Russians, he was shot down quickly and firmly. The indictment against Papadopoulos didn't even have to do with his work on the campaign. He was indicted because he had lied to the FBI--again, no collusion with the Trump campaign found whatsoever.

But that didn't stop the media from sensationalizing the news. After all, they have a job to do. But the American people didn't fall for it, Mr. Speaker. The New Yorker's legal writer, Jeffrey Toobin, and the liberal vox.com have suggested Mueller seems to be conducting his investigation like he is going after a mafia mob boss.

The problem with treating the Trump campaign as an organized crime organization, clearly, is it presumes Trump's guilt. No matter how well-intentioned and full of integrity Mr. Mueller might be, if he is treating Trump like Al Capone, his tactics are wrong.

When trying to pursue charges on a mafia boss, the FBI pulls in the street guys, threatens them with life in jail or some other steep charge, unless they spill the beans on their superior. Once they crack, they bring in the next level, all the way to the top. This is a well- known tactic, and it incentivizes those arrested to invent some spurious testimony against their superiors.

Could Mr. Mueller be acting with vengeance or to vindicate his good friend and colleague, James Comey, who had a very public feud with the President? Well, we don't know, Mr. Speaker, but it is hard to take any charges with this investigation seriously when they are going about it in this fashion.

The main point is this, Mr. Speaker: at least James Comey, the media, and the Democrats desperately want collusion to exist between Trump and Russia. And when you want something that bad, you might even begin to believe it is true, even if it is not.

But there is good news. Anyone sincerely looking for the drama of American officials actually colluding with the Kremlin, need look no further now than the emerging scandal concerning the sale of American uranium reserves to Russia during Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department.

The FBI, in 2009, under the Obama administration, began investigating Russia's use of bribery, kickbacks, and extortion to gain a bigger foothold in the American atomic energy industry. They knew this was happening. The record is clear. Of course, Mr. Speaker, American nuclear resources are a critical component of America's national security. So any detail between Russian companies and U.S. atomic energy resources would require a signoff from the State Department.

After all, Russia is a hostile foreign government. Correct? Democrats certainly seem to believe so now, even though, in past years, most of them couldn't find Russia on a map.

So when Rosatom, a Russian energy group, took control of the Canadian Uranium One, which had control of mining and uranium stakes stretching

from Central Asia to the American West, that deal needed U.S. State Department approval. After all, this meant that Russia, a hostile foreign power, would control 20 percent of America's uranium industry. And, of course, as Obama's FBI was investigating Russia for bribes and extortion related to atomic energy, this deal should have raised a red flag for the State Department.

Vladimir Putin really wanted the deal to go through because, per The New York Times, it would allow him to realize his goal of becoming one of the world's major atomic energy players. The only thing standing in his way was Hillary Clinton's State Department. The month the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin for a ``speaking engagement'' in Moscow. Then, Mr. Speaker, Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million.

Now, being under agreement to disclose all of their foundation contributions publicly, the Clintons neglected still to reveal the Uranium One donations. That is pretty convenient, Mr. Speaker. Are we paying attention here?

Now, since the media seems to have an insatiable appetite for Russian collusion, let's take a look at the Uranium One deal. That is a story worth looking into, Mr. Speaker. And I would bet the biggest stake in Washington, with anyone in this place, that if a special counsel was appointed to look into it, that investigation would bring some truly legitimate results.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment of our Constitution gives us this precious freedom of speech that we so cherish in America. Contrary to heated debate and public opinion, we, in the United States, rarely face the kind of persecution that necessitated this great protection. So I rise today to shed light on the abridgement of freedom of speech that is often widely discussed, but that few Americans ever have to endure.

Across the world, Mr. Speaker, individual freedom of speech is frequently infringed. A posted critique or just sharing one's views freely on the internet can be punishable, even by death.

Late one evening in September, a well-known Indian journalist, Gauri Lankesh, was murdered outside her

home. She was ``an anti-establishment figure with a reputation for her fearless criticism of undemocratic elements within the parties in power.'' The circumstances of her death were ``strikingly similar'' to the murders of three additional Indian activists.

Just weeks ago, another of India's most prominent political journalists, Professor Kancha Ilaiah, known for critiquing India's caste social order, was threatened by a Hindu member of India's parliament. This member of parliament, who is an ally of the current BJP government, issued a statement that Kancha should be ``publicly hanged.'' Kancha subsequently received numerous death threats.

These threats had a significant effect. A mob tried to attack Professor Ilaiah with stones as he and a coworker were driving to a meeting. Kancha is now under self-imposed house arrest because he is simply not safe otherwise.

Was Professor Ilaiah's crime significant?

Kancha was called a modern-day Dr. Ambedkar, who is known as the ``Father of the Indian Constitution,'' and Professor Ilaiah's crime was he was the author of ``Why I am Not a Hindu.''

A recent translation of his 2009 book ``Post-Hindu India'' is what seems to have sparked the threats against him. This book described the polarized context of modern-day India specifically dealing with the productivity of the Dalits and the ``low'' castes and the seeming spiritual and monetary monopoly of the ``higher'' castes. These critiques became even more relevant in India's growing agrarian crisis, the resulting farmer suicides due to hopelessness, and the massive joblessness due to demonetization and economic slowdown.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to state unequivocally that the United States and the entire global community is, and should be, deeply concerned about this threat to the life of Professor Kancha Ilaiah, one of the world's well- known intellectuals.

Our trusted ally and friend, India, is better than this, Mr. Speaker. Professor Kancha Ilaiah's right and freedom to speak should not be infringed; and his protection, and that of those like him, should be of the utmost priority to the Indian Government. I am able to express freely this viewpoint because we have freedom of speech in the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. May we remember at what cost and for what purpose we were given this priceless freedom.