CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND OTHERS IN THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 181
(House of Representatives - November 07, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H8583-H8590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND OTHERS IN THE 
                        PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rutherford). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the

[[Page H8584]]

gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight with a number of my 
colleagues to shed light and ask questions and discuss the conflicts of 
interest of Mr. Mueller and several others in the previous 
administration.
  As I recall the events of the past 2 years, it becomes clearer than 
ever that Mr. Mueller should resign. If he does not resign, then he 
should be fired.
  I believe he has conflicts of interest that do not allow him to 
proceed with his investigation in an unbiased, independent manner. 
Further, he has broadened the scope of his investigation far beyond his 
charge to examine Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential 
election. In the process, he is helping to attack the integrity, 
perception, and credibility of the American justice and electoral 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents want answers. Congress has sought 
answers from the previous administration for many years. Without 
exception, the Obama administration stonewalled these attempts.
  Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are the subject of many of 
these questions and subsequent investigations.
  Ms. Clinton did not become President. Some say that, because of this, 
we should not complete our investigations into multiple allegations of 
misconduct, but this is misguided.
  No American is above the law. Losing an election does not grant 
immunity for misconduct. Whether Ms. Clinton is Secretary of State, 
President of the United States, or a citizen of Chappaqua, New York, 
she should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
  I am pleased that the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees share 
this sentiment. Our committees will soon be launching a joint 
investigation into the unanswered questions surrounding the allegations 
that we have mentioned. We intend to get truthful answers to these 
questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at risk of a coup d'etat in this country if we 
allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-
elected President of the United States, and I would offer that is 
precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts 
of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the 
Department of Justice.
  I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, in calling for Mr. 
Mueller's resignation or his firing.
  Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint 
a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One 
deal, and the Fusion GPS dossier that I will now have the opportunity 
to discuss.
  I really don't know who is investigating the Uranium One deal right 
now. I know that, in July, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
along with 20 members of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to 
Attorney General Sessions asking who would be looking into these 
critical questions, demanding that a special counsel be appointed to 
conduct a thorough review. It is extremely disappointing that the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and my fellow members have received 
no response from the Department of Justice as to that letter.

  I don't know whether the Attorney General's recusal on matters 
related to Russia impacts, influences, or, in any way, covers the 
Fusion GPS challenge and the incredible threat to national security 
raised by the Uranium One deal.
  I do know that there is no world in which Mr. Mueller could 
potentially investigate these matters. It is Federal law that even the 
appearance of a conflict of interest means that someone cannot engage 
in prosecutorial duties regarding allegations and investigations. That 
conflict of interest is absolutely present.
  As early as 2009, the FBI knew that we had informants alleging 
corruption into United States uranium assets. There were allegations of 
bribery, kickbacks, extortion. Even in 2010, Members of Congress were 
raising these questions and asking the Obama administration to provide 
answers that were never given.
  I don't think it is a coincidence that at the same time we were 
hearing from sources that there was bribery to influence our uranium 
assets, you had former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000 by 
a bunch of Russians to go give a speech. It must have been one hell of 
a speech. It is deeply troubling to me that these circumstances seem to 
be ripe for corruption and seem to demonstrate an ecosystem of 
corruption that must be thoroughly investigated.
  Now, why can't Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein conduct this 
investigation? First of all, Mr. Mueller was the head of the FBI in 
2009. He potentially had a role to play in these questions. At the very 
least, the fact that the FBI never prosecuted any case, never raised 
objections, never allowed Congress to be able to look into these 
matters, that would be an act of omission.
  So at best, there is an omission that creates a conflict for Mr. 
Mueller; at worst, there might have been actual malfeasance or active 
negligence. And in those circumstances, we need fresh eyes and clear 
eyes to give the American people confidence that our justice system is, 
in fact, working for them.
  It is not only the Uranium One deal that gives us a great deal to 
question. We also have this Fusion GPS dossier, which we have now 
learned that the Democratic Party was paying for. The Democratic Party 
was out paying people to stir up this salacious and inaccurate dirt on 
President Trump both before and after he was elected.
  In his own testimony before the Congress, Mr. Comey said that these 
allegations were salacious and could not be relied upon. So it begs the 
question, what was the Fusion GPS dossier relied upon for? Was it 
relied upon so that there would be FISA warrants issued to go and spy 
on the President and members of his team? We don't know, but until we 
have a special counsel, we will never get those answers, because 
Mueller and Rosenstein are conflicted.
  Why did Congress never hear from these informants? Well, it is no 
surprise to me. You actually have Mr. Rosenstein's name on the 
signature block of the pleadings that sealed the information that could 
have shed light on this entire scandal, but we didn't have that 
opportunity.
  Now, it may very well be that these were simply acts of negligence, 
acts of omission or oversight. If that is the case, let's get someone 
in who can give us the answers, because certainly the people who are 
there now cannot give us answers, and they have these tragic conflicts 
of interest.
  The American people are well aware that the Clinton Foundation 
functioned largely as a money laundering organization to influence the 
State Department and to ensure that there were special people with 
special access and special relationships to the Clintons who got 
special treatment. That is not an America that abides to the rule of 
law.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, we have to see the rule of 
law held up and cherished. We are a model for the world, but if we have 
circumstances where our President, who was elected, is undermined as a 
consequence of these things, if we do not replace Bob Mueller with 
someone who can come in absent of association with the individuals who 
may be implicated, then I fear this great, special place that we hold 
in the world may be diminished.
  So I have introduced legislation. I am very pleased that my 
colleagues have joined me in sponsoring that legislation, calling for 
Mr. Mueller to resign. I have also called for a special counsel to be 
appointed.
  To my colleagues on the other side who say, well, hey, you know, 
there were a variety of agencies that were involved in approving the 
Uranium One deal, there were eight or nine groups that could have said 
no.

[[Page H8585]]

  


                              {time}  1900

  Are Members of Congress really taking the position that the Clintons 
don't have their tentacles in just about every agency of government?
  How ludicrous. You are talking about the former President of the 
United States and, at the time, the lady who was serving as our 
Secretary of State.
  The fact that this was a multiagency process only underscores the 
conflicts of interest that lie with Rosenstein and Mueller.
  I am calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to 
preserve the rule of law and to help us save this great country from 
those who are trying to undermine us and undermine our President.
  Mr. BIGGS. I thank the gentleman from Florida and I appreciate his 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, why, in 2016, would James Comey call the 
Clinton investigation a matter, not an investigation?
  Last time I checked, he wasn't director of the Federal bureau of 
matters.
  Why, in 2016, would then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, one day 
before the Benghazi report is due to come out, 5 days before Secretary 
Clinton is scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI, meet with former 
President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix? Why would that happen in 
2016?
  Why, in the days just following that meeting with the former 
President, would Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when corresponding 
with the public relations people at the Justice Department via email, 
not use her real name and, instead, use the name Elizabeth Carlisle?
  Again, it seems to me if you are just talking about grandkids and 
golf, you could probably use your real name.
  Why, as we have learned recently, reported in The Federalist, why 
would the FBI be reimbursing Christopher Steele, the author of the 
dossier? Why would that be happening all in 2016?
  You know, as the previous speakers have talked about, we have had 
this focus the last several months on potential Russia, Trump campaign 
collusion and influence, Russian influence on the election.
  It seems to me we know something pretty clearly. The Obama 
administration Justice Department certainly tried to influence the 
election. I mean, I think we can see that without a doubt.
  What did we learn today? The gentleman from Florida was talking about 
the dossier. What did we learn today?
  It was reported today that the cofounder of Fusion GPS, Glenn 
Simpson, was meeting with the now famous Russian lawyer, Natalia 
Veselnitskaya, both before the meeting that she had with Donald Trump, 
Jr., and after the meeting she had with Donald Trump, Jr. I find that 
interesting. The story keeps getting better.
  When James Comey is fired, he then leaks a government document, 
through a friend, to The New York Times. And what was his objective? 
What did he tell us?
  Under oath, he told us this: Trying to create momentum for a special 
counsel.
  Of course, it can't just be any special counsel. Who is that special 
counsel going to be?
  Bob Mueller, his friend, his predecessor, his mentor and, maybe most 
importantly, as my good friend from Florida just pointed out, the guy 
who was running the FBI when the whole Uranium One deal was going down.
  I mean, this is amazing. All we are asking for is for the Attorney 
General to name a special counsel to look into all these questions.
  Why was it so critical that James Comey call the matter not an 
investigation?
  Why was it so important that Loretta Lynch not use her real name when 
she is talking about the meeting she had with Bill Clinton on the 
tarmac?
  Why was it so important that we get a special counsel, and that 
special counsel be Bob Mueller; so important that James Comey can leak 
a document, through a friend, to The New York Times, a government 
document? Why was all this so important?
  All we are asking for is to name a special counsel to look into this; 
and we first asked for this 3\1/2\ months ago. Twenty members of the 
Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General a letter on July 27, 
laying out all these questions and saying: Name a special counsel to 
look into it.
  After all, the taxpayers, the American people, would like the 
answers. I know the ones in the Fourth District of Ohio would. I talk 
to them all the time.
  For 2 months we heard nothing. So five of us went and met with the 
Attorney General asking about the July 27 letter, and would they 
appoint a special counsel. To date, we have got no answer, no response.
  So I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona for organizing this 
Special Order. I appreciate my good friend from Florida, the gentleman 
from North Carolina, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the gentleman 
from Arizona who are going to join us as well this evening.
  It is time for a special counsel to be named to get the answers for 
the American people on these fundamental questions. We haven't said 
them all. There are lots of other questions, but these are the 
fundamental ones. It is time we had a special counsel get to the bottom 
of this. That is what we have called for. That is what we want to see 
happen. We hope it does, and the sooner the better.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
eloquent comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 
leadership; and, obviously, for the eloquent words of my colleagues 
from Florida and from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in, really, 
addressing a serious matter of transparency that has left the American 
people with questions that deserve honest answers.
  You know, for the past year, as our government has been mired in a 
fruitless, aimless, and sometimes laborious investigation on 
accusations of collusion between the Russian Government and the 2016 
Presidential campaign, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have insisted that Congress follow where the evidence leads in this 
investigation.

  Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you today that I agree wholeheartedly. 
Congress should follow the facts where they lead. However, they are 
leading in a very different direction than many of the mainstream media 
narratives might suggest.
  You see, in the process of this investigation, we have learned a fact 
pattern surrounding the Clinton campaign and potentially the Obama 
administration's involvement in a targeted campaign using information 
from foreign intelligence officials against then-candidate Donald 
Trump.
  Now, as we know from the recent New York Times report, the 
Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National 
Committee paid for research that was included in the now infamous 
Russian dossier that was made public in January of this year by 
Buzzfeed and reported on by CNN.
  Now we know that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid an ex-British 
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, to compile this dossier with 
the research provided from Russian intelligence officials.
  Now, much of this dossier contains claims that have either not been 
verified or have been directly refuted. So, Mr. Speaker, it is 
suspicious enough that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid 
intelligence officials in Russia for this type of material and false 
information on President Trump.
  But we were also beginning to see evidence that raises questions 
about the very way that the Obama Justice Department may have 
inappropriately involved themselves into this project, both before and 
after the 2016 Presidential campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, now, if you would, consider the timeline that we are 
working with here. In April of 2016, the Clinton campaign used the law 
firm of Perkins Coie to retain Fusion GPS, the firm behind the Russian 
dossier.
  Now, that very same month, in April of 2016, President Obama's 
campaign began paying more than $900,000 to what law firm?
  Perkins Coie, the very same firm used by the Clinton campaign in the 
creation of the dossier.

[[Page H8586]]

  Now, we also know that in the weeks prior to the 2016 election, 
President Obama's FBI tried to reach an agreement with Christopher 
Steele to pay for the Russian dossier, and the FBI actually ended up 
reimbursing some of the dossier expenses.
  Now, to be clear, the FBI attempted to pay, and then reimbursed, the 
costs of the Russian dossier that was being orchestrated by Hillary 
Clinton's Presidential campaign. Now, the FBI has refused to answer 
questions and resisted any transparency on this issue.
  So going a step further, we now know that on January 6, President 
Obama's intelligence officials, led by then-Director of the FBI, James 
Comey, briefed President-elect Trump on the contents of the dossier.
  Now, following that January 6 briefing, there are reports that the 
Obama administration's intelligence officials leaked to CNN the fact 
that the President-elect was briefed on the dossier. Four days later, 
on January 10, the dossier ended up being published by Buzzfeed.
  Now, keep in mind, several media outlets had the dossier in hand 
prior to January 10, but none of them had printed it since the claims 
could not be verified.
  Now, this timeline leaves us with a myriad of extremely concerning 
questions, Mr. Speaker, but they can be boiled down into a few 
specifics: Why did President Obama's campaign begin paying almost $1 
million to the very same firm that the Clinton campaign used to fund 
the dossier in the very same month that the Clinton campaign began 
paying for the dossier?
  The second question: Why did President Obama's FBI attempt to pay 
Christopher Steele for the Russian dossier? Why was President Obama's 
FBI involved in paying for a project that the Clinton campaign started 
and was orchestrating?
  Again, the FBI has refused to answer these questions and has resisted 
transparency on this issue.
  And why brief the President at all on the dossier if much of the 
dossier could not be verified?
  Or, I would suggest, if President Obama's intelligence officials had 
reason to treat the dossier seriously, then why did they wait 2 months 
after the election to disclose the information on January 6? Why wait?
  And why was the President's meeting with President-elect Trump leaked 
to CNN 4 days after the briefing, if, again, the dossier could not be 
verified?
  Mr. Speaker, the intention of all of this is not to spread theories 
or to speculate as to what might have happened. The point is to 
recognize that there are legitimate, unanswered questions about whether 
the Obama Justice Department involved themselves in a political project 
targeting then-candidate Donald Trump, a suggestion that has far more 
evidence behind it than the directionless investigation into the Trump-
Russian collusion.
  The American people deserve an answer to those questions. They demand 
answers to those questions, and it is our government's responsibility 
to find them.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
his remarks, and I am grateful to have him here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. 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.

                              {time}  1915

  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

[[Page H8587]]

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. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 
remarks. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been entreated to claims of collusion with our 
government, people high in our government with Russia for over a year 
now; since the last election happening this very day a year ago, we 
have been entreated to this.
  So I thought I would bring some sense to this confusion about what we 
know as the Uranium One deal. Even I didn't know a whole lot about it, 
so I did a little research to understand the timeline and what exactly 
happened here. I want to talk to you about that this evening.
  On June 8 of 2010, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, also 
known as Rosatom--the Russian state, not some private organization. It 
belongs to Vladimir Putin. Make no mistake about it--announced plans to 
purchase a 51.4 percent stake in the Canadian company Uranium One.
  Now, why do we care? Well, we care because this announcement had 
significant strategic implications for the United States since Uranium 
One's international assets included 20 percent of the United States' 
uranium reserves.
  Now, due to uranium status as a strategic commodity, the $1.3 billion 
deal was subject to the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States, known as CFIUS; CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States. And they care because uranium is 
important. Do you know why? We make nuclear bombs out of it--that is 
why it is important--and so do other countries. And maybe so do 
terrorists if they get their hands on it. So we care.
  Now, the CFIUS panel is made up of nine department heads and 
agencies, including, at that time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 
Okay, fair enough. Now, CFIUS went through the approval process at what 
we would consider an unusually rapid pace, approving the sale of one-
fifth of our uranium reserves, the United States' reserves, to a 
Russian, Vladimir Putin, state-owned enterprise in less than 5 months. 
Five months. I mean, they did that in 5 months. We have been 
investigating allegations of President Trump and Russia for about 12 
months now. In earnest, less than 12 months, but, certainly, the claims 
have been made since the night of the election, yet they got this done 
in 5 months. Okay, that is good.
  CFIUS proceeded at this pace despite national security concerns 
raised by Congress--people right here said: Hey, 20 percent of our 
uranium shouldn't go to Vladimir Putin. That doesn't make sense to us.
  The FBI had extensive concerns, tying Rosatom's main executive to a 
U.S. racketeering scheme. My colleague has already talked about 
bribery, extortion, racketeering. Right. Both Secretary of State 
Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder--whose FBI, by the way, 
produced the evidence--voted in favor of the deal. Interestingly 
enough, who was in charge of the FBI at the time? Our friend, Robert 
Mueller. It just is a little too coincidental for me. I am sorry, it is 
just a little too coincidental.
  After the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, assured both Congress and the public 
that the uranium sold could not be exported because neither Uranium One 
nor Rosatom, Vladimir Putin's organization, had an NRC export license. 
So even though we had control of 20 percent, he could never do anything 
with the 20 percent except leave it in the United States.
  And, by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission still hasn't 
granted a license to export any of that material to Rosatom or to 
Uranium One to this day.
  But despite the public statements, somehow it got exported because an 
NRC memo showed the agency approved the shipment of yellowcake uranium 
from the Uranium One mines in the United States to Canada through a 
third party. Additional shipments of the uranium were made to Europe, 
and they were authorized as well by the NRC. And where they went from 
Europe, who knows. The NRC doesn't know. At least if they know, they 
aren't telling us. We have asked. We certainly don't know. Maybe 
Rosatom knows.
  The question you should have is: Why? Why would the United States do 
this? What was in our interest to sell 20 percent of our uranium? Was 
it that we needed $1.3 billion? I suspect not.
  In an attempt to avoid congressional scrutiny, the NRC did not 
provide a direct export license to Uranium One, but, instead, it 
amended an existing license for a logistics company to allow it to 
export Uranium One's uranium, which was, in effect, the United States' 
uranium, our uranium.
  The NRC was able to amend this export license because of two policy 
changes resulting from the Russian reset orchestrated by Secretary 
Clinton. Again, look, it might be innocent. It might be completely 
innocent, but it deserves more scrutiny, certainly.
  The two things--the two policy changes were: the Obama administration 
reinstated the U.S.-Russian civilian nuclear energy cooperation 
agreement in May of 2010. Shortly thereafter, in 2011, the Commerce 
Department removed Rosatom from a list of restricted companies that 
could not export nuclear or other sensitive materials or technologies. 
They still didn't have a license, but they were removed from the list.
  Nine months after the Commerce Department did that, the removal of 
Rosatom from the list, the NRC issued the license amendment to the 
third party allowing for uranium of the United States to be exported 
from Uranium One mines through Canada, and eventually on to Europe, and 
who knows where from there. The license amendment stipulated that the 
exported uranium must be returned to the U.S. Now, this did not occur. 
Instead, the Department of Energy approved the movement of uranium from 
Canada to Europe, and that was it. It is gone, folks. It is just gone.
  It is now clear that the previous administration took every 
conceivable action to clear the path for Rosatom to purchase Uranium 
One and to enable the export of that uranium. The Russians got it. 
Vladimir Putin got the uranium.
  In taking these extraordinary measures in support of Russian state-
owned enterprise, the Obama administration, with the aid of former 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Attorney General Eric 
Holder, put our national security at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, it is far past time to thoroughly--marginally, how about 
to marginally investigate this deal--the Obama administration's actions 
and the Clinton family's role and their foundation's role. You only 
need to ask

[[Page H8588]]

one question about all this: Why? Why would we do this? Why would the 
United States agree to this? Why did this deal happen the way it did 
happen? No other deals happened that way. Why did this one happen this 
way? Why is there no independent investigation into these matters at 
this point? Why? And why is there no special counsel?
  We are here tonight to call for a special counsel so that we know the 
truth, so if there is Russian involvement in the United States' 
national security, whether it is our election, or whether it is our 
uranium that they could use to make an atomic bomb, the American people 
need to know. They should know. They should have all of the evidence.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his remarks, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Biggs. I appreciate 
your hosting this hour because this is critical stuff here. This is the 
kind of thing that makes or breaks an experiment in self-government 
because there is an attempted coup taking place.
  We have heard over and over about, oh, gee, Mr. Mueller will come to 
a fair and just conclusion. Well, the only fair and just conclusion 
that Bob Mueller could come to would be that he should never have 
accepted the position of special counsel, that he had conflicts so deep 
that accepting the role of special counsel could not be ethical and 
appropriate. You wonder, why would he take it?
  Well, when you find out that, as FBI Director, he and U.S. Attorney 
Rod Rosenstein were involved in the deep cover investigation into 
Russia's effort to corner the market using American uranium, and that 
Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and others in the administration 
approved the sale to a group, the stockholders of which donated, as I 
understand, $145 million or so to the Clinton Foundation, in effect, 
the Clintons hit the Russian megalottery--the megamillions lottery from 
Russia.

                              {time}  1930

  As I understand, $145 million or so to the Clinton Foundation, in 
effect, the Clintons hit the Russian mega lottery; the megamillions 
lottery from Russia, and just a little tease was the half-a-million-
dollar fee for just giving one little, short speech by Bill Clinton.
  But if we look back at what has gone on, just look at some of the 
facts, it was shocking that FBI Director Comey did not have Cheryl 
Mills interviewed. She was Clinton's former Chief of Staff at the State 
Department. Now we are finding out, well, I guess, gee, if Comey was 
going to draft a statement saying that there was not sufficient 
evidence to prosecute Hillary Clinton before he ever talked to Cheryl 
Mills or talked to Hillary Clinton or followed up on the most critical 
evidence, then clearly it makes sense why Director Comey would not want 
to make Cheryl Mills' interview recorded, and would make an agreement 
with Cheryl Mills and the other potential defendants in the case that, 
gee, if they just got a look at their laptops, they promised they 
wouldn't use anything in the laptop to prosecute them, and the FBI 
would then, under Comey's direction, would actually participate in the 
obstruction and destruction of evidence so that nobody could ever use 
it against any of them.
  Now, originally, we thought that might only be Hillary Clinton. But 
as we find out, gee, Mr. Mueller, Mr. Comey, and Mr. Rosenstein were in 
this up to their eyeballs when it came to the Russian investigation 
regarding uranium. If they were doing their jobs, they should never, 
ever have allowed that sale of American uranium to go to a company that 
they knew would end up in Russian hands.
  So if you look at Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, Bryan 
Pagliano, and Paul Combetta, these are people who were potential 
targets. And what does Director Comey do?
  He makes sure that they walk. Because if they were properly 
interviewed, like good prosecutors or good investigators normally do, 
you start there and you say: You help us with what happened and what 
you were told by the person above you, and then we won't prosecute you 
to the full extent of the law.
  That is how deals are made. That is how you get to a Mr. Big in a 
racketeer organized confederation.
  Mr. Comey and the FBI apparently relied on the Fusion GPS 
investigation knowing where it came from and knowing who paid for it. 
This is incredible.
  If you go back to the Washingtonian article of 2013, it makes pretty 
clear that Comey and Mueller were basically joined at the hip.
  In fact, a quote back in 2013 says: ``The stressed Comey had few 
people he could turn to for advice; almost no one was allowed to know 
the program existed, and disclosing the program's existence to someone 
outside that circle could send him to prison. In fact, there was only 
one person in government whom he could confide in and trust: Bob 
Mueller.''
  ``Comey thought, `A freight train is heading down the tracks, about 
to derail me, my family, and my career.' He glanced to his left at his 
fellow passenger, thinking, `At least Bob Mueller will be standing on 
the tracks with me.' ''
  ``The crisis over, Comey and Mueller shared a dark laugh.''
  Well, it is not quite so amusing when you look at the stakes and 
whether or not this little experiment in self-government will continue. 
For example, we know that Comey admitted in testimony before Congress 
before the Senate that he had leaked information in order to get a 
special counsel appointed. That was his dear friend who would stand 
beside him through thick and thin, Bob Mueller. This brought memories 
of when Mr. Comey urged his boss, John Ashcroft, to recuse himself and 
let them appoint a special counsel. So Ashcroft trusted Comey. He 
probably shouldn't have, but he did.
  Then Comey saw to it that his child's godfather, Patrick Fitzgerald, 
would be the prosecutor. Much like Mueller, he got massive amounts of 
money and a great powerful staff so they could go after Karl Rove and 
Vice President Cheney. They were embarrassed there was no case there, 
so they made up one on Scooter Libby, and he became the fall guy.
  But we know from the leak that Comey admitted that he used an ex-U.S. 
Attorney, identified as Columbia University professor Daniel Richman, 
to leak to The New York Times the contents of the memo Comey wrote.
  If you look at the FBI contract with agents and with people employed 
by the FBI, it makes it very clear that memo that Comey prepared about 
his conversation with the President was not supposed to ever be 
provided to the press. That is FBI property, and he violated the law in 
leaking it.
  But if you look, then-professor Daniel Richman got that to The New 
York Times author Michael Schmidt, who later wrote the Comey memo story 
in which Comey told Congress he directed Richman to leak.
  Well, if you go back through and you start looking for this common 
thread, Michael Schmidt writing stories for The New York Times about 
leaks, then you find a number of cases where it appears likely. Whether 
it is March 1, March 4, March 5, March 6, it appears likely that this 
was James Comey leaking again.
  The only question is: Did he commit a crime in one or all of those 
events?
  The answer is: We will never know as long as Bob Mueller is special 
counsel. He needs to have the decency to say that it was a mistake for 
me to take this on, it was a mistake when Comey testified there was no 
evidence of any collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians, it was 
a mistake for him to leak out that night that now he is investigating 
the President for obstruction of justice.
  Why would he do that?
  So he wouldn't get fired, because there was no purpose in his 
investigation.
  Why would he indict people when he did?
  Because even The Wall Street Journal and others around this town 
began to say: Do you know what? Mueller really should resign.
  He had to get those indictments out quick so people would not keep 
calling for his resignation. Well, some of us are. We have got to clean 
this town up, and it will start with the resignation of Mr. Mueller and 
a proper investigation of all of this underlying case involving Comey, 
Lynch, the Clintons, Russia, and Rod Rosenstein who oversaw the Russia 
case before he decided to seal it.

[[Page H8589]]

  

  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend, 
for his leadership on this issue. I appreciate his giving his remarks 
tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smucker). The gentleman from Arizona has 
13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for putting this very 
important hearing together. I am going to cut mine a little bit 
shorter.
  After the previous election, a lot of people were angry. They came to 
our office demanding special investigations into the Trump campaign and 
the Russia probe. I forewarned them then, and I will make this 
prediction now: that if it goes there and it leads to the previous 
administration or Hillary Clinton, are you willing to go down that 
rabbit hole?
  Here we are today. I think we need to follow this because it has led 
to that.
  Without going too much into all the stuff that has already been said, 
we can talk about how the Obama administration approved the sale of the 
Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a 
firm owned by a Russian Government. The NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, assured Congress and the public the new owners could not 
export any raw nuclear material from the American shores. No uranium 
produced at either facility may be exported, the NRC declared November 
2010 in a press release. We found out that is not true.
  As has been brought up, over 20 percent of our uranium is going into 
the hands of Russia. Beyond the mines in Kazakhstan, which are among 
the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave Russia control of one-
fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S.
  Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with implications for 
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed 
of representatives from a number of United States Government agencies. 
Among those agencies that eventually signed off was the State 
Department, then headed by Mrs. Clinton. Frank Giustra, a mining 
financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former 
President Bill Clinton.
  As the Russians gradually assumed control of the Uranium One in three 
separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show how a 
flow of cash made its way into the Clinton Foundation. We could go on 
and on about this.
  Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire the 
majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 from a 
Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin 
that was promoting Uranium One stock. Very interesting. I remember when 
President Clinton was asked about his high speaking fees. He kind of 
brushed it off with a laugh and said: Well, there are people who like 
to hear me speak.
  Fordham University professor Zephyr Teachout, a highly regarded law 
professor who has written extensively about political corruption--and 
she is a Democrat--said:

       As a Democrat, I am concerned about Hillary Clinton as a 
     general election candidate. These questions aren't going 
     away. There is a pattern of foreign donations and speaking 
     fees that the Clinton Foundation and her husband have found 
     their ways to the Clinton Foundation.
       Bill Clinton made 13 speeches between 2001 and 2012 in 
     which he was paid $500,000 or more. The interesting part is 
     11 of those speeches were made after Hillary Clinton became 
     Secretary of State--pay to play.
       Why did the Clinton Foundation change its name to the Bill, 
     Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation?
       It is surmised that it was because the public and large 
     corporation donors backed away from the questionable, if not 
     unethical, and possibly illegal activities.

  I just want to speak as an American. We come up here from different 
backgrounds. I see people who are here tonight who spoke tonight all 
from different backgrounds. The thing we hear about over and over again 
is that we want transparency and accountability. We demand that, but we 
never see it. So as these investigations go forward, my hope is that 
there is a conclusion to an investigation and that the people who broke 
the law are held accountable so that we don't have to talk about 
another investigation that spends the American taxpayers' money without 
somebody paying the price for misrepresenting the American people and 
turning over strategic products of this country--uranium in this case--
to a foreign entity that doesn't want the best for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona for putting this 
on and leading this.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being here and 
speaking tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. 
Hice), my good friend who has been waiting like patience on a monument.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
good friend from Arizona for holding this Special Order. What an 
incredibly important issue.
  Over the past year, we have heard nearly on a daily basis accusations 
of what Russia tries to do to undermine the United States. I think most 
of my colleagues would agree that Russia's actions over the past 2 
years, which include everything from cyber attacks to supporting 
Assad's bloody regime in Syria, all of it demonstrates that their 
intention is to disrupt the stability both of the United States and the 
entire world.

                              {time}  1945

  But here is the deal: none of this happened overnight. No one in 
Russia flipped a switch on their foreign policy and it suddenly changed 
from being friendly to the United States to trying to cause us harm.
  The fact is the United States did not remain vigilant. Our foreign 
policy suffered. We ignored the fact that Russian interests and goals 
are not our interests and goals. Nothing demonstrates this more than 
the Uranium One case.
  In 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investments of the United States 
approved a partial sale, as you have heard this evening, of a Canadian 
company to the Russian-owned nuclear giant Rosatom. We have heard about 
all of this. One-fifth of our uranium capacity gone.
  In the United States, we have been long aware of the fact that the 
Russian Government's request is, among other things, to control the 
production of energy, both at home and in other nations, and then use 
that energy as a source of leverage during conflicts.
  Furthermore, striking information has been uncovered that Federal 
agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian 
nuclear industry to gather extensive evidence that showed Moscow had 
compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and 
kickbacks, all, of course, in violation of the law.
  Rather than bringing these charges up, however, the FBI kept this 
secret. They didn't tell anyone about it for 4 years. That is 
unacceptable. We need to know why the FBI didn't share this 
information. Why was this crucial information about Russia's actions in 
our nuclear energy sector not shared? This is absolutely unacceptable.
  Then, as we have been hearing tonight, we have the cases where 
Russian officials spent millions of dollars to benefit former President 
Bill Clinton's charitable family foundation while Hillary was Secretary 
of State.
  These are all extremely serious allegations, and it is absolutely our 
responsibility to investigate them. There was a fundamental conflict of 
interest here, and I think you would have to be blind not to recognize 
that. Our Secretary of State was making decisions that impacted the 
entire world while, at the same time, receiving massive amounts of 
money from foreign donations.
  As the Russians assumed control of Uranium One, the company's 
chairman was giving tons of money to the Clinton Foundation. Of course, 
none of this was disclosed as it was supposed to be.
  So from what we know, the decision to allow the Clinton Foundation to 
continue soliciting foreign donations was, at best, naive, if not 
criminal. This seems to be a pattern of the previous administration. It 
is absolute cluelessness and self-interest, at best, perhaps even worse 
than that. It is hardly surprising that Russia believed it could pull 
the wool over our eyes with impunity and increased its malicious 
behavior.
  I look forward to this investigation going forward, and I thank my 
friend

[[Page H8590]]

from Arizona for having this Special Order.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to sum up.
  What you have heard tonight, those who have been listening, are the 
outlines of the scandal of our lifetime--the scandal of our lifetime 
that began in 2009 and proceeded forth even to revelations in the last 
36 hours of Mr. Comey changing the wording in his draft from the 
statutory culpable mental state requirement of gross negligence to 
merely carelessness.
  That is a huge change as he prepared his draft report on Mrs. Clinton 
and the misuse of her email server giving access--which we don't even 
know. We don't have access to that. But you take this back from the 
Uranium One situation, the transaction that should never have happened, 
the money that changed hands, and you look at the common thread 
throughout.
  Well, oddly enough, it is Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller sits today 
as the investigator of the supposed collusion between the Trump 
administration and the Russians to influence the election.
  Oddly enough, it has turned on its head. We have found out now that 
it is the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign that was funding Fusion 
GPS, trying to influence the American electorate. It is upside down.
  Yet the person who is tied throughout all of this is Robert Mueller. 
He is the guy conducting the investigation. Is there any clearer 
conflict of interest than what we see in this special investigator?
  Again, with my colleagues--I thank all of them who have spoken 
tonight--I renew my call for his resignation, short of that, his 
termination of employment.
  This is the scandal of our time. It affects our national security, 
the views of the American people for justice, and our elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________