October 18, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 165 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H8253-H8256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Garcia of Texas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hurd), my friend.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2420, the National Museum of the American Latino Act.

[[Page H8254]]

  As the lead Republican on this bill, I believe it is my solemn 
obligation to champion the gospel of the American Latino, not only in 
Texas, not only in Congress, but across the globe.
  When you walk down the historic National Mall, a sense of patriotism 
overwhelms every American spirit. We proudly celebrate our history, our 
ingenuity. We proudly celebrate the arts and sciences. We acknowledge 
our sins against our fellow man. We honor centuries' worth of heroic 
acts to bring peace to the world.
  But for nearly 60 million Americans, there is a void when they visit 
The National Mall, a hole in the quilt of America's fabric. That is why 
we need a National Museum of the American Latino.
  For it is the Latino who has joined fellow Americans in taking up 
arms against oppression in defense of democracy in every war since the 
American Revolution; it is the Latino who has contributed extensively 
to our Nation's history and culture; and it is the American Latino, 
through innovation and a thirst for knowledge, who will help propel the 
United States into realms never imagined by our forefathers.
  Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues present that the America we 
cherish in our hearts would be a shell of what she is today if it were 
not for the selfless contributions of the American Latino.
  This week, the Natural Resources Committee has taken a critical step 
toward the eternal immortalization of the American Latino. This 
committee has recognized that the American image was painted by the 
broad strokes of patriotic Latinos. This committee has acknowledged the 
need to champion the accolades of American Latinos past, present, and 
future.
  Madam Speaker, I hope every Member of this body will stand alongside 
Congressman Serrano, Congressman Cardenas, and I as we work to 
establish a foundation for the National Museum of the American Latino.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute to a 
colleague, Congressman Elijah Cummings.
  We had political disagreements, but in working together to help an 
Army sergeant who was unfairly, inappropriately prosecuted while 
serving and being heroic in Afghanistan, I developed a great 
appreciation for Elijah Cummings' desire to see justice done.
  It was an honor to work with him in successfully helping Sergeant 
Derrick Miller. I am proud to have Sergeant Derrick Miller now working 
with me and those of us that have started a caucus, the Congressional 
Justice for Warriors Caucus.
  That arose out of sincere, worthy, and quite able efforts by Elijah 
Cummings. I had not been on a committee with him, but it gave me an 
opportunity to see the heart of the man. He will be sorely missed here 
in Congress, and I am grateful to have had the chance to have worked 
with him.
  Madam Speaker, I also felt it was important to pay tribute to one of 
our fallen soldiers. That is Master Sergeant Mark Allen.
  This is Master Sergeant Mark Allen, his wife, and child.
  I think this article from David Aaro is very helpful in reminding 
people who Master Sergeant Mark Allen was.
  First of all, to become a master sergeant, with all the stripes above 
and below, it takes many, many, many years of devoted service.
  Just for a little background, when I was finishing college at Texas 
A&M with a 4-year obligation of Active Duty coming up in the Army, I 
was told by an officer: Look, Louie, the best thing you can do when you 
get to your post is find a master sergeant that you like and feel 
comfortable with, and make him your confidant, because if he is a 
master sergeant, he has been around and has seen everything. You can 
trust him, and he is one of the best we have in the military.
  It was very wise advice. That is the kind of guy Mark Allen was.
  This article says: ``Retired Army Master Sergeant Mark Allen died . . 
. 10 years after he was shot while looking for a missing soldier in 
Afghanistan back in 2009.'' He has died at the age of 46.
  Master Sergeant ``Allen was unable to walk or speak since being shot 
in the head by a sniper in July 2009 during his attempted search for 
Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his base in Afghanistan.''
  The article doesn't say it, but basically, Bowe Bergdahl was a 
deserter. He betrayed his country. Even worse than betraying his 
country, he betrayed his fellow soldiers who have to rely on each other 
in a combat theater. He simply walked away and went over to the enemy.
  This heroic master sergeant, Mark Allen, dutifully went out into 
harm's way, looking for what they hoped was not a deserter. They hoped 
that something happened, that the enemy may have gotten him. They went 
looking. He was leading, looking for what turns out to have been a 
deserter.
  In his service to his country, and in his service to what he was 
afraid was a fellow warrior who had befallen an enemy's tactics, he got 
shot in the head by an enemy sniper.
  Master Sergeant Allen died 10 years after he was shot while looking 
for Bowe Bergdahl, the article says, who went missing in Afghanistan. 
He deserted.
  ``Bergdahl later pled guilty and was dishonorably discharged, reduced 
in rank from sergeant to private and fined $1,000 per month over a 10-
month period for deserting his post and endangering the lives of fellow 
soldiers, including Allen.''
  In other words, we can thank Bowe Bergdahl's desertion for getting 
this man maimed, paralyzed for 10 years, and killed.

  ``When Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban prisoners''--those are 
the enemies. Those are people who were killing Americans, and the Obama 
administration thought it wise to give five people who had killed 
Americans, who were enemies of America, give those back so that they 
could go on killing other Americans so that we could get our deserter 
back from our enemy.
  ``When Bergdahl was traded for five Taliban prisoners and brought 
home, Shannon Allen, Mark's wife, didn't hold back her feelings for how 
he changed their family forever.
  `` `Meet my husband,' she wrote on Facebook, `injuries directly 
brought to you by the actions of this traitor.' ''
  Our President, Donald Trump, ``also expressed his disdain toward the 
prisoner transfer of Bergdahl, calling the decision `a complete' and 
`total disgrace to our country and our military.'
  ``During the trial of Bergdahl, Shannon testified that it took 90 
minutes to get her husband out of bed, showered, and dressed each 
morning. She had to use a pulley system, which was attached to the 
ceiling to move him, according to Task & Purpose.''
  Master Sergeant Allen's ``young daughter also enjoyed climbing into 
his wheelchair and sitting on his lap, Shannon told the outlet.
  ``U.S. Veterans' Network posted a tribute, calling Allen `a true 
American hero.'
  `` `Master Sergeant Mark Allen, a true American hero. Thank you for 
your service, brother.'
  ``His service will be held in Loganville, Georgia.''

                              {time}  1300

  May he rest in peace and may something that we do here give comfort 
to the family of this American hero that was betrayed by a man who the 
Obama administration traded five of our enemies to get back. That is a 
hero. If we were going to trade enemies for anybody, it would have been 
a guy like this.
  We thank Mark Allen for his service and his incredible wife and 
daughter for standing by our hero for the last 10 years.
  I was here in the Chamber the last couple of hours and heard the 
exchanges during the colloquy between   Steve Scalise and Leader Hoyer. 
I heard the comment that Adam Schiff is fair and judicious. And I hope 
the Parliamentarian won't get nervous, because I am going to adeptly 
avoid violating the rules.
  Congressman Adam Schiff, back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, we were on 
the Judiciary Committee together, and we had two Federal judges who 
needed to be impeached. They needed to be eliminated from their 
official positions as Federal judges. One had committed a sexual 
assault, and the other had trouble understanding that bribes were not 
appropriate for judges.
  Congressman Schiff was put in charge, basically, of a temporary 
committee to deal with the impeachment of those two judges, and during 
those

[[Page H8255]]

efforts, it was quite bipartisan. Republicans had just gone into the 
minority for the first time in many years. We were in the minority, and 
Democrats were in the majority.
  I found Adam Schiff very easy to work with. I found that when he gave 
his word on something, it could be trusted. I found that he was a 
person who was a pleasure to work together with.
  I have had trouble melding those experiences with what I am seeing in 
the effort to eliminate a duly elected President from his position.
  I heard our majority leader say he is fair. So I would ask a 
hypothetical question, not pointed directly at an individual, but just 
hypothetically: Is it fair if someone lies for 2 years saying they have 
overwhelming evidence that a President is guilty of being a traitor to 
his country and that there is no question, the evidence is just 
overwhelming and it is not just circumstantial, and it turns out there 
was never such evidence?
  Hypothetically speaking, I would think that such a person's fairness 
would come into issue.
  Hypothetically, is it fair to conspire and collude with gossipmongers 
loyal to President Obama, people like Clapper and Brennen who use 
potentially third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixthhand hearsay, to try to 
convict a President in public opinion while remaining anonymous?
  By the way, I heard reference to a whistleblower who had no direct 
information--he is a gossipmonger--that there was fear for his safety. 
As an old history major who has never stopped studying history, I think 
we can take a look at history.
  If you look at this President's time as President, and even before 
being President, people who have spoken out against President Trump or 
candidate Trump or businessman Trump, they seem to still be around and 
talking.
  I read about an Italian individual who may have colluded with the 
Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign in 
helping try to set up candidate Trump so that our intelligence, with 
the cooperation, potentially, of Britain, maybe Australia, corruption 
in Ukraine, corruption in Russia, trying to set President Trump up. He 
was concerned for his life in Italy and was asking security.
  That is what brought the question to my mind: Well, gee, who is he 
afraid of? The people who have things to say--even complete lies--about 
President Trump are still alive and well and kicking and lying, and 
they are out there just spreading more gossip and lies. They seem to be 
plenty healthy.
  So the question arises: Who the heck are they--people like the person 
who was involved in the conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump, who is 
he afraid of? It shouldn't be Donald Trump, because the people against 
him are still out there.
  Could it be that fear of safety could be from those whom such a 
witness could identify as conspiring to bring down Donald Trump?
  There are plenty of people who are no longer alive who had been 
potential witnesses against others in the Democratic Party, but it 
doesn't seem that there are potential witnesses against Donald Trump 
who are dead.
  So who would this gossip-mongering, so-called whistleblower--he is 
not a whistleblower. He is a gossipmonger. He didn't have any direct 
evidence. He just wanted to create a problem for President Trump.
  People with whom he colluded knew that President Trump, if they said: 
Oh, he conspired in this phone conversation. He threatened Ukraine's 
President. He did a quid pro quo in that conversation, it is very 
clear--we even had a chairman represent from the chairman's position 
that a number of times in that conversation that President Trump made 
clear that he was threatening the Ukrainian President to either get 
dirt on Vice President Biden or else you are not going to get help.
  Well, we know Joe Biden did that. He is on video. The President 
doesn't want to talk about that, at least not the mainstream.
  Anyway, they knew that President Trump could not afford to release a 
transcript of the conversation, so they knew whatever they were going 
to say about what was in the conversation, that would be the mantra. 
But it turns out President Trump did release the transcript of the 
conversation, so it kind of messed up the strategy there.
  They were already talking about the President doing a cover-up 
because that was the strategy: Look, first, we will have this 
gossipmonger call him a whistleblower. We will change the rules by 
other Obama loyalists still in the intelligence arena in our 
government. We will change the rules because it has always been a rule, 
and a good one, you couldn't be a whistleblower unless you had direct 
evidence. So they had to change the rule.
  The inspector general, the new one--not the one who was there 
previously; he was a very honorable person--the new one, not so 
honorable. And that is why he dishonestly changed the rule for 
whistleblowers so that you could be a whistleblower and not have any 
direct information at all. And he backdated that so that it would go 
back to the time that this gossipmonger was actually coordinating and 
colluding with the majority staff on the Intelligence Committee.

  We still don't know if the Intelligence Committee staff helped 
prepare this so-called whistleblowing complaint.
  So when we hear the so-called whistleblower, the gossipmonger is 
concerned for his safety, well, it sure couldn't be from President 
Trump, because none of his enemies have been harmed.
  So who is he afraid of? Is he afraid of the people that he colluded 
with to try to bring down President Trump? He has no basis being afraid 
of Trump.
  As a former judge, sometimes you have to sign protective orders. If 
somebody came in with the facts that we know so far about this 
gossipmonger, my question would be: Who is he afraid of? He shouldn't 
be afraid of President Trump in this situation. So who is he afraid of? 
And that is a really good question, I think.
  So we have this Star Chamber proceeding attempting to remove a 
properly elected President.
  We never had proceedings like this trying to take out a President--
never. Since the Judiciary Committee was formed, any time there was any 
effort toward impeachment, it went through the Judiciary Committee, 
which I am a part of.
  Apparently, the powers that be have not been pleased with the 
Democratic performance in the Judiciary Committee, so somebody figured 
out we are better off politically--no matter the damage it may do to 
our country, we are better off politically having a Star Chamber 
proceeding where we are the only ones who go out and leak what we want 
to be out. That way all of the exculpatory evidence, evidence that 
shows the President didn't do anything wrong, that doesn't get to come 
out, because, if it does, then we will demand prosecution. So we will 
be the only ones that leak information.
  And we can legally make things available to the press, so we will 
only make those things available that are taken out of context that 
help us accomplish our goal of trying to make President Trump look bad.
  I heard the Speaker on television say that she was tasking six 
committees with investigating President Trump, and one of those, the 
Judiciary Committee, I am on.

                              {time}  1315

  Sometimes we have things that are so important to keep secret that 
they are handled only by the Intelligence Committee only in a SCIF, so 
it is secured. But even then, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
many times I have gone to the SCIF to review classified information.
  I remember on one occasion back when the Democrats were in the 
majority previously, I think it was the first closed session we ever 
had here at Congress, because it was desired to discuss something that 
was classified, and I came down here, was speaking right here, and I 
was stopped by the majority leader.
  And he said: Wait a minute. We are authorized to have this classified 
discussion, but the gentleman from Texas is getting into areas that are 
above the classified area. He is authorized to have information that 
everybody here is not allowed to have. So I was not allowed to continue 
talking on that subject.
  The point being, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we get into 
things that are of a more secret nature, classified information, that a 
majority

[[Page H8256]]

of our body here is authorized to know and discuss and learn about.
  So it has been quite surprising to be locked out of hearings. And we 
know that they are not so sensitive that only the Intelligence 
Committee could hear them, because they lumped in two other committees, 
Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform, so it is not about just 
keeping it confined to the Intelligence Committee.
  But I specifically heard the Speaker say that six committees would be 
investigating, and I am on one of those, and, yet, I go into the SCIF, 
into the hallway outside of the secure area, and I am not allowed to go 
in.
  I wanted to know who gave the order, and the Democratic staff said: 
Well, you know, that is the order.
  Who gave the order?
  Well, our boss told us.
  So an unelected staffer tells two other staffers that you are to 
prevent a duly elected Member of Congress from doing their job.
  I wanted to know who gave that order. Is it in writing somewhere? Who 
gave that order? Who is it that is undermining the election of over 
half of the Members of Congress to prevent them from being able to do 
their job? Who gave that order?
  They couldn't say. They send out more staff; not a Member of 
Congress. It seemed a little cowardly to me. Nobody would come out. I 
was there with friends like   Andy Harris,   Andy Biggs, and others. I 
went ahead and went through the first door--there is another door 
there--and they went apoplectic.
  I am authorized to hear classified information. I am authorized to 
hear the classified information that they were supposedly listening to. 
But the truth is, it is not classified. There is no reason for it to be 
classified.
  This is all a political show. That is why there is no written order. 
That is why there has been no vote in here to proceed with impeachment, 
and it is just wrong.
  I don't remember who said it, but there was some historian that noted 
there are many different--not many, but there are a number of different 
phases of a civil war, and only the last phase involves guns.
  But this sure feels like this coup attempt is setting this country up 
for civil war. I won't participate in a civil war, but our job here, 
our oath here is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.
  I took that oath as a prosecutor. I took that oath in the United 
States Army--Active Duty for 4 years, inactive Reserve for 2 more 
years. I took that oath as a judge, as a felony judge. I took that oath 
as a chief justice, and I take that oath every 2 years, right here.
  And that is what a lot of us are trying to do. But what is going on 
around here is not fair. It is not just. It is against the House rules. 
The House rules are very clear: If there was not a specific rule in 
``Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives,'' as 
adopted every 2 years, then the precedence is what is the rule in that 
case.
  And the precedence on impeachment, it goes through the Judiciary 
Committee, and it doesn't happen anything like what is happening now. 
It is true. The majority could come in here and have a vote and amend 
the rules so they could defy all precedent on impeachment. But for some 
reason, they prefer to break the rules rather than simply come in and 
do what they can as majority. They can change the rule any time they 
get ready. They have got enough votes to do that.
  They won't do that. For some reason, they prefer to break the rules. 
This is not good. Kids across America see what is going on.
  They are not taught history like they once were. Why? Because since 
we have the Department of Education and it mandates the Federal test--
oh, yeah, you can come up with your own test, but here is what has to 
be on there. And if a child fails that, then you don't get any of your 
money back for that child's year in school. So everybody is scared. 
Many schools drop history, drop civics.
  That is why a survey in recent years indicated college students could 
name The Three Stooges in greater numbers than they could name the 
three branches of government.
  So they don't know as much as they used to about what goes on here. 
But when they see that if you are in the majority, you can break the 
rules any time you want, if you dislike some other elected official--
like a President--and just try to eliminate him from office, then it is 
okay.
  In other words, the new Constitution for America, apparently, based 
on what we are seeing going on here on Capitol Hill, is that if you are 
in the majority, then the ends justify the means.
  Since I have been here, there were times we were in the majority when 
there were Republicans--thank God they were in a small number--but they 
thought the ends justified the means. It didn't for them, and it 
doesn't for anybody else.

  This little experiment in self-government, we know won't last 
forever. Anybody that studied history at all knows, no country, no 
government lasts forever. And we are on borrowed time right now, 
because we are setting records every day as the Nation that has 
functioned the longest under one founding document, our Constitution. 
The Romans didn't make it that long as a republic. We are setting 
records every day.
  We know it won't last forever, but my commitment is to do everything 
I can to perpetuate our freedom, and what was given to us, as the 
greatest country in the history of the world, more opportunity, more 
individual assets than any country, even more than Solomon's Israel. We 
are an anomaly. And we have broken the record on how long we can exist 
with the freedoms we have.
  It is time we come together and stop playing political games so that 
years from now, future generations will not be rising up and cursing 
our names. We need to come together and abide by the rules and the 
Constitution so that we have a shot some day of our children rising up 
and calling us blessed.
  That ought to be our goal. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________