tv U.S. House of Representatives 11072017 CSPAN November 7, 2017 5:59pm-8:00pm EST
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: meerks -- madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242, the nays are 181. he bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3911 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 281, h.r. 3911, a bill to amend the securities exchange active 1934 with respect to risk-based examinations of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic deis right -- device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
members, please take your conversations off the floor. the house will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. tenney: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.
the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. tenney: new york. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize mr. a. vicol lmp he was drafted in the united states army serving in the vietnam war. he was injured during an enemy attack. he worked for the united states postal service and became in commander of chapter 490 military order of the purple heart. the chapter has visited wounded military at walter reed and supported and assisted in honor lights to the world war ii and
vietnam. joe is active and sports our local gold star families. his mmunity owes joe for sacrifice and all he has done. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the floor is not in order. the floor is not in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.
the gentleman may proceed. mr. langevin: i rise today in recognition of november as national adoption month in honor of the 111,000 children waiting to be adopted. ti strongly believe that every child deserves a forever family. a love and stability that family provides and we must work to ensure they have the support system. but adoption does take a toll. and they need assistance and the adoption tax credit provides is with up to $1,000 for adoption expenses. i'm troublely dissfushed that
the republicans would eliminate the adoption tax credit. i call on my colleagues to support adopted children by rejecting this misguided measure. we need to make sure that adoptions are affordable and possibly, successful and the tax credit does exactly that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does new jersey seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, one year ago today, the united states held an election for president. going into the election, there were 200 and 51 million
ericans enough toll vote but 139 million americans voted. 55.3% of the voting age population took selection in the process. we should break done barriers for and we should ensure elections are competitive and not guaranteed. mr. speaker, we must restore the voting rights act and must restore the voting rights act and must end partisan gerry man deering. and must do this before the next federal election. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: ask to address
the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: there are so many things that the american people have to deal with and i think you have heard many of us offer our sympathy and concern for the tragedy that happened in my state and clearly, one more thing we don't want to deal with, the shooting of those people of faith praying on their day of worship, which is what happened in texas on sunday. today, i'm introducing, h.r. 4268, the gun safety not sorry t of 2017 that addresses the seven-day waiting period for purchases or sales of silencers or large capacity mag zeens.
and let me respond to those who offered mental health. mental health, america cabs have more mental health with fewer mass shootings but shows that only 4% of american gun deaths can be contributed to it. let's not blame people. that is not the problem. as the article said in the "new york times," it's all about guns, guns, guns. i ask my colleagues to support my bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. tonko: i rise in opposition to the ryan-mcconnell tax plan
that puts the needs ahead of the american people. this tears away protections with student loans and americans who choose to adopt children and strips support and even those whose homes have burned down. this plan, americans will see their taxes go up and millions more will face tax increases in the future. all this is done while giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and increasing the deficit and pus the economic future in deep jeopardy. this is not the type of tax relief that we need to deserve. put the noods of the american eople first and oppose the
ryan-mcconnell tax plan. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. > i rise today to congratulate representative jackson lee for ill be r winning the world series. first worldon their series title. she earned some of the sandwiches. we may be on opposing teams when it comes to baseball but we paid for the blue team here in congress and i look forward to work with her and across the united states. i tharning you and i yield to the gentlelady from houston.
ms. jackson lee: i couldn't have had a wager with a more great or greater member of congress. i love your orange tie. all of those players, l.a. dodgers and houston astros had and go ortsman ship astros. i yield to the gentleman. >> i yield to the gentlelady. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from district of columbia seek recognition? >> permission to address the ouse for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. norton: mr. speaker, what happened if congress goes nuts on tax cuts without paying for them. kansas has now had to raise tax
taxes back to where they were, providing an object lesson for congress right now. tax cuts about ideology, not economics, do not work. republicans are taking a page out of the kansas tax cuts that crush that state's economy. he promised tens of thousands of jobs. guaranteed a pro-growth economy. kansas did grow initially but then lagged behind all the rest of the state. brownback's tax cuts have produced new taxes. let's learn from kansas and not become kansas 2.0. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. nadler: the rerepublicans are scamming america and offering lower taxes you will ever see for a massive tax cut and for what this we are told the corporate and income tax cuts will result in greater economic deproth and will have higher wages. this is bunk. they won the scam twice before. reagan passed it and told us ilt would again rate. what happened? he national debt accumulated $800 billion went to $.3 trillion and growth was less. and george bush's tax cuts
turned appear a 10-point year into a debt in eight years. in three, four years from now, the republicans will use the deficit this scam will create. we have to make cuts to medicare, social security and infrastructure. the republicans are scamming america and we must reject this bill. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom oregon seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to share the story of marco, a dreamer in portland, oregon, and to continue to urge speaker ryan to put forth a clean dream act bill. mr. schrader: 1995, marco was brought to the united states when his -- when he was only 3 years old. as a teenager with dreams of going to college, marco realized
he didn't qualify for financial aid because of his immigration status. but he did not allow this to deter him. instead marco worked hard in various minimum wage jobs allowing him the ability to attend college part-time. in 2012, after applying for daca, marco was granted a work permit, making it possible for him to earn a job with a law firm in portland are we worked his way up from the mail room to be a legal assistant. he worked for a law firm and enabled him to enroll in more classes and complete his bch lore's degree in accounting. he works as an account ant for oregon's nonprofits that help belle benefit youth. this president claims to want only the best. i have news for him. we already have the best and the brightest and the time we stopped treating them like second class citizens. we need to pass a clean dream act bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition -- seek recognition?
without objection. >> mr. speaker, this week we honor america's veterans. a group of men and women with unparalleled courage and love of country. we owe our veterans an eternal debt of gratitude. mr. boyle: we made a promise to look out for them in exchange for their promise to defend our freedom. but gratitude is not enough. that's why i'm fighting to maximize the care homeless veterans receive with my bill to improve reporting from our v.a. hospitals, to make sure no veteran at any stage in life falls through the cracks. i also helped introduce the patriot employer act, which would give tax incentives to american business owners who employ veterans. on behalf of pennsylvania's 13th congressional district, i'd like to thank all of our nation's veterans for their service. on this veterans day and every day. with that, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i rise in honor of veterans day, which we will observe this saturday, november 11. each veterans day we celebrate america's veterans for their unwavering patriotism and willingness to serve and sacrifice above self. how noble for liberty's cause. yet too many veterans upon their return from service endure long wait times at v.a. health facilities. and that is why i've developed a bill that would reduce the v.a. physician short abbling, which is estimated to be about 5,000. allow m.d. act would students to participate in clinical observations at v.a. medical centers. future physicians will have exposure to the v.a. health care system and the v.a. will create
potential medical professionals. this is just one solution congress should implement to address the v.a. physician shortage. it will help lead to decreased wait times, better care, and healthier outcomes. our veterans dedicated their lives for our country. we owe these honorable men and women better basic health care. and on this veterans day i urge my colleagues to please join me, let us affirm a commitment to action for the men and women who have defend our liberty and have lived the words duty, honor and country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i rise to highlight the continuing urgency of providing relief and recovery aid for puerto rico and the virgin islands.
which were devastated by hurricanes irma and maria. while u.s. efforts have ramped up after a failed initial response, we can and must do more. in puerto rico, some 70 shelters remain open, access to safe drinking water is a problem, and there are dozens of water-borne disease deaths. nearly 1/3 of hospitals are still running off generators. bridges remain destroyed. and many roads remain impassable. nearly 60% of the island is without power. and the news is not better for virgin islands where many still lack access to cell power and clean water. officials estimate $5.5 billion is needed for the most essential needs there. there are less than 20 legislative days left on the house calendar. how can we be prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy? let's put together a fair and strong hurricane relief package for communities raskadged by these hurricanes -- ravaged by
these hurricanes, including those in puerto rico and the virgin islands. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave absence requested for ms. roybal-allard of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. biggs: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this special order. thank you, mr. speaker. 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 two 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's broadened the scope of his investigation far beyond his charge to examine russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. in the process, he's 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 from misconduct. whether ms. clinton is secretary of state, president of the united states, or a citizen of new york, she should be held to the same standard as everyone else. and i am pleased that the house judiciary and oversight committee share this sentiment. our committees will soon be launching a joint investigation into the unand he questions surrounding allegation -- unanswered questions surrounding allegations that we've mentioned. we intend to get truthful answers to these questions. and now, mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield the floor to my colleague from florida, mr. gaetz. for as much time as he will consume. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and, mr. speaker, we are at risk of a cue deat that 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 presightly -- precisely what is
happening 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 iranian -- uranium one deal and fusion g.p.s. dossier that i will now have the opportunity to discuss. i really don't know who's 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. and 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 g.p.s. challenge and the incredible threat to national security raised by the uranium one deal. i do know that there's 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 f.b.i. 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's 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. must have been one hell of a speech. but it's 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 f.b.i. in 2009. he potentially had a role to play in these questions. at the very least the fact that the f.b.i. 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 be have -- might have been actual malfeasance or active negligence. 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. but the not only the uranium one deal that gives us a great deal to question. we also have this fusion g.p.s. dossier, which we've now learned that the democratic party was paying for. the democratic party was out paying people to stirrup this slashese 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 selacious and could not be relied upon. so it begs the question, what was the fusion g.p.s. dossier relied upon? it was 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'll never get those answers because mueller and rosenstein are conflicted. and why did congress never hear from these informants? well, it's no surprise to me that 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, look, it may very well be that these were simply acts of negligence, acts of omission or oversight. and if that's the case, let's get someone in who can give us the answers because certainly the people that are there now cannot give us answers and they have these tragic conflict -- 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 that got special treatment. that is not an america that abides to the rule of law. and as meavet of the judiciary committee, we have -- as a member of the judiciary committee, we have to see the rule of law held up and cherished. we're 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. and so i have introduced legislation, i'm very pleased that my colleagues have joined me in sponsor that legislation, calling for mr. muler to resifpblete i've also called for a special counsel to be appointed. and like -- 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. 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're 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 and i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: i appreciate your remarks. and i yield to the floor to mr. jordan as much time as he will consume. mr. jordan: why in 2016 would james comey call the matter not an investigation.
he wasn't director of the federal bureau of matters. why in 2016 would loretta lynch one month before the benghazi report is supposed to come out, why would she meet with bill clinton on the tarmac in 2016. in the days following that will meeting with the former president when the attorney general corresponding, why would lynch not use her real name. if we are just talking about grandkid and golf, you could probably use your real name. why have we learned recently, rurming the f.b.i. be christopher steele the author of the dosier.
we had previous speakers and had this focus the last several months on potential russia-trum col like. we know something pretty clearly. the justice department tried to influence the election. we can see that without a doubt. and what did we learn today? the gentleman from florida was talking about the dossier. reported today that the was meeting with the russian lawyer was meeting with her before the meeting that she had with donald trump junior and after the meeting she had with donald trump junior. 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 did he tell us under oath. trying to create momentum. and can't be any special counsel. who is it going to be bob mueller. his friend, predecessor and metropolitanor and my good friend from florida just pointed out, the guy who was running the f.b.i. when the uranium one deal was going down. and all we're asking for, all we're asking for is for the attorney germ to name a special counsel. why wasn't it so critical and so important that loretta lynch use her real name.
why was it so important we have special counsel and it be bob mueller. the government document. why was this all so important? all we're asking for is to name a special couple to look into this. we asked for this. 0 members of the judiciary committee laying out all these questions and saying, name a special counsel to look into it. the american people would like the answers. i know the people in the th zreck of ohio would like to know. and asking about the july 2 letter and would they a.a special counsel. to date, we have no answer, no response. and i appreciate my good friend from florida and the gentleman
from north carolina and the gentleman from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. it is time for a special counsel to be named to get the answers on these fundamental questions. there are lots of other questions. but these are the fundamental ones. it is time we have to get to the bottom of this. and we hope it does and the ooner, the better. mr. biggs: i yield to mr. meadows. mr. meadows: i thank for the loquent words and from ohio. for the past year, our government has been mired in a
fruitless, aimless and sometimes laborious investigation or accusations of clution between the russian government and the 2016 presidential campaign. my colleagues have insisted that congress follow where the evidence leads in this investigation. i'm here to tell you that i agree wholeheartedly. congress should follow the facts where they lead. however, they are leading in a very different direction than sug.of the media might in the process of this direction, we have seen the clinton campaign and potentially the obama's administration involvement in a targeted campaign using information from reign intelligence officials
again then candidate donald trump. the presidential campaign of hillary clinton how and the democratic national committee paid for research that was included in the russian do smp si rench r that was made public this year in september and eported by cnn and the clinton campaign paid an intelligence officer to compile this dosier with the research provided from ussian intelligence officials. it has not been verified or not been refuted. mr. speaker, it is suspicious that the d.n.c. paid intelligence officials and russia for this type of material and false information on
president trump. we are beginning to see evidence that raises questions about the ery way that the obama justice department may have involved themselves into this project both before and after the 016 presidential campaign. consider the time line. and we are working in 2016, the clinton campaign used a law firm to retain the firm behind the russian dosier. in april of 2016, president obama's campaign began paying re than $900,000 to what law firm? the very same firm used by the clinton campaign. the weeks prior to the 2016
election, president obama's f.b.i. tried tore reach an agreement with christopher steele to pay for the russian sier and the f.b.i. ended up rurming the expenses. the f.b.i. attempted to pay and nd the costs that were being orchestrated by the hillary clinton campaign. the f.b.i. has refused to answer questions and refused any transparency on this issue. going a step further, we now know on january 6, president obama's intelligence officials led by the f.b.i. director comey briefed the president on the contents. following the january 6 briefing, there are reports that the obama's administrations officials leaked to cnn to brief
president obama on the fact that the president-elect was briefed. four days later on january 10, e dose year ended up being published by busby. they had the document but none of them has printed it. now this time line leads us with a myriad of extremely extremely concerning questions that can be boiled down to a few specifics. why did president obama's campaign begin paying $1 million that the clinton campaign used in the very same month that the clinton campaign. why did president obama's f.b.i. attempt to pay him?
why was president obama's involved in paying for a project that the clinton campaign was started and/or contest traited. and they have resisted transparency on this issue. and why, mr. speaker, why brief the president if much of the dosier could not be verified or i would suggest if president obama's intelligence officials d reason to treat it seriously, why did they wait to disclose the information on january 6? and why would the president's meeting leak to cnn if again the dosier could not be verified. the intention of this is not to spread theories or to speculate
what might have happened. there are electricity, unanswered questions about hether the obama justice targeting donald trump. and behind the investigation like.he trump-russian col the americans demand answers to those questions and it's our responsibility to find them. and i yield back. mr. biggs: i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for his remarks. i now yield time to my friend from arizona, mr. franks. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman from arizona. he and i hold a deep that arizona is the best state in the union and i don't think anyone would debate that.
mr. speaker, last monday, october 30, we were delivered story -hyped bombshell that special counsel rob irrelevant mueller would deliver evidence. on friday, the 27th, someone involved in the grand jury investigation, and don't forget that the purpose is see creasey but someone leaked that nore to the press. specifically, cnn with no easonable person being able to count. and it caused every political pundit to begin purchase myselfing who would be the first to fall. reporters were assigned the story, combing through research and fact sheets about so-called evidence of russia clution.
then the big reveal, man for the d ukranian politician in a count try undergoing revolution back in 2014. the f.b.i. has been trying to indict them. there was no mention of the trunt campaign, not whatsoever. in other words, the announcement amounted to what many have called a nothing burger. mainstream members promised the viewers and their viewer some new evidence about trump were aghast. mueller had left them down. how could they face their audience? but wait, another indictment snuck in only a few hours later right in the nick of time.
george papadopoulos, he actually went to russia and proposed trump meet with putin. we got him now. well, now, no. papadopoulos was an unpaid intern when he suggested to meet with the russians. and the indictment didn't have to do with his work on the campaign it was found because he had lied to the f.b.i. again, no col like that the trump familiar pain whatsoever. . the american people didn't fall for this. the new yorkers' legal writer, jeffrey tobin and the liberal vox.com seems to be conducting mueller is conducting his investigation like he's going
after a mafia mob boss. the problem with treating the trump campaign like a mafia campaign is it presumes his guilt. if he's treating trump like al capone, his tactics are wrong. when trying to pursue charges on a mafia boss, the f.b.i. pulls in the street guys an threatens them with life in jail unless they rat on their superior. once they crack they bring in the next level. it incentivizes them to invent a invent spurious testimony against their superior. could mueller be acting out of vengeance or to get vengeance for his friend comey who had a public feud with president trump? i don't know.
the main point is this, 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's true. even if it's not. but there's 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 hat the -- at the state department. the nib 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 uranium one which has control of mining and uranium stakes 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% of america's uranium industry. of course as obama's f.b.i. was investigating russia for bribes and extortion related to atomic energy this shoup raised red flags for the state department. vladimir putin wanted the deal to go through because it would allow him to realize his goal of becoming one of the world's
mange 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, quote, 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 -- i'm sorry, totaling $2.35 million. now being under agreement to disclose all their foundation contributions publicly, the clintons neglected still to reveal the uranium one donations. that's pretty convenient, mr. speaker. are we paying attention here, sir? since the media seems to have an insatiable appetite for russian collusion let's look at the uranium one deal. that's a story worth looking into, mr. speaker. i would bet the biggest stake in
washington with anyone -- the biggest steak in washington with anyone in this place that if a special counsel was appointed to look into it, that investigation would bring truly legitimate results. i yield back. mr. biggs: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. it's my pleasure to yield the floor to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. mr. perry: i thank the gentleman from arizona. we've been entreated to claims of collusion with our government of people high in you are government with russia for over a year now. since the last election happening this very day a year ago. we've 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 some research to understand the timeline and what exactly happened here. i want to talk to you about that this evening. on june 8, 2010, the russian state atomic energy
corporation,al known as rosatom, the russian state, not some private organization, it belongs to vladimir putin, make no mistake about it, they announced plans to purchase a 51.4% stake in the canadian company uranium one. why do we care? we care because the -- this announcement had significant strategic implications for the united states since uranium one's international assets included 20% of our -- the united states' uranium reserves. a due to uranium status as strategic commodity, the $1.3 billion deal was subject to the committee on foreign investment in the united states, the committee on foreign investment in the united states. they care because uranium is important. you know why? we make nuclear bombs out of it. that's why it's important. so do other countries. maybe so do terrorists if they
get their hands on it. so we care. the committee went through the approval process of what we could consider an unusual rapid pace, approving the sale of one fifth of our uranium reserve, the united states reserves, a russian vladimir putin state-owned enterprise in less than five months. five months. i mean, they got, they did that in five months. we've been investigating allegations of president trump and russia for about 12 months now. i mean , 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 five months. ok, that's good. now the committee proceeded at this pace despite national security concerns raised by congress. people right here. said hey, 20% of our uranium
shouldn't go to vladimir putin that doesn't make sense to us. the f.b.i. did extensive, they had extensive concerns. tom's top executive to a bribery scheme. bolt secretary of state clinton and the attorney general, eric holder, whose f.b.i., by the way prork deuced the evidence, voted in favor of the deal. interestingly enough, who was in charge of the f.b.i. at the time? our friend robert mueller. it's just a little too coincidental for me. i'm sorry, it's 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 expert license. even though he had control of 20% he could never do anything with the 20% 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 uranium one to this day. but despite the public statement, somehow, somehow it got exported because nrc memos show the agency approved the shipment of yellow cake uranium from the united states to canada through a third party and additional shipments of the uranium were made to europe and they were authorized as well by the n.r.c. where they went from europe, who knows. the n.r.c. doesn't know. at least if they know they're not telling us, we've 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% of our uranium?
was it that we needed $137b9 billion? i suspect not. i suspect not. an attempt to avoid congressional scrutiny, the n.r.c. 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 united states uranium. our uranium. the n.r.c. was able to amend this export license because of two policy changes resulting from the russian reset orchestrated by secretary clinton. again, it's -- look, it might be innocent. might be completely innocent. but it deserves more scrutiny, certainly. the two thing the two policy changes were the obama administration reinstated the u.s.-russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement in may of 201. and shortly thereafter, in 011
the commerce department removed rosatom from a list of restricted companies that could not export nuclear or other sense ty materials or technologies. they still didn't have a license but they were removed from the list. nine months after commerce department did that, removed -- the removal of rosatom from the list, the n.r.c. issued the license amendment to the third party allowing for uranium of the united states to be exported from ewe rain yum one mines through canada and eventually on to europe and who knows where from there. the license amendment stipulated the exported uranium must be returned to the u.s. now this did not occur. instead, the energy department approved the movement of uranium from canada to europe and that was it. it's begun, folks. it's just gone. it is now clear that the previous administration took every condition seveable 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. 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 pastime to thoroughly, marginally, how about to marginally investigate this deal. the obama administration's actions and the clinton family's role and their foundation role. their foundation's role. i mean you only need to ask 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? other deals happen 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 we know the truth. so that there is russian involvement in the united states national security whether it's our election or whether it's our uranium that they could use to make an atomic bomb. the american people need to know. they should know. they should have the evidence. i thank the gentleman and i yield. mr. biggeds: i thank the gentleman for his remarks -- mr. biggs: i thank the gentleman for his remarks and now i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. my friend mr. biggs. appreciate your hosting this hour. this is critical stuff here. this is the kind of thing that makes or break a tissue 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? when you find out that his f.b.i. -- that as f.b.i. director he and u.s. attorney rod rosen stein -- rosenstein were involved in the deep cover investigation into russia's effort to corner the market sing american uranium and that hillary clinton and eric holder,
others in the administration, pproved the sale to a group, stockholders of which donated, as i understand it, $145 million or so to the clinton foundation, in effect the clintons hit the russian mega lottery. the mega millions lottery. from russia. and just a tease was the half a million fee was giving a little short speech by bill clinton. but if we look back at what has gone on, just look at some of he facts, it was shocking that .b.i. director comey did not have cheryl mills interviewed. she was former bill clinton's at
the state department. and comey was going to draftal statement saying there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute haint or followedp on the most credible evidence, then clearly, it makes sense yes director comey would not want to make cheryl mills' interview recorded, would make an agreement with cheryl mills and the other potential defendants in the case, that gee, if they got a look at their lap tops, they wouldn't use anything in the laptop to prosecute them and e f.b.i. then, unged comey's direction would participate in the destruction of evidence so
nobody could use it against them. we thought that might be hillary clinton, but as we find out, gee, mr. mueller, mr. comey, mr. rosenstein were up to this in their eyeballs when it came to the russian investigation. if they were doing their jobs, they should have never allowed that sale of uranium to go to a company that they knew would end up in russian hands. ,o if you look at cheryl mills, these are people that were potential targets. and what director comey do?
he makes sure they walk. because if they were fluid like good prosecutors and good investigators like 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 we won't prosecute you to the full stnt of the law. and that's how you get it to an confederation. mr. comey and the f.b.i. apparently relied on the fusion g.p.s. investigation knowing where it came from, knowing who paid for it. this is incredible. and if you go back to the " shington -- "washingtonian
article of 201, it makes clear that comey and mueller were basically joined at the hip. in fact, the quote says that the stress, comby, comby had few people to turn to advice. o one knew that the programs existed. there is only one person in confident whom he could in and trust, bob mueller. and this is about to derail me. e glanced to his left at his fellow passenger at least bob ueller will be standing on the tracks with me. well, it's not quite amusing
when you look at the stakes and whether or not this little sperment in self-government will continue. freddie mac, 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 that mueller,nd by him, bob which brought memories of when boss, john ed his ashcroft and let them appoint a special counsel. he probably did. and comey sought to it that his ild's godfather would be the prosecutor. and he got massive amounts of
money and great powerful staff karl roveuld go after and vice president cheney and made up one on scooter libby. comeyw from the leak that phitted that he used and ex-u.s. attorney to leak to the "new york times" the contents of the member oove that comby wrote. if you look at the f.b.i. contract with agents and with people employedbly the f.b.i., makes it very clear that memo at comey prepared with his conversation with the president was not supposed to ever be provided to the press. that's f.b.i. property.
and he violated the law in look, it, but if you professor daniel richtman got it to the "new york times" author, michael schmidt who wrote the story in which comby said he directed richtman to leak. if you go back through and looking for this common thread, michael schmidt writing stories for the "new york times" about leaks, you find a number of cases where it appears likely whether it's march 1, march , 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 say this was a mistake for me to take this on. and it was a mistake when comey testified and no col like and it was a mistake to leak that and he i now investigating. why would he do that? there was no purpose in his investigation. and why would he indict people when he did. the wall street jourm began to say, mueller should re-sign. he had to get those indictments out quick so people are not calling for his ress is nation. we need to clean this town up d mr. mueller needs to
re-sign, the clintons and russia. and rod rossen steen, that oversaw the rush i can't remember case before he decided to seal it. i yield back. mr. biggs: i thank my friend and i appreciate him to make him giving his remarks. request the time. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. mr. biggs: i yield 13 minutes to mr. yoho. mr. yoho: i'm going to cut mine a little bit shorter. a lot of people were angry and people came to our office demanding investigations and i forewarned them and if it goes
there and it leads to the previous administration or hillary clinton, are you willing to go down that rabbit hole. and we need to follow that. because it has led to that. and without going into the stuff that has been already said. we can talk about the approval of the mining company. the new . assured that owners couldn't ects port materials. and they may not be exported and we found out that's not true. and as has been described, over 20% of our uranium is going into the hand of rush yafment and beyond the minds, there are the st lucrative, and they
controlled the capacity in the u.s., since uranium is considered a strateekic asset, the deal had to be composed by a number of united states government agencies among those agencies that signed off with the state department then headed by mrs. clinton. a mining fine year has donated millions of dollars to the foundation run by former president bill clinton. in three separate transactions from 2009 to 201, a flow of cash how it made its way and we could go on and on. and of after the russians a nounsed their inteng, mr. a nton received $5,000 for
mouse could you speech that was promoting uranium one stock. and i remember when president clinton was asked about his speaking fees and he laughed it off and he said people like to hear me speak. fordham prosecutor, who has written about political corruption and she said i'm concerned as a general election candidate. these questions aren't going away. there is a pattern that they have found through the clinton foundation. he ade 13 speeches from and was paid 5,000 or more. 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 and hillary clinton foundation? donors packed away the questionable acknowledge unethical and possible apply illegal activities. i want to speak as an american. we come up here from different background and people from all different become grounds and we want transparency and accountability. dand that but neefer see et it. my hope is there is a conclusion to an investigation and the people who broke the law are held accountable and not talk about an investigation that expend the american taxpayer's
money and turning over strategic products, uranium in this case to a foreign entity. thank you. nd i yield back. mr. biggs: mr. speaker, i'm going to yield to a man who has pasheins. >> what an incredibly important issue. we have heard nearly on a daily basis accusations of what russia tries to do to undermine the united states and most of my colleagues would agree that russia's actions which include from cyberattacks to supporting assad in syria, all of it demonstrates it is to disrupt
the ta built of the united states and the entire world. no one in rush i can't remember flipped the switch and suddenly changed from being friendly to the united states to trying to cause us harm. the fact is that the united vigilant. not remain . we ignored the fact that russian interests and goals are not our interests and goals. nothing demonstrate this is more than the uranium one case. they sold it to russian-owned nuclear giant rosatom. one fifth of our uranium capacity ghon. the united states, we've been long aware of the fact that the russian government's quest is among other things, 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 confidential u.s. witness working inside russian nuclear industry to gather extensive evidence that showed moscow had compromised an american uranium trucking firm with bribes around kickbacks, all of course in violation of the law. rather than bringing these charges up, however, the f.b.i. kept it secret. didn't tell anyone about it for four years. that is unacceptable. we need to know why the f.b.i. 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.
and then as we've been hearing tonight, the cases where russian officials spend 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. i think you'd 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. and of course none of this was disclosed as it was supposed to be. from what we know, the decision
to allow the clinton foundation to continue solicitting foreign naive, if as at best not criminal. this seems to be a pattern of the previous administration. absolutely cluelessness. at best. self-interest. perhaps even worse than that. it's hardly surprising that russia believed it could pull the wool over our eyes with impunity and malicious behavior. i look forward to this investigation going forward. i thank my friend from arizona for having this special order and i yield back. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from georgia. how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has four minutes. mr. biggs: four minutes. i'll do my best to sum up. what you've heard tonight, those who have been listening have been hearing the outlines of the scandal of our lifetime.
the scandal of our lifetime that began in 2009 and proceeded forth even to revelations within e 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. as he a huge change 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. oddly enough it is robert mueller.
and robert mueller sits today as the investigator of these supposed collusion between the trump administration and the russians to influence the election. oddly enough, it's turned on its head. we have found out now that it's the d.n.c. and the hillary clinton campaign that was trying the fusion g.p.s. to influence the american electorate. it's upside down. and yet the person who is tied throughout all of this is robert mueller. and he's the guy conducting the investigation. is there any clearer conflict of interest than what we see in this special investigation? 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 on elections. with that, mr. speaker, if i have any time i yield it back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i came here to talk about tax policy, and i will. however, having listened for the last 60 minutes to the most remarkable admission that russia is meddling in america, in many,
ny ways, even an admission that russia somehow wants to influence america's elections, in this case, america's elections for the last year. i'm pleased that my republican colleagues are so adamant in and ng russian influence perhaps controversial influence in the united states. i'm pleased they're doing that. i'm also pleased that mr. mueller is continuing his investigations and i will note that there have been three indictments, well two indictments and one guilty plea that have already come forth from his investigation having to do with people that are very, very close to president trump's administration. more will come of that, i certainly hope our republican friends will continue to focus on the fact that russia is playing very serious and quite
possibly illegal games here in the united states. or activities here in the united states. so we'll carry on. i firmly believe that mr. mueller is not about to resign or be fired. if he were to be fired i would suspect that there's be far more serious consequences than the kind of yapping we just heard from the last hour here on the floor. so let me go back to my original point, which has to do with tax policy. as interesting as russia might be, tax policy is going to be far, far more consequential in the long term. whatever comes of the russian situation in the election and nspiracies or other kinds of conflicts will bear themselves out over the next several years or months. this, however, tax policy is something that america is going to live with a long, long time were it to pass. there are many things we could
say about it. one is that, yeah. he top 1% of america's wealthy people, if you take the americans, 360 million of us, and take the top 1%, they'll get 50% of all of the tax cuts that are in this multitrillion dollar tax cut legislation. so $1.5 trillion to the top 1 act ought to really, realy drive up that problem that we call income disparity in the united states. you know, what we used to talk about, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? or that america has a real problem with the super wealthy controlling most of the wealth and the rest of americans left behind. so this tax bill is going to make it even worse. that's really good. how does it do that? well, let's see. by eliminating the estate tax. well, let's see. five, yes, five members of the
president trump cabinet, including the president, would benefit to the billions, the estate tax would be eliminated in just four years. about the same time they would be leaving the administration. what does that mean? well, if you have a billion dollar estate and there's a tax on that, you can eliminate the first $10 million, $11 million of that, you have 40% tax on the remainder, that's about $400 million. in estate tax. who would have a billion dollar estate? the president. mr. ross. treasury secretary. maybe the education secretary. maybe others. so who is going to benefit from this? the super wealthy, to the tune
of millions upon millions or hundreds of millions of dollars if the estate tax itself. there's more to that. there's much more to that. american corporations would see 39% down rate go from to 20%. who will benefit from that? we heard the treasury secretary say the american workers will. where is the evidence for that? there's no evidence for that. none at all. in fact, quite the contrary. the treasury department's own tax analysis section says that 70% of the after profit taxes now go to, guess who, stockholders and executives. not to the workers. used to be that way. back in the 1970's and 1960's. maybe 70% went to the workers. went to increasing planting equipment, investments in the united states. not that way anymore. quite the contrary. the american workers will be
left behind once again by those tax reductions. that's not to say we shouldn't reduce the nominal tax rate for corporations. yes, we should. but we should do it in a way that actually helps american workers. keeps investments in the united states. oh, no. not this tax proposal. this one actually creates what is called territorial accounting. or inter-- for international corporations. let's say you have an international corporation located in silicon valley. we have some really big ones there. territorial taxes would be all of the earnings that that corporation has outside of the united states would be beyond being taxed. by the united states. even though it is an american corporation that can manipulate the price of its goods and services to actually push overseas its profits. brilliant. brilliant.
you want to bring jobs back to america? don't do territorial tax reform. doesn't work for the american worker. works for the stockholders. their stocks will go up. stock prices will. and they'll be able to receive more benefits. so that's only $3 trillion over 10 years of reductions for corporate taxes who benefits? wall street. corporate executives. who loses? the american worker loses. one more thing that is on my mind is that, i used to hear last year, year before last, the year before that, in fact for the last two decades, i used to hear a lot of talk from many, well, from about more than half of the members of this house of representatives who would talk about the horrible impact of the american deficit. that it would lead to ruin for
the american economy. that our grandchildren would be left to pay it off. and all of the horrible things that the deficit would bring to the united states. ultimately leading to the collapse of the american economy. there's some truth in that. hyperbole was a little bit more than necessary. but indeed, it is a problem. to see our deficit ever-increasing. and maybe now and then we come up against a debt limit and oh my goodness, the debate that took place here. got to stop it. got to stop deficit financing. got to bring our budget back into balance. not a bad idea. in fact, it's the right thing to do. by the way, it was actually done during the clinton administration. for two years, almost three years, the american federal government ran a surplus. and it was estimated that in the