John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments. What we are talking about tonight is a climate that has developed over a long period of time in our court system. It is a climate which was never designed or anticipated by the founders of our Nation; that our courts would become a weapon to batter someone into submission; that our courts would become a tool of business; that our courts would become a slot machine where individuals could pull the handle and receive big benefits. I love our court system, and I think our court system has the potential to be fair, impartial, and to resolve grievances for every American citizen. I think the court system works hard to see that it does just that. But there are issues and attitudes of the American people that we can only change by redirecting the thought pattern of ``I am going to get rich on this lawsuit,'' rather than the fairer thought process of ``I am going to recover for how I was damaged and how I suffered.'' That is what we are looking here for. I think that every American is looking to his or her government to be treated fairly. I think it is our responsibility here as Members of Congress to try to do everything we can to make sure that all who appear in the courts get fair justice. So I thank the Chair for being willing to listen to us tonight and to hear our discussion about lawsuit abuse and in particular medical malpractice, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and be counted by casting their vote for fairness. I also urge our colleagues in the other body to address this issue and cast their vote for fairness in the American justice system. If we instigate and create fairness, we will have done the will of the framers and the will of the American people.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the congresswoman for her comments. The congresswoman is always willing to stand up for the people in her district and talk about the people of her district, and she never fails to tell us a story about the people in her district. I want to tell my colleagues a couple of stories. I want to tell my colleagues, in 21 years on the bench, I have seen an awful lot of people who really have the attitude that suing people is kind of a profession. I want to tell my colleague true stories, and these are both absolutely true stories, but I am not going to use the people's names because, as far as I know, they are both still alive. Hey, I do not know, they might even be watching. I have this one friend that I worked with many years ago down in the Texas legislature when I was working for the staff down at the legislature as a young lawyer. When I talk about this, I am a lawyer and practiced law for about 12 years before I went on the bench. So I am not picking on lawyers here. But anyway, I used to go deer hunting with this fellow, called him Joe, and about 10 years later, I ran into him kind of on the street. I said, hey, Joe, what is going on; what are you doing? He said, oh, I got me a job. I said, what do you do? He said, I am a suer. I said, a what? I thought he works for the sewer, is that what he said? He said no, I am a suer. I said, what in the world is a suer? He said, I get out in my old car out on the highway, slam on my brakes and somebody runs into the back of me; I slap a collar around my neck and I sue him. I thought he was joking. I laughed. I thought that was a funny thing for a fellow to say, until I ran into a guy that I knew who knew him well, and he said, no, well, that is what he does. That is what he does. That is an attitude about our court system that has got to change, and it has got to change. If necessary, we have to turn this world around. That is why juries go crazy on these verdicts. I will tell my colleagues another story.

Mr. CARTER. Add future medical care. By my understanding, this bill does not limit any amount of medical care that has already been expended nor any projected needs in medical care in the future including, as you say, rehabilitation. Even mental health issues could be addressed. If there is proof of the necessity, this can be carried forward, and it is not limiting it. It is that undefinable pain and suffering issue that can allow people to break the bank at Monte Carlo with their judgment and get $1 billion in that category. A billion dollars has been awarded in the past. Many times multimillions of dollars have been awarded for pain and suffering. That is the issue. That is the real issue in a nutshell. Something needs to be mentioned here. We have had a lot of doctors come in here, and some people watching might be thinking, of course, these doctors are in the business; of course they want to do this. Well, these doctors are not in the business. These doctors have left the practice of medicine to come to Congress. And I think in many instances they came to Congress because they had a voice that needed to be heard on many issues, including this issue here. I know I have become very close with many of the doctors, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) being the prime example, and they are here because they care about multiple issues affecting their people back home, and they are here to represent all of the people of their State. They are no longer practicing physicians, so they are not doing this because they are reaching into their pocketbooks, but they are doing this because they know there is an abuse here that needs to be rectified, and this stands for the Senate as well as the House. These doctors do not practice their profession while they are serving in the Congress.

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely, absolutely. You have to stand in line a lot longer to see him than to sue him. This other fellow, friend of mine, was a cigarette smoker, and this was back many years ago. He was sitting there. He is a prolific reader. He said, I have decided how I am going to retire as soon as I get out of college. This was back when I was in college. I said, okay, John, how are you going to retire? He said, well, I read an article that said that the reason people smoke is because they were weaned too soon. He said, so I smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. At that time cigarettes cost about 35 cents a pack. He would get rich today on his plan. He said, so I have added up how many packages of cigarettes I think I am going to smoke in my lifetime, and I happen to know the reason my mother weaned me soon is because her doctor gave her that advice. He said, so I am going to sue my mother and my doctor because I smoke. He said, and I think I can get $1 million out of that deal, by the way, by my calculation. That was a joke, but it does underlie how people view the court systems and the lawsuits that people perceive that can be heard. Now we are having people wanting to sue hamburger people for obesity. They are wanting to sue schools for the vending machines that are in the schools, and of course, they are suing the doctors for everything under the sun. It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing. I think what we will do here is let us just open this up to a general discussion. Let us first let the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) talk a little bit about this bill, and then the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) wants to talk about some stuff.

Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman will yield back for a moment. As we talk about lawsuit abuse, right now we are talking about doctors, but you can talk to your small businessman and ask him what he pays for the insurance coverage because of liability factors that influence whatever business he is in. He can be in the manufacturing business, he can be a consultant, he can be an engineer, an architect, or a lawyer. There is not a small businessman or a profession in America that is not facing the possibility of frivolous lawsuits that can cause them major damage in their business. In fact, lawsuits have become a tool of competition in America today in the business community. There are people and organizations who actually try to drive a person out of business by filing frivolous lawsuits against them, knowing it will cost them $25,000 to $50,000 to defend them. They come back and they come back and they come back again, and, thus, ultimately, the small businessman finally throws up his hands and says, I cannot pay these attorneys fees any more. My insurance people will not cover me any more, and so I am getting out of this business. That is happening. It probably happened in this Nation while I was talking tonight. Fair redress is what we ought to have in the courts; fair disputes settled between two parties. But using the court as a weapon to direct people, whether it be in business, in politics, or in a profession, is wrong.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, let us point out that when our founders as States decided they wanted to write a document that they were going to submit to govern our Nation by, the Constitution of the United States, they chose to sit in Congress as a group of diverse opinions representing their various States to come up with this document. They did not ask a battery of judges to come in here and do that. They asked people that represented their States to come in and represent the interests, and they debated, as we debate here in Congress, the laws we designed, and the intent is clear, that they wanted a Congress to make the laws of this United States. They, in Marbury v. Madison, set the precedent that said the Courts may interpret the laws that are made, to see if they comply with the Constitution of the United States, which is the sovereignty of our Nation. Of course, our true sovereignty is in God; and it is clear as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) points out, we stated the sovereignty that we look to in the Declaration of Independence, where we get our rights from. And they are not given to us by our government, they come from the divine authority of God. But they went forward on that and they established the Congress to make the laws. And I agree 100 percent that is the intent of our founders, and that is the way it is supposed to be. That is the right and proper place. And the interpretation of Judge Roberts, so adequately and effectively and eloquently presented to the Senate to educate that bunch in the last week, proves that fact. I want to say that I am honored to be here with these four gentlemen. These are some of my best friends. Let me point out that Judge Roberts is not from any of our States. We have no parochial interest in this whatsoever. We are just glad that we have got a great jurist coming forward.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking this time tonight to talk about this very important matter before our Nation right now. The House of Representatives does not have a vote in this issue, but it does and should have a voice in the issue concerning the selection of the highest court of this land, and of all of the judicial appointments. One of the duties of this House is to be a voice of the people of this country, because we of the elected officials in this House of Representatives, we are the ones that have the smallest districts and are closest to the people. Most of us are home every weekend talking to the folks back home. We have a good idea of the kind of capabilities that our people are looking for in their judges. We have one of the great debates in history going on right now, with two potential justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court. We were here last week talking about this, and we told you that we would hope that everyone would watch the hearings that took place last week to see Judge Roberts. I predicted that Judge Roberts would be outstanding before the Senate, and I think my prediction was absolutely proven true. I think everyone acknowledges he showed great intelligence and great insight. He answered the questions appropriately. He asked to be excused from questions which were inappropriate for a judge to answer. He handled himself with charm and grace and intelligence, just exactly the way I predicted last week. I am not clairvoyant, I just know this man is the right man to be on the Supreme Court and to be the Chief Justice to lead that Supreme Court. We know the Constitution gives them the vote. We hope that they will hear our voice. There is a lot of criticism that has been out there, and I want to ask the American people to think about just exactly what is the role of a judge in our society. I served for 21 years as a judge in Texas, a proud 21 years as part of the justice system of this Nation. I think what the lawyers that appear before a court and what the people who those lawyers represent want from a court is a judge that comes into the court with no preconceived notions, that will listen to the facts that pertain to the case, examine those facts carefully, apply the law and the facts, and come up with a solution. That is what they want from the judge. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted for the justices of our Supreme Court. They wanted them to examine American law as it relates to each set of disputed facts that comes before that court, and, from the American jurisprudence and the common law, come up with an interpretation of whether or not our Constitution has been violated under certain circumstances, and to examine the laws of the United States and make them proper. I do not think anybody argues with that. I think that it would be totally inappropriate to ask a judge to make a pretrial statement before a case is brought before the court as to where he would stand on an issue without hearing the full presentation in the court, reading the briefs, and making a decision based upon what has been presented in the court and the law as it stands in the United States at that time. That is what we want from our judges. Judge Roberts is that kind of judge and will give us those decisions. I think it is almost laughable if you know how the court works. When a man is hired as a lawyer for somebody else, when a client comes into a lawyer's office and says I want to hire you to represent me in a case, now you would not want that lawyer that you hired to represent you in that case to go into court and argue the other side of the case against you, because that is not what he is getting paid to do. His job is to be an advocate for his client. And yet the criticisms that we hear against Judge Roberts are that he made arguments as a lawyer for a side before the Supreme Court or before other courts in favor of or against certain positions that some Members of the Senate do not agree with; therefore, he is inappropriate to be involved in any case that has to do with that. We will start off with the pro-life issue. They argue that Roberts is pro-life because of two arguments that he made while he was representing the United States of America as a deputy solicitor general in Rust v. Sullivan and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. Roberts' opponents argue that Roberts unnecessarily called for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in Rust, a case challenging Federal regulations which prohibit certain recipients of Federal funds from counseling patients on abortion. Critics argue that the case could have been argued solely on the basis of statutory construction of the provisions at issue. Critics also point out that Roberts coauthored the government's amicus brief in Bray, a private suit brought against Operation Rescue, which argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection rights. Who was he arguing for? His side, his client, the people paying him to make an argument for them. And who is someone sitting outside the courtroom, who are they to tell a lawyer how he should argue his case? Well, he should argue his case but not argue Roe. If he felt the interest of his clients were best protected and put forward by arguing against Roe, it is his job to argue against Roe. If the next time he comes into court and someone has hired him to take the opposite position, that same lawyer would be arguing the other side of that case because that is what lawyers get paid to do. And an argument a lawyer makes in the courtroom and whom a lawyer represents in the courtroom, if that defines that lawyer, there is something wrong with how we think. That would be accusing every criminal lawyer in America of being a criminal because they talk in favor of criminals. But if we do not have defense lawyers in criminal cases, we do not have a case because the State has the burden of proof in that case. The defense has no burden of proof whatsoever, but they have the right to representation under our Constitution. Would we say that no lawyer would ever be fit for a court if he argued any position that might come before that court and we can tell what his position is going to be by his arguments in court? That, Mr. Speaker, is just one of the most ridiculous arguments that I think anyone could ever make. And anybody who would hire a lawyer to go into court to argue the other side of a case ought to fire his lawyer before the third word came out of his mouth and ask the judge to give him some more time to hire a decent lawyer to represent his position, and I think most lawyers would grant that. And almost every argument that is made in this whole list of things that says Roberts is a right wing extremist, Roberts is anti- environment, Roberts is hostile to civil rights and affirmative action, Roberts is hostile to the rights of criminal defendants, Roberts is hostile to the first amendment of the establishment clause, all of these things are baloney because about 90 percent of their arguments are that he made this argument as an advocate for a client, which is his job. Lawyers argue every day in court as advocates for their clients when, in their heart of hearts, we cannot tell whether they are for what their client is for or against what their client is for. But, by golly, they make us think they are because that is their job to represent their client and convince the court that their position is valid. That is what they get paid for. The other arguments they have in here are some arguments about dissents that were written by Judge Roberts on the court of appeals. Well, what do we want from a judge, a multijudge panel on the court? Do we want everybody up there that thinks exactly the same way on every issue? Then why do we need all of them? Why not just pick one every day, and we know we can get the same verdict every time because they all just think alike? Or why do we even need judges? If we have a set of criteria that we absolutely feel that everybody ought to have to be a judge, why do we not just program it into the computer, feed the facts and the argument into the computer, and if it does not fit the computer program, we spit it out and they lose? That is not what a court is all about. That is not what a multijudge court is all about. It is about intelligent students of the law with experiences in the courtroom, both as advocates and as fair and impartial judges, who are able to go together, take their combined intelligence, make arguments to themselves as they discuss the case, and come up with the combined intelligence of those people and the combined opinions of those people, which may be diverse, which comes up, we have discovered, over and over and over in our courts of justice, comes up with good decisions that fit the appropriate actions that are necessary for the court. If we have everybody who thinks just alike and there is a litmus test for every member of the judiciary, we do not need all those Supreme Court Justices. Let us just give one guy superpower and dictatorial power over the judiciary and move on. I think that both sides would feel passionately about issues concerning the Court. But the reality is there is a place in that Court for diverse opinion, and if we do not have diverse opinion, we do not have a Court that can effectively give a broad-based analysis of the law that comes before it. And then to go and try to come up with stuff that does not mean a thing by saying he represented somebody is just on the verge of laughable, and I think in all reality the arguments that are being made are spurious at best. I would encourage our colleagues in the Senate that they pass this case on, bring it up on the floor as soon as possible. We now have a Court that has basically two vacancies, one being filled until another Justice is selected and one that is empty. We have a Court that is going to work in October. I think it is important that we pass Judge Roberts out to a vote on the floor of the Senate, that they have an up- or-down vote on the floor of the Senate; and if Judge Roberts does not get the vote, then let us find somebody else to fit the job with an up- or-down vote on the Senate side. If he does get it, let us get him in to start working on the job so he can be ready as this Court convenes in October. And then let us get to work on our next Justice that is coming down, and let us not try to establish litmus tests. Let us not try to make people walk the line of somebody's political agenda. Let us say, Mr. President, give us a fair and impartial judge that knows the law, knows how to find the law, knows how to interpret the American jurisprudence, not some foreign jurisprudence, but the American jurisprudence and the common law and come up with the solution to our problems in our Supreme Court, and we will have fair and impartial justices in the Supreme Court of the United States. But there should be no litmus test whatsoever that is required of these nominees. And I hope the President will come up with a good nominee for this next vacancy; and if he comes up with one with the quality of Judge John Roberts and the ability of Judge John Roberts, we will have hit a home run in the two nominees that have been submitted to the Senate. And I hope for rapid confirmation of both so that we can put the Supreme Court back to work with a full house.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I am happy to be privileged in that when Judge Roberts made his opening statement, and he started talking about balls and strikes, calling the balls and strikes, being the umpire, as far as I was concerned, it was over right there; he had won, because he understood the role of being a justice. And he happened to use something that I had used on multiple occasions. You know, back in the small town where I started out as a judge, it grew to be a big town, we have a lot of baseball and girls' softball, and one time they said, hey, Judge, would you come out and call the balls and strikes; we lost our umpire. And I said, friends, I call balls and strikes for a living. And I am not about to get up there and call balls and strikes at my daughter's softball game. But that is exactly right. That is understanding what a judge's job is. It is so very important that we have a judge that has the common sense of the American people to go along with a great intellect into the law. It is just so very important that we have that kind of a judge that comes to the Court. This is exactly want we have in Justice Roberts. He is so impressive, I mean phenomenally impressive. So Judge Roberts stole that from me. But probably I would say stole it from lots of good judges. I kind of think that I was a good judge; but lots of good judges in the United States, because they understand the concept of what their job is.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I wonder how you can be unqualified to serve by not recognizing that right, when there are members sitting on the Court at this time who do not recognize that right. The point of a Supreme Court is that there are multiple points of view, and you should not be requiring only one point of view on the United States Supreme Court. To make a confirmation hearing dependent upon one point of view absolutely flies in the face of justice in America.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking back. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I both served in the Texas judiciary, and I do not know if you were there at the time or not and if you remember. At one point in my 22 years on the bench this took place, but we had a State judicial conference. Our guest speaker was a very, very personable and intelligent professor of law from the University of Virginia. He actually was smart enough to carry two full days of education for judges by himself, and you have got to be pretty good to do that. In one of these sessions, he was analyzing the President's Supreme Court, and this was prior to Chief Justice Rehnquist becoming Chief Justice, when he was Justice Rehnquist, and he was talking about the makeup of the United States Supreme Court at that point in time. He started by tracking the liberals on the Court, which at that time was the vast majority; and he talked about their capabilities and what direction they wanted to take things and all this stuff. Finally he got down and he said those of you who are feeling very depressed because you do not have a liberal bend towards the law, do not lose heart because you have a champion, and he is equal to the task of all those we have just discussed put together in his ability to analyze and take forward his view of the United States Constitution. He said never sell short William Rehnquist. He knows what he is doing; he knows where he wants to take the law; and he will take it there. And believe me, as long as it is a Republican in office, he should and will be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and at that time he will turn the corner on many of the decisions which we have found to be very strange and not very well directed towards the trial courts and the trial courts' abilities. So do not lose heart. You have a champion and he is a white knight and he will deliver for the conservative view, the rule-of-law view of the Constitution. He certainly did. Even though he wrote dissents, sometimes those dissents were so telling that they moved the Court slowly. Absolutely a phenomenal intelligence and ability to wordsmith, to word things so that they led us in a direction we needed to go.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I noticed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), our friend, has arrived in the Chamber. I would really like to hear what he has to say about Justice Rehnquist. So I yield to our colleague and good friend from Iowa.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I was thinking as he was speaking, and he gave an excellent presentation of the Chief Justice, but we are joined here in the Chamber today by two men who basically made their entire life a part of dealing in the justice system both as members of the bar, members of the bench, and who also built, basically from scratch, from what I know of both of them, very successful businesses, overcoming insurmountable obstacles. And then, when they had the ability to continue to go out and make those businesses thrive, they volunteered to come to Washington and become a part of the justice system, a part of the legislative branch of our government. This kind of defines the kind of man that Justice Rehnquist personally reached out to, kind of everybody. He wrote the opinions of those of us who honor our heritage, who honor the language that our forefathers wrote into the Constitution and think that if that is what it says, that is what it says. It does not take a genius to read the paper and say that is what it says. And with all his skill and writing ability, really you can cut it down to the fact that that is the way he looked at it. He said, Wait a minute, let us read the Constitution. That is what it says. It speaks volumes that Justice Rehnquist was able to do that in such a talented manner and in such a manner that challenged legal scholars across the country. One of his opponents from Harvard University made a comment about him, something to the effect that no matter what you thought of him, whether you agreed with his ideology, he said, I have to give Rehnquist an A. That is the kind of talent that he had. He could take the causes that those of us working in the trenches, the trial judges, and we liked to say there is a difference between trial judges and appellate judges. We shoot from the hip and make those decisions and then they get to grade our papers. Of course, Judge Gohmert has been both, so he has experience in both those areas, but I am just an old trial judge.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. One of the downfalls of appearing in the Congress with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is these guys are great in quoting all these things off the top of their head, and that is hard for an old trial judge who is just used to shooting from the hip. I do enjoy the wonderful quotes these guys pull out and quote them right. It is a blessing to have them as Members of our Congress. Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient today as we honor our passing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as we laid him to rest today. We thank you for your patience in allowing us to express our opinions about him.

Mr. CARTER. Well, at least you know they are shooting from the hip.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise this evening to discuss a man and a history on the bench, judicial bench, that probably will be recorded as one of the great careers in the legal profession in the history of the United States. I am referring to Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Today we laid to rest Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has served this country and served it well for many, many years. Justice Rehnquist is going to be sorely missed by the citizens of this country. His wisdom and his leadership and his all-around ability to unite and work with every faction of the Supreme Court has been an inspiration to all of the citizens of this country. He served tirelessly with great wisdom, judgment, and leadership. He leaves behind a legacy as one of the most influential Chief Justices in our Nation's history; and today, in sadness, we bid him farewell, and we say to Justice Rehnquist, job well done. A native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, William Rehnquist grew up in the nearby suburb of Shorewood. His father, the son of Swedish immigrant parents, worked as a paper salesman, and his mother as a multilingual professional translator. I come from a part of Texas which has a large Swedish heritage, and I am sure that Justice Rehnquist got his base principles established by that Swedish heritage that he grew up in. After service in World War II with the Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946, and with the assistance of the GI Bill, Rehnquist earned bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from Stanford University, finishing in 1948. In 1950 he received a master's degree in government from Harvard. Rehnquist later returned to Stanford University to attend law school, where he graduated first in his class in 1952, even ahead of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, currently serving on the Court. He also served as the editor of the Law Review. Rehnquist served as a law clerk for Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson both in 1951 and 1952. Following his clerkship, he settled in Phoenix, Arizona, where he was in private practice from 1953 to 1969. In 1964 he also served as a legal advisor to the Barry Goldwater Presidential campaign. When President Nixon was elected in 1968, Rehnquist returned to Washington, D.C. to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In this position Rehnquist served as the chief legal counsel to the Attorney General. He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel until 1971, when President Nixon nominated him to replace John Marshall Harlan on the Supreme Court. During his time in the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist authored countless landmark decisions and thought-provoking dissents. He carefully reasoned his opinions and insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral part of our Nation's constitutional structure. His opinions recognized that our government is one of enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers left to the States. His jurisprudence has shown that the first amendment establishment clause does not dictate government hostility toward religion. Rather, the government should act in a manner which respects our freedom to worship as we please, neither favoring nor disfavoring religion. The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court. Though some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with him at times, there is no doubt that they admired his strong leadership and his likable personality and his ability to build a consensus. While always a forceful advocate for his views, the Chief Justice consistently strove for consensus on the Court and treated his colleagues with courtesy and respect. It is thanks to his personal attributes that even in an age of 5 to 4 decisions, the Court never descended into bitter infighting. Instead, Justice Rehnquist led a court united by friendship, committed to the law and service to our country. One example of Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to the law is his opinion in Dickerson v. The United States. Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona, Rehnquist nevertheless placed his past position aside and wrote an opinion in Dickerson effectively affirming Miranda. In 1999 Justice Rehnquist lent his services to the Senate when he became only the second Chief Justice in history to preside over a Presidential impeachment in the trial of President Clinton. During that difficult time, with the Nation and some of its Senators locked in partisan struggle, the Chief Justice's very presence reminded us of the solemn legal duties the constitution requires of the Senate. A historian of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, had authored three books on the history of the Court and the American legal system. As Chief Justice, Mr. Rehnquist led not only the Supreme Court but the entire third branch of government. In that role he was an eloquent advocate for a strong and independent judiciary. In his annual reports on the judiciary and other public pronouncements, Chief Justice Rehnquist championed the interest of the judicial branch, earning praise from judges of all jurisdictional stripes. At all times Chief Justice Rehnquist performed his duties of office with nobility and courage. Even in his recent sickness, he found the strength to administer the oath of office to President Bush and to consider the challenging cases that came before the Court. Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush's inauguration, ``And the most poignant moment was the manful William Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear in the President. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such gallantry.'' Our Nation is deeply indebted to William Rehnquist. Above all, the rule of law was paramount for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He understood that our government cannot survive without a judiciary that places the rule of law above politics. Justice Rehnquist has tirelessly served our Nation for the last 3 decades, and he serves a permanent legacy as one of the great Supreme Court Justices. The next Chief Justice will surely have big shoes to fill. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he wishes to consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing that, and I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and let me say this. As we discuss Chief Justice Rehnquist and what he has accomplished and the legacy he brings to the United States of America, we are doing this on the very eve of the beginning of the new selection of a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It is, I think, appropriate to realize that as Judge Rehnquist was serving 33 years on the highest court in this land, he also was writing history books to record history. He knew just what my colleague said, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), that it is important that we remember the history as it was, not revise it to make it what we want it to be. So he wrote three history books about the Court so we could say, Well, what does history tell us about that event at that time? And so the judge, the great researcher, has given us the research and a direction on the history as it pertains to the Court, something the other justices of the Court that will follow can turn to as additional information to get a picture of where the Court was coming from as it made rulings. It is very important, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate, as they look at the confirmation of Judge Roberts, I hope that they are looking at the history of the United States Supreme Court and the legacy of William Rehnquist.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very well- presented picture of this great man that we are talking about here tonight. The gentleman is right. There was a time when William Rehnquist stood alone for the rule of law and a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution in a world where lots of people actually made jokes about him, that were of the other persuasion. To us that are conservatives and respected his intelligence, his wit, and his humor, and his bulldoggedness, he was someone that we respected and we loved because when he got ready to do his job, he did it. One of the things you can look at is, when your colleagues who disagree with you have comments that are positive about you, I think that speaks a lot about not only his ability to stand his ground but his ability to stand it with grace as a man who demanded and received respect because of his behavior and because of the way he handled himself. Now, Chief Justice William Brennan is well known for the way he uses certain language. I am going to read a quote from Justice Brennan, and some of it is a little rough, but I think we will enjoy it. He is talking about Justice Rehnquist. ``He is just a breath of fresh air. He is so damn personable. He lays his position out, casts his vote. You know exactly where he stands on every goddamn case. And he's meticulously fair in assigning opinions. I can't begin to tell you how much better all of us feel and how fond all of us are of him personally.'' That is a quote from Justice Brennan. Another of his colleagues, Justice Louis Powell said, ``In many ways he is the best-educated person I have ever worked with, very familiar with the classics. He'll quote them with confidence. Everybody agrees generally, I suppose, that he's brilliant, but he has a good sense of humor and he is very generous and he is principled.'' Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, ``Rehnquist is a great Chief Justice.'' All these people were people on the other side of most of the issues with William Rehnquist, and yet they speak of him as a colleague that they highly respect and they believe he handled himself very well. As we are talking about colleagues that we respect, I see that we are joined today by the gentleman from east Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and also one of my judicial colleagues, coming to this august body from the judiciary of Texas, which is getting to be a habit for quite a bit of our congressmen, and we are glad to have him. I wonder if the gentleman would like to step up and make a statement about the Chief Justice and join in a colloquy about the Chief Justice.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who clearly has been in the lead and is outspoken for the CAFTA-Dominican Republic project, for yielding to me. This is critical not only to the Central America region but to the United States of America. We are opening up trade so that our products get sold in Central America without duties on our products. The Central American countries have the opportunity to sell in our country, and they do not have a burden on their products up here. And, in fact, we are their number one trading partner. The expansion, the benefit that we see is what is going to happen to our folks. Whenever I look at one of these things that are coming up in Congress, I try to take a look at my district and see who is in my district and try to learn and study and figure out who is going to get helped by these things. And it was easy to see how the high-tech industry with Dell Computer, one of our great neighbors in Williamson County, it was easy to see what is going to happen there. But I look further down to that dairy farmer in Stephenville, Texas, in Erath County. This is not a little dairy farm operation in Erath County. We are talking about one of the most important parts of the agriculture industry in Texas. The area in my district produces over $40 million to the Texas economy every year in milk and dairy product production. And under the CAFTA agreement, doors are going to open to them that are going to allow them to sell their dairy products in Central America. Right now they face duties of between 60 percent and the World Trade Organization allows up to 100 percent of tariffs that can be assessed against our products. With the opening of CAFTA, we are going to be able to open up tariff rate quotas the first year starting at 10,000 metric tons across the six countries, and this will expand as the CAFTA agreement goes forward. The TRQs will grow by 5 percent a year for Central American countries and 10 percent a year for the Dominican Republic until we have got a good access to the market, and it is going to be an outstanding source of sales for our milk and milk-related products that come right from my district. When I look at that, I see the benefit there. I have had, fortunately, in the recent past, within the last 3 months, the good fortune of going down with the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee to Nicaragua and Honduras. And we went down there not on the issue of CAFTA. We went down there on other issues, to look at areas where our foreign aid is being used very productively in those countries. And I was able to talk one on one with folks like farmers and small businessmen and politicians that are down there in Nicaragua and Honduras. First, let me tell the Members that when we see that country and see what really great potential there is in Nicaragua and Honduras, what resources are available, there are plenty of cattlemen who would love to have about half of Nicaragua to run cattle on in Texas. With underground water less than four meters under the ground, I know a lot of cowmen from my part of the State that would love to be able to have some irrigated grass farms down there in Nicaragua. Beautiful cattle country. Cheap sources of power are available in that area because they have the ability to create geothermal electricity. They have a lot of potential in Central America. But when we talked to those folks, they said, Look, it is all about CAFTA. The future of our country is all about CAFTA. Let us take Nicaragua. We had a whole bunch of trouble with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as has been said before here, about 20 years ago we had a pretty good fight down there. And for a while the Sandinistas ran the country and ran it absolutely into the ground. And people who opposed the Sandinistas, it is not like political parties here where we will bicker with our opponents and we will talk, but then we all go back and let somebody re-elect us. If one loses to the Sandinistas, they had better get out of the country because these people who were against the Sandinistas had to flee or die. Today in Nicaragua, underlying like a cancer lying beneath the surface, is the Sandinista Party; and Daniel Ortega still walks the streets down there. But what is he walking the streets with now? He is walking the streets with an offer from Hugo Chavez of up to an unbelievable number, $1 billion, to turn Central America back to the Marxist cause he and Fidel Castro believe in so firmly. He is one of the great threats to the world right now. He is a communist with money, and he is spreading it around. He takes his oil money from Venezuela and is threatening to spread it around because he wants to make sure that the Marxist communist government dominates Central America. And their only hope is to show how capitalist free trade works. And that is what CAFTA is all about, and that is what they said. They said, This is going to get great support down here. These people, if they can get their markets open, they can get the capital investment they need to grow. One of the merchants down there I was talking to said, You know what? I do not know why you think you have got to ship your cloth to China and make your shirts and pants and stuff in China. We have a history of making that stuff for you. Let us break down these barriers between our countries. Let us make those things, and you will not have to put it in big containers and ship it across the Pacific Ocean. We can make it just as economically and just as profitably for American companies as they can in China, and we can put it on a train and ship it up into Texas and spread it across the Nation. That just makes sense to me. That is just good common sense, and CAFTA is good common sense when we get down to it. It meets many requirements that we have. First and foremost, we help our neighbors. And where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and I come from, and as for most of the folks in this country, but certainly in Texas, number one is taking care of our neighbors because we are kind of out in big spaces and, sometimes if we will not take care of our neighbors, they might be the only people we will get a chance to visit with. So we need to take care of those neighbors. We need to prevent an enemy, a cancer, from growing in Central America that we will wake up one day and find it is growing right across the Rio Grande. And this agreement is part of stopping that cancer. And those people down there say without CAFTA, without a chance for a level playing field in Central America, what is going to happen to us is the Marxists will rise up and we will either be killed or run out of the country. Those countries will never survive with this type of quality people leaving the country. And then, finally, it is a benefit to our industry and to our people. It is a win-win-win, and for that reason I think Republicans and Democrats are going to join together this week in this House and pass the CAFTA agreement, pass the free trade agreement. It is important to America.

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, these are our neighbors. These are the people in the Americas. They are part of America. They are Central American. And they know the Chinese are breathing down their necks too, and they are very concerned about that, just as the gentleman pointed out. This is a win for the United States. It is a benefit to a neighbor that needs to be boosted up politically because when Chavez gets in there and spreads his money around, it could be disastrous. So the gentleman is right. It is a win for us. It is a win for our farmers, our textile manufacturers, and others. They can do assembly work. They have got a lot of skilled labor available in Nicaragua and Honduras. They are wonderful people, just as gentle and kind a bunch of people as I have ever been around. They will be good folks to work with. We need what they have to offer, and they need what we have to offer. It is a good trade. And we always say when we walk away from the day having made a good trade, we feel like it has been a pretty good day. Well, I think we can walk away from this day and feel like we made a pretty good trade.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act. This measure is a much needed reform for our Federal criminal statutes to ensure that the death penalty is available to deter and punish the most heinous crime in our country. We must remain vigilant and united in sending out one clear message to the terrorists; if you attack our country or threaten our national security and we apprehend you, we will seek the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, against you. This amendment makes needed reforms to ensure that such punishment is carried out and is applied fairly, and is applied swiftly when the facts justify the punishment. Many of these same provisions were overwhelmingly passed by this House last year as part of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, but removed during conference with the Senate. As a former State district judge for over 20 years I have presided over five capital murder cases, three of which resulted in the death penalty. I have a unique perspective on the criminal justice system and I understand the importance of safety and the need for America to be tough on its criminals. We must protect our neighborhoods from the threat of violent crimes which, unfortunately, in today's world, includes the threat of terrorist attacks. Congress must act to protect U.S. citizens from such attacks and to bring justice to those who threaten our freedom. It is unimaginable to think that a convicted terrorist responsible for American deaths could serve his sentence and be released back on the American streets free to act as he chooses. My straightforward legislation will make any terrorist who kills eligible for the Federal death penalty. This legislation will also deny these same terrorists any Federal benefits they otherwise may be eligible to receive. In my experience as a judge, I have witnessed the death penalty used as an important tool in deterring crime and saving lives. I believe it is also an instrument that can deter acts of terrorism and serves as a tool for prosecutors in negotiating sentences. First, my amendment adds a new criminal provision to impose the death penalty to any terrorist who, while committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of an individual. Second, my amendment provides procedures for the death penalty prosecution of air piracy crimes committed before the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act. Third, my amendment treats terrorist offenses similar to treason and espionage cases so that the government need only prove that such offense created a grave risk of death and did not actually result in the death of a person. For example, consider a terrorist attack as we saw today in London, where a terrorist is carrying a deadly weapon, could be a radiological weapon or device, and prior to the total detonation of that bomb killing innocent civilians, he is caught by the authorities and they prevent that attack. Under this bill he could face the ultimate penalty of death. In addition to these commonsense reforms, my amendment also authorizes the death penalty for killing that results from participation in nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction threats against the United States, missile systems to destroy aircraft, atomic weapons under the Atomic Energy Act. Now, with the authorization of these new death penalties I have added some commonsense clarification to the Federal death penalty which is supported by the Justice Department. Let me highlight three of these. First, my amendment adds a new statutory aggravating factor for obstruction of justice and in particular the killing of any person which is aimed at obstructing any investigation or prosecution. Second, my amendment clarifies that juries must reach a unanimous sentencing verdict one way or the other for life imprisonment or for death. If the jury does not reach a unanimous sentencing verdict then the government may seek a new sentencing hearing. Third, my amendment authorizes a judge to proceed with a death penalty case with less than 12 jurors if the excusal of the 12th juror is justified by good cause. There is simply no reason to make witnesses testify, juries sit again after a long and complex trial when a juror for some reason becomes sick or for some reason is unable to serve. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. It is, and it is something we should be very proud of, and I am personally proud and I know the gentleman is too.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address the comments that were made here just recently in this House just briefly. We keep hearing this tirade that there is someone that is taking away liberty, taking away freedom in this country with the PATRIOT Act. And you heard the comments that they can go into all of your records and they do not tell you about it. As if just any old ordinary policeman or FBI agent could go out there with no control whatsoever and search your home, search your records and so forth. And they give that impression to the American public by their statements here tonight. Nothing could be further from the truth. And they know that nothing could be further from the truth because they sat through the 12-hour hearing that was held in the Committee on the Judiciary. They examined every one of these various sections that we have gone through tonight in heavy detail, and they know that there certainly are provisions where somebody oversees whether there is, in fact, probable cause for a search warrant to be issued. A judge makes that decision. That is the same judge that makes the decision in every case of a search warrant in the history of the United States. This is how we do search warrants. And he makes that decision. What they are trying to make an inference on is they have this thing they call a sneak-and-peek warrant that they have entitled it. And they say that so it sounds like I said the other night, like we are talking about some kind of Peeping Tom. That is not it at all. This is a device that has been used in criminal justice for many, many years. It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. This is not complex stuff. I will give you an example. We have a warrant that says that in a drug case there is a suspicion that there is a methamphetamine speed lab in a certain building, and they have someone who gives them good evidence to that effect. They present it to the judge. He finds there is probable cause to believe there is a speed lab and stored drugs in the certain location. He sets out specifically in that warrant what exactly they are to go look for. And they go and they look, and sure enough there is a speed lab in that building. Sure enough there are drugs and the ingredients for making more drugs in that building. But they also discover there is no one there. And what are we trying to do here? We are trying to get these drugs off the street, and we are trying to catch the people that are poisoning our children. And that is what the criminal justice system is trying to do in that case. And so they back off. They back off and they watch and they wait, so the perpetrators, and hopefully from top to bottom, from the mules that deliver it to the king pins that finance it, are somehow connected with that lab. And when they have gathered that evidence as a result of this look at this building maybe in a day, maybe a little longer, they come in and they seize them on the premises. They have the evidence, and they get convictions from top to bottom and get this vermin off the streets of America. Now, if we use this to get the vermin off the streets of America that are doing drugs and poisoning our children, why in the world would we not use that same tool to get the enemies of America who are embedded, in many instances, in our country off the street and keep them from killing innocent American citizens? Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more vile on Earth than the terrorists, absolutely nothing. They have no credibility in any way, form, or fashion because they are not human beings enough to fight a real fight with somebody that can fight back. You never see these terrorists out there trying to get in a knock down drag out punch out one-on-one with anybody. They hide and sneak and skulk up and down alleys and plant bombs and kill innocent human beings who they do not even know or care about. And they kill them by the hundreds and occasionally, like in the World Trade Center, by the thousands. Just today, praise God, a faulty bomb did not go off entirely in Great Britain. We are still waiting to find out the damage that was done. Again, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, has been attacked by these terrorists. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the picture that I have just painted to fight these terrorists? I say there is nothing wrong with it. It has been a procedure used by the law forever. And yet we hear from someone that it paints the picture as if somebody is totally walking all over people's rights without any warrant. You never heard him say, they get a warrant to go in and look at your records. They get a warrant and go in and look at your premises. You did not hear that spoken from the other side here tonight. So the American public gets deceived into thinking that there are police officers and law enforcement officers walking all over their rights. That is not the case. It is the same way we always have handled it. We have a search warrant. It just infuriates me, having worked in the courts for 20 years, for people to step up and make statements that hide the real truth of the matter with regard to the procedures we use in our courts. I am proud to have been a judge for 20 years. I am proud of the American judicial system. I am proud of the law enforcement officers that every day put their lives in harm's way. I am proud of the lawyers fighting terror in this country right now. Just like our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, those brave men and women that put their lives on the line, our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line, too, fighting these horrible vermin right here in our country. I am offended, and I think we should all be really suspicious of someone who gives us only a partial truth and not the whole story. I would be glad to have anybody look at my library records. Who cares what is in your library records? But you do care when you find out that terrorists go to libraries because they believe, sometimes truly and sometimes falsely, that if they get on a computer at a library that every day they clean the hard drive of that computer. They know if they seize their computer back home they might be able to find out they were talking to al Qaeda and to their operatives overseas. But if they go to the public library and use that computer and it gets erased every day, who is going to know? Well, I tell you who is going to know. The law enforcement officer that executes that warrant and examines that hard drive to find out that they were doing that. They should not be able to hide in one of our greatest institutions, a public library. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of this country, gave us the concept of the public library in the United States. Why should our enemies think they can hide in a public library on a computer or in the stacks reading their bomb manuals and we cannot find out about it, especially when we have gone through the proper ordinary procedures that every court goes through to be able to seek those records. And, in fact, there are more procedures in the PATRIOT Act protecting those records than there would be if you went to a grand jury and got a grand jury subpoena to get the exact same information. So let us not have partial stories told here in this House tonight. Let us have the whole story. And the whole story is we have taken and given to the intelligence community and those who are defending us from terrorists the same tools we have given to law enforcement over the years to protect us from the vermin that would destroy us from within. Now we can use it against our enemies from without who are hiding within our country to protect the American citizens so that people can get up and go to work in the morning and raise their children and go to the park at night and not be afraid that some creep is going to blow up the means of transportation that they are on. That, Mr. Speaker, is what a patriot in this country ought to be concerned about. That is what I think we have done here tonight. We have reaffirmed the tools of the war against terror within the United States and given our law enforcement officers weapons just like those rifles that our soldiers are carrying in Afghanistan that will protect our freedom. We should never be ashamed for what we did here today. We should be proud. And I am proud that a bipartisan effort passed through this House of Representatives. I think that we can count the numbers and we will see that that is the truth, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to have a chance to stand up here for just a few minutes. I do want to point out one more thing before I stop. I served on that Committee on the Judiciary for 2 years, and I served side-by-side with my colleague here, the gentleman from Iowa. In fact, we were partners right there at each other's elbow. I can tell you that the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) runs a perfectly tight ship in his committee. When he says the rules are going to be abided by, they are abided by. I will also say this. I will defy anybody to check the record. He never gave a member of the Republican matter one extra second in their time limit, but he constantly gave extra time to the minority. And almost every day I served on that committee, they would ask for additional time and he granted it. I personally have asked for additional time on that committee and he did not allow me to have that additional time. I think his reason is clear. We are the majority. We know the rules. We should get our job done within the time limit. And I respected him for it. But the facts are, they have had advantages in that committee and they are in here crying like we did not treat them fairly. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I had better calm down here and thank my friend from Iowa and give him the opportunity to talk for a while, and I thank my colleagues for being patient with me.