Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. In the Rules Committee report. And Madam Speaker, where would I get that report?

Mr. GOHMERT. Rules passed it earlier today?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly appreciate my friend from California yielding. With regard to the polar bears, in the Natural Resources Committee we have been hearing that by 20 years ago we were up to under 12,000 polar bears in the whole world, and now we know there are over 25,000 polar bears in the world. They're doing pretty well. But as we know--and there's some friends here from Texas--in Texas we have a problem with overpopulation of deer because they don't know when to stop overpopulating, and so we have seasons to help keep them from starving themselves to death. So it is a little misleading to see the ice cap breaking off and the starving mother bear and the cub. That's heartbreaking. And, apparently, it's heartbreaking enough that millions of people--or at least millions of dollars come flowing in. You kind of hate if you've got millions of dollars coming in from people that feel bad about the polar bears--by the way, the Bush administration was asked to say that the polar bears should be on the endangered species list. But the Bush administration knew they were increasing, just like you were saying, and so what they did was compromised and allowed polar bears to be listed as threatened, even though they're increasing in population. I'm pleased the polar bears are doing well. Hopefully, we won't have to open up additional seasons, that they will moderate their behavior. But we also saw with the caribou and people talking about how terrible it is to produce oil in Alaska. And we heard that if they ever put that pipeline up to Prudhoe Bay, it would kill off the last 2,900 caribou that were in the area, that we just couldn't do that. It would destroy their mating habits. Turns out, caribou now, when they want to go on dates, invite each other to go to the pipeline on cold winter nights because that oil is warm going through the pipeline and it makes them amorous. And now we're up to 30,000 caribou in that herd. So it turns out man and caribou and polar bears can do just fine. But it does remind one a little bit of the scare that went across the Nation about chlorofluorocarbons just as the Freon patent was coming up, and lo and behold we had to outlaw CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer. It turned out we found out that one eruption of Mount St. Helens put a thousand years' worth of CFCs in the atmosphere--one eruption. So sometimes I think that we think much too highly of ourselves as human beings and the effect that we have on the world and on the globe, when actually we do need to be good stewards of this wonderful planet, but we also should not be fearmongers that scare people out of doing things to help themselves and their families. I appreciate so much my friend from California and his yielding.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the leadership and the very responsible conduct of the chairman of the task force, Adam Schiff, for having done an exemplary job in moving this along and bringing it to a head as quickly as could have humanly been done, and to Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith. We have worked together on this because it is a very serious matter when our Federal courts are held in less than high esteem. We have a Federal judge, as has already been mentioned, who pled guilty to obstruction of justice. He admitted to nonconsensual sexual acts. We have the transcript from the Federal court hearings in which there is actual specificity of misrepresentations. We also can take judicial notice of his orders and opinions that he wrote himself. It is very clear that, as some of the witnesses testified, he was arrogant, he was a bully. That is not enough to impeach someone or remove them from office, but certainly obstruction of justice would be under the circumstances here. What I found particularly offensive beyond the obstruction were the games that were played by this judge with this body. Here the day before we were having our hearing of the task force, we get a resignation letter dated June 2, 2009, addressed to the President, saying, ``I hereby resign from my position as United States district judge for the Southern District of Texas effective June 1, 2010,'' a year away, a resignation that could be withdrawn at any time before it became effective. Now, we heard testimony from the witnesses that this judge was particularly manipulative, and that is how he was able to continue the nonconsensual sexual assaults over and over, because he was so manipulative. They were afraid of losing their jobs, and it was clear that he had said, I am the king, and it is good to be king. It is good to be king, unless you are committing crimes and misusing the office to which you were entrusted. But the resignation letter would just be a resignation, if it were sincere. But then we got another letter before our final hearing before the committee asking that it be taken into consideration that he had these problems and he needed his salary and his medical and he was trying to pay medical bills of his late wife. Ironically, he wasn't quite as concerned for his late wife when he was groping and manipulating and bullying people within his trust and care as a Federal judge. We heard testimony that if someone had come before his court and used the same reasons that he gave as to why he ought to keep getting his salary, that he would not only have not been moved to sympathy, he would have been moved to anger and would have taken it out on the defendant. So even at this late date, there is no evidence of contriteness. There is no evidence of remorse, other than being caught. There is more manipulation, which makes clear all the more that he should not have his request granted that he be paid as a Federal judge while he is sitting in prison for committing crimes while he was getting paid to be a Federal judge. Let's bring this to an end and vote for the impeachment.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, as someone who served as a judge and a chief justice and had it constantly drubbed into my head during hours and hours and hours of ethics classes about the appearance and potential conflicts of interest, we know that our chairman was deservedly getting accolades from crew and others for recusing himself in 2007 because of the reported investigation by the Department of Justice. This is an elephant in the room. The Department of Justice budget is being dealt with here, and there has been no indications that there has not been an investigation. So I'm hoping that the record can be clear because it does look funny, it smells bad, if someone's under investigation and they're managing the budget for those who are doing the investigation. I thought it was a wonderful thing that Chairman Mollohan did in 2007. He deserved the accolades he got for recusing himself. And I was wondering, and I would be glad to yield for the chairman to indicate, if there is no further investigation. Obviously, there is no requirement to respond. But it is an elephant in the room. It clearly is a conflict of interest. And I hope that we can help eradicate the so-called ``culture of corruption'' that appeared to the public by dealing with this issue.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate this opportunity. You know, there's so many people out of work around this country. We know since President Obama took office 2 million more people have lost jobs. It's staggering and quite sobering. I recently met with many people who are unemployed in a north Lufkin church, and I guess virtually all were African Americans. These were people that were ready to go to work, willing to go to work, good, strong work ethic, have families, deeply caring about their community and their families. And so it got me to looking and thinking what can I do to use my position to try to help people get jobs. There's the Texas Workforce Commission that does a good job trying to have job fairs. It turned out by using my position, partnering with other groups, the Chamber, different groups, we were able to have 50 employers with over 1,000 jobs to offer, but even that doesn't satisfy all of the need for all of the jobs people are needing that are out of work. But it did sensitize me to the fact, look around for job opportunities. Where is this Nation spending money that might go to help people who are unemployed? Where could they get jobs? We've got another job fair coming up in Longview in a couple of weeks, and we're hoping it will be as successful. But as I look around and I see the millions of dollars being spent and I hear from constituents, and having a heart, wanting to help them, I'm brought to the question after we hear about the Uyghurs, four of them going to Bermuda--although we were promised great transparency-- and that was one of the things that appealed to the voters of the United States, that if we elect this administration we will have complete transparency, everything will be transparent, we'll know what they're spending money on, we will know what they're doing. Well, we don't know. They won't tell us what money has been sent to Bermuda to take four Uyghurs, but some are estimating $12 million apiece. They don't think it's very much, maybe $12 million apiece or so. We know that supposedly other Uyghurs are going from Guantanamo to Palau. One report I read estimated that over the last 14 years, going back to the middle of the Clinton administration, we paid Palau about $852 million just for aid. And so there's some question that we're going to pay them more millions to take these, or since their 15-year agreement is up, are they willing to take these? The bottom line is millions and millions of dollars are being paid to take 17 Uyghurs, and for those that don't know, those are people in China who, because of their religious belief, are adverse to China. And we know that these 17 were captured in terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Some say, well, they weren't being trained to terrorize us, but they were in terrorist camps in Afghanistan. So the question many are asking now is, for those 2 million of us who have lost our jobs since January of this year, what terrorist camp can we go to to train so that maybe we could spend the rest of our lives at U.S. expense on the beaches of Bermuda? We saw the people, the pictures of the four Uyghurs in Bermuda. They really seemed to be enjoying themselves, laughing, cutting up, out there on the beach, the waves crashing. Those Uyghurs who have gone to Palau, how many millions have been paid we don't know. But I have got a bunch of constituents who are willing to go train in terrorist camps, in Afghanistan if necessary, if our government will pay millions of dollars to send them to the beaches. Also, one other point, we know there's been no transparency with the auto task force. We don't know what they're being paid. We just know that this group that has never run anything in the car business is running the car businesses and dictating what will happen. Well, I've got lots of people that are every bit as unqualified to run the car business in my district who are unemployed. They want that job. Where do they apply to run the car businesses of America and get on the auto task force? We want to know because they'd like that job.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it was a proud moment for us to be able to come together in a bipartisan fashion here in the House, as put together in the House, and support the supplemental for the troops; but to add this mess that's coming down here from the conference that the Senate stuck in--over $100 billion for the IMF? I mean they're loaning money that they get from us and that we're going to have to borrow from China in order to give it to countries that hate us and that would love to see us go away. That makes no sense. If we are going to add this additional burden onto the American taxpayer, which is going to work counter to the troops who are out there, who are putting their lives at risk, why not just bring them home and not pay our enemies all that extra money and just call it a wash? If we're going to give money that we're going to have to borrow from the Chinese, let's just call it a wash and bring our troops home instead of funding our enemies. That's ridiculous. We should not go there. Let's stop this, and let's get back to the good bill we had in the House before.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOHMERT. One further comment about that. By getting a bankruptcy judge to sign off on this, now this unelected, unaccountable, nontransparent body has gotten under the guise of one lazy bankruptcy judge's signature, they now have cover or color of the law. Now, I thought when Justice Ginsburg stayed the sale to Fiat that we might finally get some rule of law, but it looks like so far the bankruptcy court on up to the Supreme Court has said, You know what? We're scared of these people, so let's just let these unelected czar people, let them run things. And judiciary, we're not going to hold them accountable. And if this body, this Congress does not hold them accountable, then we have become a country run by czars because the Congress has not made them accountable, judiciary's not made them accountable. So they're just running things. And everybody has allowed them to usurp the things that the Founders fought and died and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We cannot let that happen.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend, also former judge, for yielding. And your last comments were exactly what I would like to discuss as well, and that is these people are unelected. We were promised before the November elections that they would have unparalleled transparency, that you would know everything about the government, everything that was going on. We were going to be transparent. We were told if only we would elect the Obama administration, elect him President, and that would happen. And we've heard people say in this body that there was a mandate, you know, that we got a mandate to do. No, he didn't. You barely got a majority that elected you to have transparency. We were promised there would be change because this administration would stop the insane deficit spending. And some of us, including those of us here, were not happy with our own President Bush and his administration spending too much money. And they got enough of our colleagues to help them spend too much money on our side of the aisle, some from the other side of the aisle, but it was too much money. And the people voted him in to stop the insanity. So this is what we're getting. And a czar, I would submit, is probably the proper term because they're not accountable. You know, the Senate tried to get Rattner to come over and testify. We don't know how much they're making. They have these closed-door meetings and they're making these incredible decisions about the future of the automobile. Now, some people don't understand, but if you study enough history, you know that when you can no longer produce the essential things you need to conduct warfare to defend yourselves when you're attacked, then you're going to stop being a country. When you can no longer stomach doing what it takes to win to protect your country from nut cases around the world, then you lose the country. And here, we've got these people who are just ignoring the law. And you look at what this czar did with cars. Now, he said, Well, we didn't tell them which dealerships to close. But this closed-door secret society appointed by President Obama meets behind closed doors, exerts pressure. We've already seen the pressure this administration brings to bear: Well, you do this or else we're going to go out and we're going to blacken your name among the media. And we've seen that happen. We've seen the beating that secure creditors took when they simply said, You really ought to follow the law here. Well, they were being un-American. Those people, Madam Speaker, those people were not being un-American. They were trying to follow Chapter 11 law. The law is clear. It has been for years. There's going to be a Chapter 11, there is going to be a plan. There's got to be disclosures about the plans. There's got to be hearings about the plans. There can be alternatives to the plan. You can have objections. You can have motions for relief from the State. You could have all of these kinds of hearings. Well, they just bypassed all that law, just bypassed it and said, We're going to turn the law upside down because we're secret-meeting czars who are not going to let people have their rights under the law. We're going to obliterate the law, which they did. And then they found a bankruptcy judge who they believe would probably sign off on this plan because, let's face it, if you're a bankruptcy judge--of course, they come up for reappointment every 14 years. I don't know when this judge comes up again, but apparently he wants to be a judge for a while longer. But anyway, they found a judge who was interested in not having all the hearings the law requires to give the dealerships a fair hearing, to give the secured creditors a fair hearing, to give the unsecured creditors a fair hearing, to give all of those who had contractual relationships with those who were being addressed by this secretive czar meeting behind closed doors-- there should have been hearings. There should have been transparency. That's what the voters voted for, and they didn't get any of that. Just turned the law upside down. So I hope that my friends will be pleased to hear that since we're taking up the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriation bill this week, I've got an amendment in there. It's very simple. It says no money appropriated can be spent to pay the auto task force, including the car czar. If they're not going to tell us what they're doing behind closed doors to turn the laws upside down and to ignore the constitutional takings, which is occurring, and to ignore all of the contract law, the bankruptcy law, if they're just going to ignore the law, then we need to ignore paying them. And I hope that the Rules Committee, I feel like we'll have a lot of bipartisan support on this because I know people on both sides of the aisle want to know what's going on. We were promised transparency, and by golly, we gotta have it. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, especially on this topic of czars, but we know what happened to the czars. People got sick of it and they threw them out. Now, I would never advocate what happened to the last czar and his family, totally inappropriate. But here in America we have another way of throwing out czars. We have elections, and the people have a choice. They were promised transparency, and this kind of baloney is not it. And I hope the American people respond appropriately.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, you know there is blood in the streets in Iran tonight. It's the morning over there, but blood is running in the streets. People have been outraged at what they say was the stealing of an election. So does it help to have a President who has continued to make clear he would meet with the ruthless denier of the Holocaust--with this totalitarian, mean-spirited, unjust, unfairly elected leader? It doesn't. Messages go around the world when you say you'll meet with a tyrant without preconditions. May God be with those who are trying to see that justice is done, and may our leaders be led to keep their mouths shut when it hurts others.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the resolution, which expresses the heartfelt condolences of this body to the families, friends and loved ones of the victims of the June 9 explosion at ConAgra Foods plant in Garner, North Carolina. As the resolution notes, the people of North Carolina experienced a devastating tragedy with a massive explosion occurring at the plant shortly before 11:30 a.m. The 500,000 square foot plant employed about 900 people, 300 of whom were on-site when the blast occurred. As a result of the blast, three workers lost their lives when the explosion ripped through the plant. One brave employee, Louis Junior Watson, selflessly re-entered the building to try to help a coworker escape. Tragically, neither employee was able to escape the plant before the structure collapsed. Along with Mr. Watson, the resolution honors the memories of Barbara McLean Spears, Rachel Mae Poston Pulley, who were the other two people who perished in the plant. We know that at least 40 employees were injured in the accident. Some suffered from exposure to toxic ammonia fumes, and at least four received critical burns. After the blast occurred, North Carolina's first responders, including firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians, quickly arrived on the scene. Their timely efforts probably prevented many other losses of life or injury. This resolution, as my colleague from Virginia noted, commends them for their sacrifice and courage as well. In addition to the first responders, we also recognize the private citizens of the proud community of Garner who risked their well-being to come to the aid of the families and friends and neighbors of those in the tragedy. I join Mr. Etheridge, Chairman Scott, and my colleagues in the House to express our sincere sympathies to the people of Garner, the entire State of North Carolina, and the Nation who grieve for the victims. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On January 7th of last year, President Bush did sign into law a critical piece of legislation, the Court Security Improvement Act. I was pleased to join Chairman Conyers and Chairman Scott as an original cosponsor of the bill. This bipartisan, bicameral effort improves security for Federal judges, their staffs, victims, witnesses, and all those who participate in our Federal justice system. I had the honor and privilege to sit down with a number of judges and witnesses and victims and staff members to discuss this problem back before the legislation was originated and we were trying to address some of the problems that had been created. In recent years, we have seen an increase in violence and threats against judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers, and courthouse employees. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, almost 700 threats a year are made against Federal judges. In numerous cases, it has been necessary to assign Federal judges security details for fear of attack by criminal defendants and disgruntled litigants. We now have in place procedures to improve coordination between U.S. marshals and the Federal judiciary and strengthen security measures for Federal prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists and drug organizations, as well as organized crime figures. The law now also prohibits public disclosure on the Internet or other public sources of personal information about judges, law enforcement officers, victims and witnesses, and also protects Federal judges and prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filings of liens or other encumbrances against their personal property. I introduced H.R. 2661, the Court Security Enhancement Act, to make two important corrections to the court security statutes. At the recommendation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the bill does increase, as my colleague from Virginia mentioned, the penalty for violations of section 119 of title 18 from a maximum of 5 to a maximum of 10 years. This action prohibits the public disclosure of certain personal information of Federal judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, jurors, witnesses, or the family members of these individuals. This commonsense, straightforward change will conform the penalties for section 119 offenses to the penalties of the other comparable court security provisions. At the recommendation of the U.S. Judicial Conference, the bill also eliminates an inconsistency unintentionally created by the Court Security Improvement Act pertaining to requirements for senior district court judge participation in court governance. This simple amendment will ensure consistent application of the statutes governing senior district court judges. I do want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Smith for their support and prompt consideration of the bill. It is imperative we continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to ensure that judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel, and law enforcement officers do not face threats and violence while carrying out their duties, and, if there is, that there are serious consequences. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in support of H.R. 2247, the Congressional Review Act Improvement Act. The Congressional Review Act provides Congress with a vital but underused tool to oversee how agencies exercise the legislative authority Congress delegates to them. This bipartisan reform, the Congressional Review Act Improvement Act, is an important first step towards improving the act's efficiency and effectiveness. It is a measure first proposed in the 106th Congress by the late Henry Hyde. It had bipartisan support then, just as it does today. This legislation will streamline the House Parliamentarian's role under the Congressional Review Act, shifting some of the Parliamentarian's paperwork responsibilities to the Comptroller General. The day-to-day volume of paperwork that the small staff of the Parliamentarian's office confronts under the act is large. By reducing this burden on the Parliamentarian, this bill will improve the efficiency of House operations while at the same time not hampering oversight of agency rules. We obtained this measure's passage in the last Congress, but the Senate, unfortunately, did not act upon it. I urge the House to pass it again this term, and I am hopeful the Senate will pass it as well. The goal is to provide assistance to the overworked Parliamentarian's office. I have remained grateful to the Parliamentarian's office ever since the first time in my first term here I went up to be Speaker pro tem and was advised by the Parliamentarian to be careful when I leaned back because the chair didn't have much back support, therefore averting me from on-camera falling back and flailing my arms, as I would have without the Parliamentarian's assistance.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The comments I made previously were with regard to this bill, as amended, so I would ask that the Record so reflect, and since a lot of people have difficulty hearing me speak very long because of the accent, I won't repeat those comments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for such time as I may consume. Thomas Jefferson observed that ``the only security of all is in a free press. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.'' Were he alive today, Jefferson would not take too kindly to libel tourists, the subject of H.R. 2765. Oh, it seems true that some U.S. media more recently have become fan clubs rather than objective pursuers of truth, but there are still some very dedicated journalists in the United States who should be free from harassment from inappropriate libel suits in overseas courts. In the wake of 9/11, the American media have become increasingly alarmed over a phenomenon called libel tourism. The term refers to the subject of a critical news story suing an American author or reporter of an article, story or book for defamation in a plaintiff-friendly overseas or foreign forum. These suits are filed mostly in Great Britain, as its libel and slander laws provide writers and journalists with less protection than those under the U.S. system that honors a First Amendment and a free press. Persons identified in news stories as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers have brought some of the higher- profile suits. So how would American courts treat foreign judgments that clash with American legal values under this bill? A foreign judgment will not be enforced in the U.S. court when the foreign judgment is offensive to State public policy or the Constitution. And that's what this bill does. Last September, as my friend from Tennessee indicated, the House passed a libel tourism bill that codified existing U.S. treatment of the subject. The other body did not act on the measure. So we revisit the issue today, better informed, thanks to a subcommittee hearing, full committee markup and substantial input by legal experts on the subject matter. H.R. 2765 contains four major provisions, as my colleague from Tennessee has outlined. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation provides appropriate and necessary protection for U.S. journalists and authors and represents the strongest constitutionally sound policy in response to libel tourism. The issue has been thoroughly considered by the Judiciary Committee, and I would urge Members to support H.R. 2765. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. So when my colleague across the aisle is ready to close, I will likewise be ready.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 530. My friend from Tennessee mentioned Satchel Paige. He had some great quotes. Many people quote him as saying, ``Don't look back. They may be gaining on you.'' But I read a quote that I like even better than that, attributed to him later in life, when he said, ``It's okay to look back. Just don't stare.'' And it seems to me that that's what this bill does. We look forward, but we look back. We don't stare, but we recognize the greatness that has gotten us to where we are today. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do support House Resolution 530, commending the purpose of the third annual Civil Rights Baseball Game. The third annual Civil Rights Game will be played, as indicated by my friend from Virginia, by the Reds and the White Sox on June 20 at the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. It serves as a celebration of the role of sports and the role that they played in advancing equal rights in America. As part of that celebration, three great Americans will be honored at the game: Muhammad Ali, Bill Cosby, and Hank Aaron. They will receive awards as individuals ``whose lives are emblematic of the spirit of the civil rights movement.'' Mr. Ali was a 10-time heavyweight champion boxer. Since he left the sport, he has engaged in many humanitarian efforts and traveled the world on goodwill missions. Mr. Cosby has spent the last five decades as a comedian, entertainer, and, I would add, philosopher. His life has been a testament to proper handling of race issues. This extraordinary man just went about being the extraordinary person that he is. He has entertained, he has inspired, and he has taught me, for one, for most of my life. He is the first comedian from whom I bought an album. As I recall, it was ``To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With.'' And I've loved the man ever since. I got to see him recently in concert in Tyler and was as excited as ever. What a delightful man. The way he causes us to realize we all have so many of the same strange, enigmatic traits, fears, aspirations, hopes. His television show was certainly inspirational. He makes us laugh at our faults and makes us want to improve them. As a great American, I look forward to his being recognized there at the Civil Rights Game as well. Mr. Hank Aaron, as a Hall of Famer who was once the all-time home run leader with 755 home runs--and parenthetically I might add he'll always be my home run leader--but he was a Negro League baseball player before he played for the Braves in both Milwaukee and Atlanta. Mr. Aaron formed the Chasing the Dream Foundation with his wife in 1994 and has given financial support to hundreds of youths that enables them to pursue their talents in music, dance, arts, science, literature, and athletics. His wife, by the way, attended Texas College in Tyler, Texas, where she is on the board of directors. And it has been one of the highlights of my life to get to meet Mr. Aaron on more than one occasion. It's heartbreaking, heart-rending, to hear some of the hell on Earth he was put through simply because of race. Yet he never wavered. He continued to give everything he had to those tasks put before him. People remember the home-run record, but many do not realize he had over a .300 batting average, .305, I believe, lifetime. Incredible. I once asked him for somebody who was a home-run hitter to hit over .300--most pro-players only dream of hitting .300. He hit home runs and hit over .300. How did you do that? Was there some secret ability you had? And in his typical humble style, Mr. Aaron said, I was a good guess hitter. Typical Hank Aaron, humility completely for such an extraordinarily gifted man who used his talents, developed them, and we all know he didn't get where he was without working, persevering. And the heartbreaking part, the assaults verbally and in other ways, the threats that the man endured simply because of the color of his skin, I look forward to him being honored at that game, as he rightfully should be. The Civil Rights Game also includes a roundtable discussion and youth summit that highlights the role that baseball has played in the civil rights movement. The game has had only a short history itself as a Civil Rights Game, but I would expect it would develop into a fine tradition. With that, I would urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and reclaiming my time, I did want to yield to you because I wasn't sure with the way the conversation was going if you had adequate time to respond, and I wanted to give you the chance and have the time to do so. And I do appreciate the gentleman's position. And I would say that if it pertained to school trips, field trips that crossed State lines, and particularly here where it went to another country, certainly I would join in support for perhaps even further requirements than the minimum that has been offered here. But since that's not the case, I would be in opposition to a further dictation from Washington of any requirements and would encourage every single person, Mr. Speaker, in America to start monitoring your local school board. Hold them accountable, and if they're taking actions that are irresponsible, negligent, inappropriate, then fire them by electing someone else.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is heartwarming and touching to hear the tribute to Phylicia Moore by my colleague from New Jersey, a very touching and well-deserved tribute. This bill obviously is borne out of the noblest of intentions and came, unfortunately, from a tragic consequence. Obviously, the intention here is to safeguard our schoolchildren. Could there be any more noble intention? The effect, though, unfortunately, is to further take the Federal Government into the local schools--we've already intruded greatly into the local schools--and tell them what they must do. Initially, it's to come up with a plan. There should be a plan. There should have been a plan. There should have been more direction from the local school, from the school board. I know from my own circumstances growing up going to school in a public school, the school board wouldn't allow us to take 2-week trips, and had anyone been allowed to take such a field trip, then they would likely have been defeated in the next school board election, because if you look at the Constitution, the Founders realized the best control is local control for so many of these issues. There needs to be accountability. There should be accountability. I got into a rather testy discussion with our former Secretary of Education, Secretary Spellings, because Secretary Spellings, as did our immediately previous President, wanted to engage and dictate educational policy to the local schools. I didn't agree with that. I felt it was inappropriate. Secretary Spellings at one point said, Well, if you liked what I did when I was in Austin, you ought to love what I'm doing in Washington. I said, No, because the 10th Amendment says that if a power is not specifically enumerated, it's reserved to the States and the people. When you were in Austin, you were part of the State. It was a reserved power for you. At this time, though, you're acting outside that parameter, and I don't appreciate all of the dictation from Washington. It was true under the previous administration and it's true today. It was true when the Constitution was founded. I think the tribute to Phylicia Moore is well-deserved. She sounds like a wonderful young lady, and there is no way there could be adequate compensation or action to lessen the hurt adequately of those who loved her and suffered from her loss. But here again, this would usurp further what the previous administration did in dictating local policy. And I understand the amendment now simply requires that a policy be put in place, and that's better, but we know in the days ahead how that normally works, then someone else more zealous comes forward and says, And the policy must include this and this and this. So I still believe the best school control is local control, State control, and holding school board members responsible to the local electorate. I would support any tribute to Phylicia Moore and to the efforts this wonderful young lady was trying to exert on behalf of others, but I would oppose another dictation from Washington on what a local school board must do. Let's keep that control back in the local school board. And I see my friend from New Jersey is ready to speak. I yield to the gentleman.