Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from California, and I do rise in support of House Resolution 1182, a sense of Congress that U.S. flags flown over Federal buildings should be made in the good old U.S.A. The flag represents our unity and strength to the rest of the world, and it is only fitting that U.S. flags flown over Federal buildings be a product of our own country's labor and resources. Americans produce the best in the world when they put their minds to it, and it is entirely appropriate that the flag staffs on our Federal buildings be reserved for the best in the world, made right here in America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia. I rise in opposition to this. Here we are talking about e-mails from the White House and the executive branch when all we're hearing from the people in America is you've got to help us with energy prices. Now, I realize there may be, if you look at enough e-mails from the White House, you may find out they're getting the same messages that all of us are getting: help us with energy prices, we're desperate. Now, what I was hearing was from retailers, from restaurateurs, from people that are providing jobs, from people who have jobs and they're hanging on just by the skin of their teeth. They're union jobs, hardworking folks like that, that are just trying to make ends meet, and now they're at the end point where they're having to use their credit cards to pay for gas to get to the job so they can get paid so they can pay down their credit card enough to buy gas the next month. I'm seeing more and more people running out of gas on the interstate. They're getting desperate. And what is so sickening to me is knowing that in the last year all these different resources are becoming so much more clear that we have. You know, we have been told, some of us, that there may be 900 billion to 1 trillion barrels of oil left in the entire Middle East, and then we hear that from that black shale that's in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, that we could recover three times that much at least in barrels of oil that could supply this Nation. We've heard for all these decades now, for 3 decades, gee, let's don't go after ANWR, it will take 10, 15 years. Well, the latest information, as my friend from Alaska has pointed out, is there's a pipeline 74 miles away. It can be flowing to this country, this continental U.S., within 3 years. And when you think about the Outer Continental Shelf, we may have more natural gas out there than any country in the world. We have been so blessed with natural resources, and yet, instead, we're making our citizens struggle just day-to-day to make ends meet. We're losing jobs. People are laying people off. And I know--and I said this over a year ago--I know we have friends across the aisle who believe that perhaps even $20 a gallon gasoline would be a good thing because it would save the planet because people would quit using it. And as Al Gore said, the internal combustion engine was the worst invention ever created for the destruction of man, something along those lines. And the fact is, we do need to move to the alternative energy sources. We need to do that. But it's going to be 30, 40 years before we can get there, and in the meantime, it appears now we have enough natural resources, we could tell some of these other countries to kiss our backside and we don't need your fuel anymore. We can do it with what we have ourselves, and we ought to be doing that. We ought to be doing coal-to-liquid. We ought to be using ANWR, and what's more, if you look at the royalties that could be obtained from all of that wealth of resources, we could cut taxes and create some of the programs that my friends across the aisle want to do. Do all of that with the massive revenue that would come in. Everybody would win, but until we get realistic and want to help folks, all we're going to be doing is talking about e-mails. So let's do the right thing by the people that send us here. Let's help them with their energy costs. It is getting desperate, and it's time to put that word and all that wind being created--you talk about carbon emissions. There's no worse carbon emitter than this floor of the House of Representatives, gosh, with all the wind being generated. But let's do something constructive and put it into action.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about e-mails. We're talking about the rule on e-mails for Federal agencies, for the White House. But the truth is, the e-mails that keep coming in are desperate. What we saw in the last week were people running out of gas in greater numbers than ever before. The Democratic Party, the once proud party, always talked in terms of helping the little guys. The little guys are suffering. The little guys are hurting. We're losing union jobs because our energy has gotten so expensive in this country and we're overtaxing some of the people providing the jobs. Gas is going from $4 to $5, and this Congress could make a huge difference, and we're talking about e-mails. The e-mails say we need help, do something. And we can. And I know that we have some courageous Democratic friends across the aisle that want to do something and could do something, but the Democratic leadership seems vested in this idea that really we won't say it publicly but $20 a gallon for gas would be a good thing because people would quit driving and that would save the planet, not realizing when you tank an economy, people quit caring about the environment, as they should, because they're worried about having food, having shelter, taking care of their families. And we could help them if we bring the right bills to drill now, to mine what we have. Those of us who believe in God have got to believe God is sitting there going, Look at what all I gave you in the way of natural resources. And yet the last bill to come out of our Natural Resources Committee this last month was to put our last best source of uranium off-limits for some made-up, contrived emergency that doesn't exist. I think the bill will end up being unconstitutional, but it still shows we're still putting our resources off-limits. If you're worried about killing caribou, we have seen that when we put a warm pipeline out there in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness area, then the caribou thrive. They go mate around the pipeline. We're up over ten times the number of caribou we used to have. If you're worried about killing fish off the coast by drilling, we have seen in Texas it creates artificial reefs, and that's where people go fish now. We can help the people and the environment if we will use what we have got because in the years to come, the archivists are going to come pull e-mails and see that the number one concern of people right now in this country was energy and all we wanted to talk about was e-mails and scenic trails when they haven't got gasoline to drive to those trails. Let's help Americans where they need help. Let's do the right thing. Let's work on energy and producing what we have got.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, an 83-year-old woman told me she is paying over $400 a month now for her energy bills, and she may end up finishing her life burning wood, like she started it. The fact is, God has blessed this Nation with an abundance of solutions in the form of natural resources that can support growing domestic energy needs. Within 3 years, we can get a million to a million and a half barrels of oil from ANWR. Some have indicated there are three times the amount of oil left in the entire Middle East, three times that amount in shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, but they can't get to it. The limited areas that are available for lease have an 8-year lease, and they are saying it takes right at 8 years to get all the permits. Yes, there is some property under lease that they can't produce. There is some that doesn't produce. That's the energy business. But we need to help hardworking Americans. I don't understand what the majority leadership has against good union jobs. We are losing them every day in our district because energy prices are too high, and I want to keep those good union jobs.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding. Of course, Iowa is going through some tough times right now and our hearts and prayers go out to the folks there. Energy is a huge problem around the country. My friend from Iowa was talking about the production of oil in Alaska, and it's amazing, but so many people were saying back in the days when there was talk of building a pipeline up to Prudhoe Bay, that if that pipeline is built, it will destroy completely the last 2,700 head of caribou that exist in the area, that they just would not be able to exist in that area any longer. Well, the pipeline got built, and, as it turns out, those 2,700 head of caribou found that when the oil, warm, comes out of the ground and goes through the pipeline, the pipeline is warm. We have subsequently found that now, when the caribou want to go on a date with each other, they will invite each other to come to the pipeline. Apparently the pipeline actually makes them a little bit amorous. Now, all these years later, we are up to 30,000 head of caribou. Now, I grew up in Texas, and we used to hear, a few decades ago, that, my goodness, if they start building these deep-water rigs off the coast of Texas, it will destroy fishing in the Gulf of Mexico from now on. That's what we heard. Now, if you want to go fishing, deep-water fishing in the gulf, your best bet is to go out to one of those drilling rigs, the platforms, because they have acted as an artificial reef. We have got all this additional fish and aqua particular life around those platforms. It's just further evidence that man and animal, fish, the environment, can work together to each other's good. Now, I know the rules are you are not allowed to recognize people in the gallery, and I won't do that, but I can tell you that the students in Henderson Middle School know that people and oil and gas drilling rigs can actually survive together. People in Nacogdoches, people like the Reynolds family, they know. You can survive in areas where there are drilling rigs. Not only that, you can proliferate and do well. So in my district there in east Texas, as someone said here yesterday from east Texas, we kept the military afloat in gasoline in World War II from east Texas, the east Texas oil and gas field. Many don't realize the Germans potentially could have driven us to the sea if they had not run out of gasoline during the Battle of the Bulge, but they did run out. That is something that we have got to constantly keep a weather eye on, and I am proud to represent a district that understands the seriousness of having the energy we need and that $4 a gallon gasoline headed to $5 a gallon gasoline is a travesty for people. I have got hardworking union people in east Texas. I have got hardworking folks in all kinds of jobs who are struggling to get by. This Congress, for the last 18 months, has done nothing to help produce more of our own energy. I am so grateful to have a friend like my friend, Mr. King, from Iowa, who understands that. I am proud to represent people like the students from Henderson Middle School who understand these concepts and understand we can work together for the greater good of mankind of the United States of America, of aquatic life, plant life, and all be better for it. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding, and I appreciate the effort you are making to educate America on exactly what we can do to help ourselves if the majority party in this Congress will allow us to help ourselves. With that, I yield back to my friend, Mr. King.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon an extraordinary thing did happen when we had a vote on a supplemental with all kinds of strings attached to it to fund our troops in harm's way. The Democrats have the majority. They have the ability to pass that funding without a bit of help from the Republicans. Many of us on the Republican side of the aisle were quite concerned, however, with the strings, with the linkages that were made to this bill to help our troops do their job. One, for example, was that in the second amendment, which we knew would pass, provisions there existed to create hard and fast deadlines for pulling our troops out of Iraq. We all want to see our troops home. We all want to see our troops back with us. And those of us who go over to Iraq and see them in harm's way, we long for the time of having them home completely. But the vast majority of those guys in record numbers re-enlist because they know they're doing good. They know they are making a difference. And when you go over there, you see it. I was in Kurdistan in December, in the northern area of Iraq. Construction booming, things going well. We have made a difference with the surge. It is a profound difference. We have al Qaeda on the run. They're making last-ditch efforts to try to stop what's going on. We have the Iraqi people that are there working for themselves, more soldiers, more police trained than ever. There are really good things going on. And were we to pass a supplemental that was linked to that second amendment with the time deadlines, the message would be a message of hope for all those who hate us and want to destroy us. And that is: ``If you will just hold on a little bit longer, we will have the Americans put their heads between their legs and go cowering away, as they did from Vietnam.'' We could have won Vietnam; we can succeed in Iraq. The great state of Iraq is so close to governing itself. Just like John Adams wrote to Abigail, what people have only dreamed of, governing themselves is so close, within our reach. We can't give it up now. It's so close. Iraq is there. We cannot hand our enemies and the Iraqi enemies, the enemies of liberty, this kind of win. So we voted ``present.'' If the Democrats had had enough votes, then they would have passed the supplemental by itself and it would have been linked to the second amendment that would have required the time deadlines for withdrawal and would have given hope. As it was, we couldn't vote against our troops, many of us, but we voted ``present.'' The first amendment that we took up this afternoon failed; so now we have got to come back with a clean supplemental to help our troops. And the crud in there about the $52 billion tax hike at a time when the economy certainly can't afford that, let's get the linkage out to admitting and saying we are defeated, we can't win, giving our enemies a victory, get all of that stuff out of there. No more linkages like that. No more tax hikes. Just a clean supplemental to give our troops the wherewithal to do what they need to succeed. That's the message we needed coming out of today. And that's why so many of us voted as we did. We voted for victory for our troops. And I will never forget the words of Travis Buford's mother. Travis was killed over in Iraq. And as I stood near his coffin with his mother, it was an emotional time, and I said, ``Is there anything I can do?'' She gritted her teeth and she said, ``Tell the Congress to shut up and let the military do their job.'' That's what we need to do. Let the military have the wherewithal to succeed, as they can, without the linkages to failure so that we can keep our head held high and, what's more, perhaps go 7 more years without being attacked here.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this is such a critical issue. You know, there are so many important things facing this country, whether it's the war on terror, the importance of FISA. But when you talk to people at home, it's getting desperate. It is getting very desperate, and they need help on the price of gasoline. They need help on the price of diesel fuel. What are we doing? We are hearing people say, oh, we couldn't possibly drill ANWR. I am from Texas. Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, we have got States where we are doing everything we can to pump up all the energy we can to help the rest of the country. We need some help. We have got all of these other resources, and they are being put off-limits. They are being kept off-limits, and we have heard from some on the other side, well, drilling doesn't really bring down the price of fuel. You know what? We are told from some of the experts, 20, 30 percent is speculation. These speculators are smart. They see that every bill that's come out of this House for the last 16 months does not provide any answers to getting us more energy any time soon. Talk about ANWR. Now, it was pointed out yesterday in our Resources Committee that really this area that is proposed for drilling is not part of ANWR. It was a section set aside by Jimmy Carter to make sure that we had an area that we could develop. Now we are told that perhaps once a year caribou may come through this area of ANWR, and, oh, my goodness, if we put a drilling rig out there, it may destroy our caribou. We heard the same thing back some years back, that if we put a pipeline through some of this area up north it was going to kill off the last 27 head of caribou. You know what happened? The pipeline went in, that oil is warm going through that pipeline, and what happened is it makes the caribou amorous. Now when caribou want to go on a date, they invite each other to go over to the pipeline. We are up to 30,000 head of caribou now because of what the warm pipe has done for the good of the caribou community, so it's going well. We are told we can't drill the Outer Continental Shelf. About 97 of our coastlines are unavailable. We heard the same thing in Texas years back. Oh, please, don't put a drilling rig, not a platform out in the water. Oh, my goodness, you get beyond 30 miles, nobody can see it from the beach. But what we found in the Texas coast is, despite all the naysayers saying it was going to kill off the fish, what's happened, if you want to go fishing and really go where the fish are, they go around the platforms because they have become wonderful artificial reefs. Man and environment can work together to help each other. The Outer Continental Shelf, we may have the highest second supply of natural gas in the world, some think we might even have the most, but we have put it off- limits and won't go after it. We have lost so many wonderful union jobs because of the price of natural gas. I lost several hundred jobs out of my district when a paper mill closed because it ran on natural gas, and we were paying the highest price in the world because we wouldn't utilize what we have. My friend has pointed out coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, according to a lot of experts, and yet we put it off-limits. President Carter put a huge amount of our coal off-limits. We are the only advanced nation that takes our greatest resources of energy and puts them off-limits. Nuclear. Now I am not one to advocate mimicking France over anything, but they have about got it down on nuclear. We could follow their example and provide so much energy. Refineries, the bills we keep passing out of this Congress, out of this committee I am on, it makes it harder to open refineries. That makes the price go up. Speculators see that. If we had an announcement today, tomorrow, from Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid that, by golly, next week we're going to drill ANWR, we're going to drill Outer Continental Shelf, we're going to start supplying more of our energy needs until we can bring all these alternatives on line, that 20 to 30 percent would go down. I would be willing to bet you that we would lose a dollar off the price of gasoline within a week's time because the speculators would say, whoa, they are really serious about providing their own energy needs. We had a report last week, that it turns out a lot of the experts believe that we may be able to get three to five times the amount of oil left in the entire Middle East from our shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, three to five times. They are saying there are maybe 900 billion barrels of oil left in the Middle East, maybe a trillion, and we may get 3 to 5 trillion barrels recoverable from shale in areas so much of which is off-limits. In some cases they say, well, we'll give you an 8-year lease, but it will take over 7 years to get the permits. Folks, we have to help our people. They are crying out, and we need to do something now.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, next week is National Police Week, a time for us to recognize those who boldly serve in municipal, county, State and Federal law enforcement. Furthermore, on May 15, we will observe National Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor those who have been disabled or killed in the line of duty. They have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of their fellow citizens. The peace of mind we are afforded thanks to the dedicated service of our law officers is invaluable, but many times we aren't immediately aware at what price that security comes. However, this past weekend, my constituents and I were painfully reminded me of the very real danger that our law enforcement officers and agents battle daily. On Saturday, May 3, hundreds and hundreds of us mourned the loss of Texas State Trooper James Scott Burns at his funeral in Linden. Scott was killed by shotgun blasts from a killer who he chased and pulled over on April 29 while doing his job of service to his fellow citizens. He left a widow and a 6-month-old daughter, of whom he was extremely proud. He also left a huge family that was both related by blood and related by spirit who care deeply about him. The overwhelming support shown by family, friends and fellow law enforcement officers was truly a testament to Trooper Burns' lovable nature, his sense of humor, his honorable character, but most important his sense of service for others. His loving family is now forced to carry on without him and the world is worse off without him unless we perpetuate the good that he did in his life through the things that we do in the future so that he will not have lived in vain. Though Scott's being killed by the possibly drug-crazed killer meant that others were not also killed, Scott's greatest contribution came not in the way that he died but in the way that he lived. The extraordinary choice by Scott Burns and other law officers to protect our communities means that they go to work every day knowing and believing the words that came from Jesus himself when He said, ``Greater love hath no one than this, that a person lay down his life for his friends.'' Our law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting citizens knowing that they may very well lay down their lives to protect others. No words can adequately express the gratitude that's due them. Scott's family will hopefully find solace from so many who showed their support in the past and will do so in the future. The fact that the funeral processional extended for so many, many miles down Highway 59 from Linden to the cemetery will hopefully provide some solace. It also shows that those who are affected by Scott and his life will not forget. Law officers from around east Texas, from the State of Texas at large as well as from all over the country came and were there. As a former prosecutor, a former judge and chief justice and now as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, it is both a sobering privilege and a priority to address issues and legislation regarding the security of our law enforcement community and the American people. There is no greater function of the Federal Government than to provide for the common defense against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore, it is imperative that we work to support our law enforcement officers and agents and their families by providing them with the training and resources they need to properly carry out their duties. Furthermore, there should be greater incentives in place to encourage harsher sentences for violent offenders who might otherwise be released to the streets and repeat dangerous offenses. While law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day for the well-being of our Nation and local communities, Congress must do as much as possible to ensure the preparedness and security of our noble crime fighters. As we prepare next week to nationally honor the courage of police officers like our own Texas State Trooper Scott Burns, let us consider the well-being of our law enforcement officers and their families with the same persistence and selflessness with which they afford us.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, I was in Tyler attending the funeral of the longest serving county judge in Smith County history: Judge Larry Craig of Tyler, Texas. Had I been present for the vote on the Motion to Recommit to H.R. 5719 regarding sanctuary cities, I would have voted ``aye.''

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. I appreciate Mr. Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for whom I have great respect. This bill was on the calendar to take up in weeks past, but it was pulled a number of times, resulting in it being taken up at this time. We are grateful that it has been allowed to come to the floor. I rise in support of House Resolution 945, and I want to commend my good friend and fellow Texan, and also fellow recovering judge, Ted Poe, the original sponsor of this legislation, for his dedication and commitment to the issue of criminal justice. The goal of this resolution is to raise awareness and promote education of the criminal justice system by establishing March as the National Criminal Justice Month. It is important that Congress encourages Americans to learn more about the criminal justice system, and the approximately 3 million Americans who work within the system. As a former prosecutor, judge and chief justice, I have been honored to be involved with some of our Nation's best who work in the criminal justice system for some time. Throughout that experience, I have been consistently impressed with the professionalism and the ability of the public servants who work in the field of criminal justice. These brave and dedicated Americans work every day to make our country safe for ourselves and for our families. Further, it is important to recognize the gains that have been made in combating crime across the Nation. Crime rates began dropping within the last 20 years as more tools were given to law enforcement and the more dangerous criminals have been locked up for longer periods of time, though there are some who are working to reverse that decade-long trend. I have great respect, as I said, for the Judiciary Committee chairman, who mentioned the reference to this being called a prison nation; and it is tragic that we have so many people who are locked up. I must say that one of the things that concerned me and drove me from the bench were having an increasing number of people who ended up in the criminal justice system before me as a district judge, having allegedly committed felonies, and in the cases I am talking about where they admitted them, told about their background, had testimony about it in court, but it began to break my heart. Back in the 1960s, we had legislation called The Great Society legislation that was well intentioned. There were single mothers that were seen to be trying to survive with only a deadbeat father to help. And the Federal Government looked, saw the need and said let's help these people. They began giving checks to women for each child born out of wedlock. And I began having more and more young mothers, some older mothers, who would have a child out of wedlock, many times encouraged to do so by people they respected and loved, and they found out rather quickly that check will not allow the individual to live a decent living and take care of the child. So they would have another child, thinking that two checks would help, and then three. It broke my heart that our Federal Government had lured people into a rut and not given them a way out. So it is important that we be careful in considering legislation that we pass. Of course, everybody has to be responsible for their own actions, but the legislation we pass is important, and I think it is wonderful that my friend, Mr. Poe, has sponsored this legislation, and that our chairman, Mr. Conyers, has encouraged this and supported it, in establishing March as the National Criminal Justice Month. Congress will provide an opportunity now to educate Americans through this designation about the criminal justice system, and will make Americans more aware of causes and consequences of crime, as well as how to prevent crime and how to respond to crime. This resolution will also recognize and applaud the efforts of law enforcement officials, judges, court staff, and the many probation and parole officers who work with offenders to help them reintegrate into the community. Those are all important positions. We appreciate them all. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as the right honorable Judge Poe may consume.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, some of our Democratic leaders say they just cannot agree to give immunity to the telecommunication companies for helping after 9/11. Perhaps the reluctance comes from massive contributions from law firms suing these patriotic companies. Back in the days immediately after 9/11, we didn't know who all was involved in the most violent attack on U.S. soil. We didn't know if another attack was coming the next day or where or who would strike next. In that context, the telecommunications companies were asked to help their country, and they responded. Just as we had men and women respond all over this country to the Nation's call to help fight the forces of evil, these companies responded by helping, and now many in the majority are letting them be shot by friendly fire. These companies heard the cry for help from our Nation and responded, yet some in this body want to hang them out to dry on a firing line as targets for some of their biggest contributors. Let's pass FISA, with immunity from friendly fire.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard reference to the Senate bill; and my friend, for whom I have great respect, our chairman of Judiciary, Chairman Conyers, mentioned that we are coequal branches. I would submit to you, we are an even more important branch because we are more accountable to the people than the Senate is. The difference, though, in the Senate bill and this bill is, the Senate Democrats got input and allowed input into the bill from their Republican colleagues, and we are not allowed to make amendments on this bill. All we can do is come up and point out problems with it. My friend, Mr. Nadler, whom I have come to believe has a brilliant legal intellect, has come on the floor this morning and said that there is false information from our side, that we are falsely misleading. He said that we have been less than honest. That bothers me to no end, because he knows some of the talking points that are being talked on this floor are just not right. Now, I have read the bill. It's a better bill than the manager's amendment we dealt with last time; it is. But we are still not there, and we still haven't been allowed enough input to make it better. But we also heard from one of our colleagues across the aisle that said he fought in Afghanistan, and he was a soldier. Thank God we have him and others that would do that. But the telecoms in the week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks right after 9/11, when we did not know if we were going to have thousands of Americans lost any day, they were put in a terrible situation. You know the law. The law is very restricted on who in the telecom company can see the request or the demand from the administration, from the NSA or whoever makes it. You know that. I pushed to make sure in the law that they are at least allowed to talk to a lawyer, but they are restricted there. Put yourself in their place. They get a request in any hypothetical case after Americans are killed in an act of war on our soil.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, FISA is a major issue. Great nations in history have failed and been defeated by becoming soft from within. I see dangers of doing that here. I know that my colleagues across the aisle, the 170 or so who did not support FISA being passed into law last August, are very compassionate people. I've seen the hurt in your eyes. I've seen how it troubles your soul when you see people hurting and killed and maimed. What we're asking here is to do the intelligence and allow the intelligence community to protect us so we don't have to experience the horror of seeing Americans killed and maimed. We're losing valuable intelligence every day that we do not pass this important, valuable bill. The proposal was made, let's just keep extending it a week at a time. You cannot do extensive intelligence on a week-to-week basis. We cannot put our country at risk. This House has other things planned today other than this critical issue that could be a nation-saving measure.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my friend, a former judge also, from Texas, Mr. Poe; and he nailed it on the head. And I tell you, following up on that is another travesty going on this week, and that's why I just filed a bill in the last 15 minutes called the Military Freedom Act. We are endowed by our creator with liberty. But like any inheritance, we only get to keep it if we are willing to fight for it. That is precisely why so many of our uniformed military members have laid down their lives. And the plain fact is that there is no more important purpose for the Federal Government than to provide for the common defense. In order to do that, there's got to be a military. But we have all of the rights of freedom of speech. Even those rights have limits, such as when you can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. There is, however, no right to trespass, there is no right to obstruct lawful ingress and egress into a military recruiter's office. The City of Berkeley, California, chose not to protect the Marines' lawful right to ingress and egress. They instead chose to aid and abet lawbreakers by encouraging them and passing an ordinance to make it easier to violate the Marines' rights. The restricting of funding that is proposed and put forward in the bill I have just filed has been done previously in matters such as the speed limits of States or to encourage States to limit drinking and driving. So it's nothing new. It has been deemed appropriate to encourage political entities in areas in which the Federal Government has a vested interest, and it has no more vested interest than what we have in providing for the common defense. But Berkeley and any other city has the right to rule over its own city as they wish, and they're welcome to do that. But the Federal Government should not reward a city that chooses to obstruct and prevent the obtaining of military members who provide the very freedoms and the umbrella of freedom under which that city acts. They have a right to use freedom of speech, but they have no right to take United States taxpayers' dollars to aid and abet hurting our military readiness. We took an oath in this body, in this room, to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and those who prevent the United States from attaining military members are not the Nation's friends. Though such a city may deserve punishment, all we are trying to do with this bill is just not reward them for hurting our national defense. Other city leaders, such as those in San Francisco, Toledo, Ohio, like the mayor there, have snubbed or restricted our military. They need to be aware that when they begin to prevent the military from having enough troops to protect us and being militarily ready, they should not expect Federal subsidies to assist them. It is true that the actions addressed in the Military Freedom Act are mainly actions or omissions by community leaders and not all of their citizens. We understand that. There are good citizens in each of those towns. But the choice of the citizens is either to replace the hurtful leaders or bear the consequences or move. The old adage is democracy ensures the people are governed no better than they deserve. Therefore, those cities either deserve to have better leaders who don't hurt our national defense, or they deserve not to have funds to award their harmful conduct. Cities like Berkeley should take stock of how many of their very own first responders in the business in their cities of saving lives were trained in the military. I would remind you also, and I remember vividly because I was about to go on active duty about the time Vietnam was ended, our heroes came back from Vietnam and were spit on. Some of the hippies that did the spitting cut their hair, got into positions in cities and have found, figuratively, new, effective ways of spitting on our military. But everyone should understand, Mr. Speaker, this is not taking away money for expressing free speech. It's simply not rewarding the obstruction of providing for the common defense. Since it will cost additional money to overcome the obstruction to our military readiness, the Military Freedom Act takes money from the appropriate place to do that. This is the ultimate PAYGO bill for military readiness and national security. In any event, I hope and I encourage the leaders, the majority leaders, the Democratic majority leaders of this body to bring this bill to a vote and let the cities know that we don't reward those who prevent our providing for the common defense.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a number of things, what this is or isn't about. We're told it's not about the protections for the country, but it is about that. And I have great respect and admiration for our chairman, Mr. Conyers. But we were told, also, well, gee, the reason we need more time is the White House has delayed giving us documents. But if you really want to get to the bottom of this, you go back to August 4 when we took a vote on FISA being extended for a number of months. There was no immunity in there. There was no issue about is the President going to turn over documents. Forty-one Democrats voted for it, nine didn't vote, and all the rest voted against it. They were against the protections for this country and FISA. Now, we need to try to eliminate risk to the country, not political risk to a party. And I understand sometimes you have Members that see the dangers to America, gee, that exposes the country to great risk and if we don't do something and something terrible happens, then we've exposed our party to terrible political risk. This shouldn't be about political risk. We need to do what's right for the country. The chairman had said there are other key differences and there are. But those are important to note as well. Our friends across the aisle somehow think it shreds the Constitution if we tap a terrorist in a foreign country and he calls an American. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The solution to that is not that we not tap into that known terrorist in a foreign country; it's that the friends of those concerned about this in America, tell your friends to have their terrorist buddies not call them at home. That's real easy. Then they don't have to worry about this bill. But if terrorists that are known terrorists in foreign countries call them in this country, then they ought to be at risk for having them tapped. Once we know that there's somebody here, then they go get the warrant and that addresses it. But you cannot restrict it otherwise without doing great harm to our protection in America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it seems what we're experiencing here and have been for the last 6 months is just the eternal optimism. I love that in the Democratic majority. But it's like the fellow that fell off the tall building and at each floor was heard to say, ``I'm doing okay so far.'' The trouble is, you're going to have the day of reckoning. And here we had the 6-month extension back August 4. Now, we've heard the majority leader come in and say, Well, it was basically, in so many words, it was the White House's fault because they could have given us this information about the immunity of the companies, and that's what's held this up. But if you go back to August 4 and the vote that did not have the immunity in it, there were 41 Democrats that voted for it and 181 Democrats that voted against it and 9 didn't vote. It was the Republicans that passed this. It didn't have anything to do with immunity. It had to do with one group wanted to make sure our intelligence protected us and had the tools they need, and the other was more concerned about the rights of terrorists. Now, I would submit to you that this isn't about 6 months. It's not about 15 days. We could put it off 30 days, another 6 months, but the day of reckoning is coming. And our enemies that want to destroy our way of life, they don't think in terms of 15 days, 30 days. They think in terms of generations, and they've got to be defeated. So I understand and I appreciate my dear friend, Mr. Kucinich, and the concerns about civil liberties. I'm concerned about them, too. But when it involves, as this act does, a foreign terrorist on foreign soil, and I know the concern is, Well, what if they call an American citizen? And I'll leave you with this: I would submit to you, if your friends are getting calls from foreign terrorists on foreign soil, again, tell them to tell the terrorists not to call them at home and they'll be okay. We need to pass this. We need to give our intelligence the tools they need.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it may seem a little unusual for a Member from Texas to stand in tribute to Louisiana State University, but I do. I take off my hat and hair in tribute to the Louisiana State University Tigers and also to the relationship that Texas and Louisiana have shared. Through the years, Louisiana has helped Texas. After Katrina, Texans were proud to assist Louisiana. When we heard that Louisiana State University needed a quarterback, then my hometown, Tyler, Texas, was proud to yield one of its best, Matt Flynn, to LSU to help them in their time of need. I watched Matt Flynn play high school football 4 years there at Robert E. Lee High School in Tyler, and we are so proud of Matt. He comes from good lineage. His dad, Alvin Flynn, played quarterback for Baylor University. His mother was the director for many years of the Tyler Junior College Apache Belles and took them to national fame. And Alvin did take a lot of Flak because his son didn't follow his footsteps and play quarterback at Baylor University, but such is the nature of Texans and East Texans. When they see someone in need, as they saw LSU, it was their heart-rending desire to help them and to send them our best, Matt Flynn. So congratulations to LSU. We're proud of Matt Flynn, and we're proud of what the Tigers did in making actually the whole Nation proud.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 62 to correct the enrollment of H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I would also like to commend the Speaker, and through the Speaker, our chairman. I assume you are the people responsible for the added heat in the room today. I presume that is to help light a fire under the majority to help get the business done today, and I applaud that. Madam Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 660, a bill to improve court security and ensure the safety of those who dedicate their lives to America's judicial system, as well as to the safety of millions of Americans who visit our courthouses every day. This concurrent resolution substitutes section 502 of H.R. 660 to make a technical correction to the bill and allow the House to move forward in order to consider the important bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, and I would like to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Conyers. We do disagree on issues often enough, but he is the consummate gentleman, he is the consummate chairman, and I have always found him to be fair, and appreciate his effort and his work in pushing this bill to make it become law. This legislation then is truly bipartisan. It is bicameral. And it is to improve the security of those who administer our justice system, as well as those it serves, such as witnesses, victims and their families. Just this week the Senate approved this legislation, making several improvements to the bill. In recent years we've seen an increase in violence and threats against judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers, and courthouse employees. It is critical that we address this violence in order to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in our justice system. As I explain to litigants in my courtroom as a judge, it may be that the courtroom ends up being the last bastion of civility in America, but we will have civility in our courtroom. There will be no violence. Everyone will come in regardless of what happened outside the courtroom. We will sit. We will stand when it's your turn, you will speak when it's your turn, and we will abide by the rules as we try to do here in the House. But the murders of family members of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow and the brutal slayings of Judge Roland Barton and his court personnel in Atlanta are just a few of the many examples that underscore the need to better protect those who serve our judiciary and their families. According to the Administrative Office of 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 terrorists, violent gangs, drug organizations, and disgruntled litigants. As a former State district judge, I'm familiar with such threats personally. Threats against me personally didn't actually worry me until they were made against my family. On looking at Federal law and the penalties, there was a disparity in the penalties for a crime against some family members of court personnel and Federal law enforcement which needed to be addressed. That's what caused me to go to work on this area last Congress, and I'm so pleased that this may actually become law in this Congress. The problem with witnesses being intimidated as well as threats toward witnesses has also continued to grow, particularly at the State and local level where few resources are available to protect witnesses, victims and their families. H.R. 660 improves coordination between the U.S. marshals and the Federal judiciary and bolsters security measures for Federal prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists, drug organizations and organized crime figures. The bill also prohibits public disclosure on the Internet or other public sources of personal information about judges, law enforcement officers, victims and witnesses, and protects Federal judges and prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filing of liens or other encumbrances against personal property. Additionally, H.R. 660 provides grants to States and local courts to improve their security services. I want to thank the majority for working with us to include other important provisions that were not in the original legislation earlier in this Congress. Although there are still some provisions I would like to have seen, this bill includes so many excellent provisions. I do applaud the chairman and the others on the committee for the work. It is imperative that we continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to protect the judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers, as well as the witnesses and their families who are working to protect the rest of the country from criminal acts. Threats and violence require our action today to help them while they help us. At the State and local level, there is a dire need to provide basic security services in the courtroom and for witnesses. H.R. 660 represents a significant first step in this area. Madam Speaker, I commend again Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith as well as Subcommittee Chairman Scott and former Ranking Member Forbes for their continued leadership on this issue. As a former judge, I hope that we will be successful in getting this legislation across the finish line under your leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan and bicameral measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.