Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Youth With a Mission, or YWAM, and the rest of the Nation grieved over the tragic Colorado shootings that resulted in the death and injuries of YWAM's staff and former students. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the family and friends affected by this terrible tragedy. I rise to honor and encourage YWAM as an international ministry whose largest North American training facility is located in my district at Garden Valley, Texas, where I visited numerous times. YWAM trains Christians of many denominations and ages with their express purpose being to know God and to make Him known in obedience to the Great Commission which says they are to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. YWAM currently operates in more than 1,000 locations in over 149 countries with a staff of nearly 16,000. I have also had the opportunity on multiple occasions to meet different YWAM staff and students when they have visited this beautiful city here in Washington, D.C., before embarking on short-term mission trips. When I speak with these individuals, I am overwhelmed by their passion for their ministry and sincere love for people they have yet to meet. They truly strive to follow the example of Christ by offering themselves as selfless, humble, and loving servants. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights. Our Creator endowed this Nation with these individuals who have now been killed. Each of these dear people were a gift to this Earth and to this country. And although we are very disappointed that we did not get to keep those gifts as long as we wished at their Earthly location, we can still thank God for each day that we had them. We are not promised life without hardships. To the contrary, those who take up their individual crosses, especially for the sake of Christ, can expect to face greater trials and persecution. For this Nation's entire history, until now, Christians have had a place, a country, where they were not persecuted. But that unique time is changing. In this day of political correctness, often Christians are the only groups it is acceptable to verbally assault. The Apostle Paul reminds us that we should consider everything a loss, including our own lives, compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage the staff and students at YWAM during this difficult time. C.S. Lewis had kept a journal of sorts after his precious wife, Joy, had died. In one entry, he said, in effect, that he missed her so much he wanted her back. But he realized how very selfish that was. His wife was in heaven. She was in paradise. It was not in her interest to return to a land of tears from a land where there is no sorrow. Lewis went on to say that we are told Stephen was the first martyr. But he said, as I think about it, didn't Lazarus get the far rawer deal? If you review the Bible looking for quotes from Lazarus after he was brought back from the dead, you will not find them. I will bet he was not a happy camper. In any event, we can look forward to the day when we can be reunited with these friends from YWAM. But may those at YWAM find strength and encouragement from friends, from each other, and from these words: may God bless those at YWAM and may He continue to shine His face upon them.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the CAFE standards. Most of us think they are a good idea and that that will help us conserve more energy. But the truth is we shouldn't be paying the highest natural gas prices in the world when we have perhaps the first but at least the second most generous deposits of natural gas in the world. We have perhaps the most coal in the world, and we could be using it. We could be driving down the cost of energy if it were not for the policies that were put in place this year. Now, this bill doesn't help that. In fact, it drives prices the other way. I understand, I have some colleagues in here who believe that if we can drive the price of gasoline high enough, drive the price of carbon energy high enough, then the alternatives become the way to go and everybody goes to them more quickly. I understand that. Some of us, though, like me, believe that a free market will drive the prices and drive the market in the right direction. So as the price of energy becomes higher, as we use more of our own God-given deposits in this country and use them wisely, have zero emissions, that the alternatives will come in naturally without this artificial demand to drive it there. The point is a lot of this legislation will end up, in conjunction with what we have already done this year, driving the price of gasoline to $5 a gallon. That is what happens when you interfere to the extent we are interfering with this legislation and others this year. The thing I would ask is that as the price of gasoline is driven to $5 a gallon with legislative interests that is being pushed this year and next that, please, the people that have pushed it come down here to the well, to the floor and say, ``That's right, gas is $5 a gallon. We think in the long run you'll be better off and we are so proud that we made your gasoline $5 a gallon.'' That's where we're headed. Let's be honest about it, and then those who did it take credit for it when it gets there.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, back on January 22, I got up here at this very spot because we had passed a bill that week that was going to force the price of gasoline to skyrocket upward. A year later it's up a dollar. Today we passed another anti-energy bill. You know, there are a number of States in this country who just say we want to use all the energy but we don't want to produce any. So there are States like Texas, Louisiana, a number of States, we're cranking out all the energy we can to help the Nation. This bill we passed today not only says we have got lots of energy we're not going to let anybody produce, but we are going to penalize the States that have been more than team players and we are going to force the price of gasoline higher and higher. So I hope my colleagues across the aisle, as gas goes up towards $5, will also come to the floor and say, ``That's right, it's $5 a gallon, and we are proud of it. We did that for you; so you can thank us.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. First I've got to comment on some things we heard previously. We heard the right honorable chairman indicate that the last motion to recommit was designed to delay. If it was merely designed to delay, then why in the world was the bill pulled from the floor and sat on for 4 weeks? The answer: it was not for delay. We had some serious considerations and questions and points to be made about the risk that this was raising. When I hear my friend from Texas talk about those who love liberty, listen, some of us love liberty enough that we believe the Constitution should not be extended on the battlefield to those who are trying to destroy what our forefathers and foremothers have fought and died to give us. Now, unless the Democrats believe that they have improved this bill, then there was no reason for a month delay. So either you improved it, Mr. Speaker, either the Democrats improved it or there was no reason to sit on it for a month. And if they did improve it, then the motion to recommit was not political, but apparently helpful. The problem is this doesn't fix the problems. And unless one party in this body has 100 percent on God's truth all the time, they ought to allow some input from the other side. We were told that was going to happen. It hasn't happened here. We went to the Rules Committee the last time and were shut out. Before the hearing started we were told, put on your evidence but no amendments will be allowed. This time, once again, no amendments are allowed. There is some expertise in this body outside the Democratic Party. I would think it would be helpful to hear some of that. Anyway, let's look at the bill itself. We are told, well, we can't get into it, we have limited time. Who did that? The Rules Committee did that. The Rules Committee did that. I would say to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that we have some smart people on both sides of the aisle on the Rules Committee, but their talents are being wasted when they keep having Rules Committee meetings that come back over and over, no amendments. They are wasting their time. They ought to ask for different committees because there is too much intelligence and talent on that committee to waste it like that. Now, in this new bill that we've got, we had to make amendments without even seeing the new bill. How outrageous is that? But still, we have the requirement that the Director of National Intelligence, and I realize some people think he is suspect on the Democratic side because he worked for the Clinton administration for 6 years. I think he is a brilliant, sharp fellow. But anyway, he testified before our Judiciary Committee that he cannot swear, nobody can honestly swear that they reasonably believe that a terrorist on foreign soil will never call the United States. Therefore, since he can't testify to that, they can't use this provision. We are told this is protective because in the emergency provision that is allowed, all you have to do is get that emergency relief, and you can get that in 7 days instead of 15. Even under the emergency relief, you have to reasonably believe there will never be a call into the United States, and we had testimony that can never be done. This guts our foreign intelligence capability. I think the easier thing to do is just have everybody tell their U.S. friends that if you are getting calls from foreign terrorists, tell them not to call, use some other means of communication. That's the point.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, to be accused of partisan maneuvering is pretty insulting. Some of us are not concerned about partisan maneuvering; we are concerned about the security of the United States. That is why I am here right now, not because of partisan maneuvering. Do you want to talk partisan maneuvering? How about when I go out to get a copy of the most current bill and we have got a bait and switch. This isn't even the most current bill out there that we can get ahold of to come in and talk about. But I know the provision, and I appreciate my fine chairman talking about we have taken care of emergency situations, and then we had two Members just talk about emergency situations. If you take these provisions, and hopefully the part I am talking about is the latest, that is the way I understand from what you are talking about, it says specifically in here, yeah, there is an emergency provision, but in order to get it, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, who was the National Security Advisor for President Clinton, he and the Attorney General have to jointly be able to swear that the targets of their acquisition are not reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States and they are not reasonably believed to be United States persons. You take that with their testimony, the testimony was I cannot ever swear that. The way you do this intelligence is you go after a foreign target, and I can never testify, he said, as to who the person will be that they call. I can never testify that I reasonably believe they will be outside the United States when they call or that they will not be a United States person. So, if he comes in and does this after he has testified ``I cannot say I reasonably believe that they will not call somebody in the U.S., when I don't know who they will call,'' then we got problems. This does not protect the problem. We need to vote ``no.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it seems like not that long ago, but it was a year or so ago, we heard repeatedly: We're losing in Iraq. We're losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. We're losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. And we got a policy change. It's kind of refreshing to hear so many say we're winning, and a little bit surprising to hear we're winning, so we need a policy change. We're winning, so we need a policy change? We know if we pull out too quickly, we don't leave a stable area. Hearing comments earlier about somebody won't listen to anyone else; they get no input. I thought they were talking about the Democratic majority. Just today on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I'm told at 1:30 that we've got to have amendments in by 4 o'clock on a bill that we weren't even allowed to see. You want input? Let's start it right here on the floor. I heard comments about Vietnam mistakes. The biggest mistake that history teaches us about Vietnam was that it was micromanaged from Washington. If you want documentation, go to Sam Johnson's book. After the carpet bombing finally took place and we went after and took it to them, the bombing stopped, we gave away the farm at Paris, and as the prisoners left the Hanoi Hilton, one of the leaders said, ``You know, you Americans are so foolish. If you'd have kept it up another week, we would have had to unconditionally surrender.'' But we were micromanaged from Washington. We show the greatest reverence for those who have given their last full measure of devotion not by pulling out before we leave a stable area, but by seeing that we finish the job and leave a stable area so they will not have died in vain. I leave with a comment of Travis Buford's mother as we stood there by his casket in Nacogdoches, Texas at the funeral home earlier this year. I said to his mother as we stood near his coffin, ``Is there anything I can do?'' She gritted her teeth and she said, ``Go back and tell the Congress to shut up and let the military finish their job.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you.

Mr. GOHMERT. Was there no version of the bill filed today? Was there no version of the Second Chance Act filed today?

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. GOHMERT. May I inquire how much time I've got.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nothing would please me more than to be involved in the process of constructively working on these issues. When I think about the gentlelady saying that my comments were outrageous, everything that I have said is documented. Everything I have said comes from reading through this bill, as well as my own experience from my days of being a judge. I wholeheartedly agree, we should do a better job of rehabilitating and educating. In fact, I just get concerned when we get so anxious to try to do something good that we end up throwing money at a problem just so we can say we worked on it, something had to be done. But it was the National Institute of Justice Award to RTI International, a nonprofit research organization, to evaluate the programs funded by the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. This is one of the largest evaluation studies funded by the NIJ, and it is doing this research. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization in D.C., is the collaborator on the project. I am really looking forward to getting that information. I am wondering why we throw more money at a situation before we get the information that tells me how and tells us how to be most effective? When my good friend the chairman, and I do think the world of him, talks about comity and goodwill, that is what I would love to have. But when we have such trouble getting copies of the latest versions, and then the chairman says, gee, I had the latest version on Friday, I was notified by the committee staff that there was a new version as of yesterday and then the new version was filed today. So, I didn't have everything Friday. That has been one of the problems here. This is too important of an issue to just be throwing good money after bad. I would also point out that in the interests of comity and goodwill, the bills that follow this, H.R. 3845, PROTECT Our Children Act of 2007, I indicated before that sounded like something I would want to be part of and helping with, but we never did get a final version that we could say, yes, I want to cosponsor that. Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 sounds like another good bill, but we haven't seen it. And talking to the Judiciary staff, that and the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, H.R. 4120, that follows that, we are still trying to get updated versions of those things. So that doesn't sound to me like comity and goodwill, when we are struggling over here to even get copies. We don't know what requests had been granted. There were things requested by the Department of Justice, in the interest of justice, please get these provisions put in this bill. We don't know what was put in and what wasn't. That, to me, does not indicate comity and goodwill. It creates all kinds of problems.

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GOHMERT. I am not sure which four things the chairman is referring to.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the chairman. Reclaiming my time, I have been over here in the 20 minutes or so before I came up to speak talking to Judiciary staff who, unless they are changing their story now, have not been able to get the latest information on this bill. Well, they have got it on this bill. We have the final copy. I haven't had a chance to review it since it has been filed today. Most of us were out doing what we should have been doing yesterday, paying tribute to veterans all over our districts. But these subsequent bills, these are still a problem that I have been having with the Second Chance Act, getting the latest information on this. My dear friend, Mr. Coble, we serve together on the Judiciary, had asked for time, and at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate yielding to the gentlelady to come down and call me outrageous. But what is outrageous is this process, this process of taking something so important and rushing it in here without having the proper input and the proper information. The National Institute of Justice has got their biggest study program in its history ongoing, and we don't have the results, and yet my colleagues want to rush in and throw $330 million at a process that is unproven and untried. I just don't think that is the way to go. We have got honest people involved in the process, but the process itself here has not been honest. With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Claiming back my time, I am not yielding for you to criticize me.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I will be glad to yield, and if you can show that we have gotten the recent version----

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sure glad my friend, the chairman of Judiciary, sought time for people to revise and extend their remarks, because they are going to need it. This thing keeps changing. I mean, I reviewed this bill last week. I spent a long time going line by line, only to find yesterday there's still a new version, and today I was provided a 98-page bill. I can't tell you the pages of the issues that I am most concerned about because the version keeps changing. Now, this bill includes $330 million in authorizations. Normally, suspensions are noncontroversial, but the fact that this bill keeps changing is absolute evidence that this is not noncontroversial. It keeps changing because people can't figure out what is the best thing to do. I would submit there is a good reason for that. The bill that this seeks to renew and programs that are sought to be renewed are ones we don't have information on how successful they were, and that was the original purpose of this bill. Back when it expired in 2005, we still did not have the information on what worked and what didn't. I can tell you from my days as a judge, there was some anecdotal evidence that it looked like faith-based programs did a better job of dramatically reducing recidivism. In one case I was shown results from a prison in Texas where it dropped down to about 8 percent from over 80 percent because of faith-based programs and mentoring. This new version, I haven't even been through it. I haven't had time to go through it. But the one that I saw and reviewed on Friday, it included reentry programs allowing payment for housing and health care. I know our military members who are leaving after less than 20 years in the service with honorable discharges would love to have that kind of help reentering. There are some provisions that allow for too much administration, in my opinion; 11 percent at one point, 15 percent at another. That is not going to help people. That is going to build a bigger bureaucracy. Dismissing all charges if someone completes drug rehab under another provision I think is outrageous. You are going to remove the hammer that would allow you to keep people in line? It is one thing to say we are going to remove you and not have you go to prison and instead send you to drug rehab, and then if you get through there, before you have a chance to go out and do cocaine again, we are going to drop all charges so we have no hammer over your head. I don't know if this is in the final bill. It was in there last I saw on Friday. There is a provision that allows payments through the Department of Labor for support. There are military members, and I went to another funeral Saturday, a gentleman who was not killed in Iraq, he was killed during surgery, but I know his family would love to have the kind of support being provided in here for felons. We also have a provision in here, we are going to pay people through these grants to teach inmates how they can go about getting the most welfare before they leave prison and go out on their own. There is also a provision that moves inmates to home detention without approval of the judge who sentenced the individual. In this bill, the elderly, for purposes of moving to home detention, is defined as 65. I guess apparently under this bill, without any underlying evidence or research to support it, we have arbitrarily picked 65 as deciding that is when people are harmless. But I know from my own experience around this Chamber, there are people in Congress that are 65 or older that are certainly not harmless. In any event, I think that is a little bit too young to classify people as harmless. There is a provision that assistance will be provided by the United States probation system and it ``shall'' be done. I don't know, I can't find from the bill what kind of assistance that will be. But I think we have all got the same goal. I think one of the worst atrocities in the justice system has been our lack of rehabilitating and educating and preparing people to go out into the world and become productive citizens and finally reach the God-given potential that every one of them has. I couldn't agree more with the proposition, and I know that is the heart of my colleagues across the aisle. But we don't have the information on which programs are successful and which aren't. I want to work together on a program. I've kind of been cut out of this process. The National Summit on Prisoner Reentry is coming up in Los Angeles on November 27 and 28, but we are going to rush this through on a suspension bill for $330 million without even having a chance to really review the most recent document.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask to manage the time on behalf of the opposition since I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. GOHMERT. I would like to see the information that is being prepared to come forth on November 27 and 28, the newest information that is being brought to bear, all of these groups coming together. I would think then by December we ought to be able to have something.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We heard moments ago that there are 212 organizations supporting the bill. I have talked to many of them over the course of our discussions on the Second Chance Act, great, noble, wonderful organizations. I couldn't find but one out of numerous ones that I talked to that actually read the bill. They all have the same goals. They all want to see adequate education and rehabilitation, cutting down on recidivism. We all want to see that. I want to see that. I think we have got to do that as a civilized society. There are many that support this goal. But, again, many haven't seen the bill. And I have checked with the staff in the interim. For example, H.R. 719 is file-stamped November 13 at 1:11 today, and the Judiciary got it for the first time just before 3 p.m. so that you know. But if we really want to help the situation, doesn't it make sense to get the information on one of the biggest-funded programs NIJ has ever had so we put the money where it works and take it away from where it doesn't work? Mr. Speaker, in responding to the chairman's comment, I would have to say I noticed in reviewing the bill on Friday, it is a better bill than it was, in my opinion; but we still have a little ways to go. That is why I just think this is a bill in its present form, as it continues to morph, that should not be on the Suspension Calendar, but should come up under a regular rule where we have a chance to work on these other issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so the gentleman from Michigan has the time to respond.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. It is so true that slavery was an abomination and is even today an abomination. It was a blight on this country's collective soul, and we can thank God that it has been eliminated. Emancipation Hall, it does have a great ring to it. It sounds beautiful and it sounds like it's high time that such a hall were so named, and it does sound like an appropriate hall. As I go back, though, and think through the comments and the speeches of those who were able to get rid of this abomination in this country, I think about the reasoning they had. Some have said that if there is no universal standard of right and wrong, if there is no force in the universe beyond ourselves that is unwavering as to right and wrong, then people can treat others the way they wish. If we are each god in our own way, then we can treat each other as we wish. But I believe, as those who fought so hard to eliminate slavery, that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, and that is the God that's referenced ``In God We Trust.'' But as we look throughout the Congressional Visitor Center, we find the Emancipation Hall will be a great addition, but there ought to be a basis, some reference, so people know why the emancipation was so important. Yet, as I understand it, the term ``Creator,'' ``we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights,'' that's nowhere in the hall; that's been eliminated. There is no reference to the Lord. The Constitution is dated in the year of our Lord in 1787. We find out a couple of weeks ago that ``Laus Deo'' that's on the capstone of the Washington Monument, meaning ``praise be to God'' has been obliterated and changed from the display so that people don't know what's up there. And the capstone itself, the monument replica, is turned where people can't see it. We are categorically removing God and references to Creator, to God, to Lord, from all of these things. And Lincoln, in his addresses, repeatedly said we pray to the same God, it's in his second inaugural address, and yet the efforts these days are to eliminate that. John Quincy Adams' eloquent speeches on the floor of Statuary Hall over and over and over demanding an end to this abomination, that God will judge America harshly if we don't eliminate it, Lincoln said, after he became President, wasn't much happening during those 2 years he was in the House except for those ``great sermons from that dear man Adams.'' So I hope that not only can we move forward with naming the hall more appropriately Emancipation Hall, I think that's wonderful, but I think that we ought to restore to the plans God, who made it all possible.

Mr. GOHMERT

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