Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from the 22nd District of California, an outstanding Member of Congress, Kevin McCarthy, for 4 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. My understanding of the rules is that the time may be controlled by someone who is in opposition. I do not know if the Republican representative is in actual opposition to this bill.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill and, when asked under the rules, would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I do appreciate the comments that have been made from my friend from California. And I would agree. I was not aware that anyone had ever been paid commissions or a spouse or a Member of Congress had ever been paid commissions. That's entirely inappropriate. And I would agree on any measure that would go forward on that basis, making such a process inappropriate. I do find it troublesome that, at the same time, we want to demonize paying somebody less than what would be the going market value for services for the most overqualified person and the most trusted person to do that job. I always appreciate allusions to my home State of Texas, but Texas does have a lot of things that I think would be good for us to adopt here. They're only in session 180 days every other year. That may be something else we want to look at doing in following Texas. But also, in Texas, the campaign laws do not necessitate, as I believe the Washington, the Federal laws do, a full-time, every-year campaign office. Mr. McCarthy, though, I would point out, never said anything about speed. His objection, and one of my objections, is about process. We were promised the most open government in history when the Democratic majority took over. That was something to which I was looking forward to, even though we were not going to be in the majority, and so far this is yet one other straw on the camel's back that indicates that's just not going to happen. But let's face it. There are problems with improprieties in Congress, but there are so many requirements with campaigns regarding transparency that if someone is actually working there and making an appropriate wage, that appears to me to be about the most transparent thing a candidate and a spouse can do. It's nothing behind the scenes, there's no behind-the-scenes lobbying. There's no in-home lobbying. There's nothing of that nature. You have a partnership, and I think that can be a good thing, although I agree if there are abuses, as the gentleman pointed out, those should be addressed. So, in any event, I know that my friend Mr. Schiff and my friend Mr. Castle are both honorable men, and we disagree on what should be done on this bill. But I came forward today because I just could not simply get on the rah-rah bandwagon that I felt like many people would be getting just to make it look like they wanted to end improprieties, when really what this is dealing with is something to say there's something being done about ethics. The bottom line is that the elephant's still sitting in this Chamber, big as ever, getting bigger, and so far that elephant has not been addressed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The majority says they want to end the culture of corruption. There has been both the appearance of impropriety here in Congress and, in some cases, actual impropriety. These improprieties, despite any demagoguery, know no party bounds. But the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, in recent years, has involved other issues, issues like spouses going to work for major companies who have large government contracts and benefit from having an employee in the lawmaker's home. Does the Democratic majority seek to end this problem with this bill? No, they don't. That might step on important toes. Another major problem that is not transparent is spouses themselves who lobby. Does the Democratic majority seek to end or regulate that by this bill? The answer is, no, they do not. That might step on too many important toes here in Washington. So who will be affected by this bill in which the Democratic majority avoided any hearings to gather evidence and thereby prevented any opportunity for people like me to come forward with evidence and move toward this lack of transparency in this back-room process to shove it down our throats here on the floor? It is said that they want to stop officeholders from enriching themselves or their families. I am one of those who would be affected, and it may be helpful to know exactly what kind of an effect it will have. My story is this: While practicing law in Tyler, Texas, it became apparent that we had a major problem in one of our highest-level trial courts. I tried for months to find someone with the experience and qualifications who would step up and run against this incumbent Republican. I could not find anybody, since people said, well, he was the first Republican elected in our county, so let's just let him stay. No one is owed a public office. I was reluctant to take a pay cut and go to work at the courthouse, but in November of 1991, having found no one at that point who was willing to step up, my wife and I decided that that was our lot in life, for me to bring in less money, but help by making our community a better place in which to live. There was a tremendous backlog of felony cases in which the defendants were out on bond and had not gone to trial. I got elected. Though the backlog was staggering, and new cases continued to pour in in record numbers, within 10 years I had helped, and with the good help of a good district attorney, we moved and reduced the number of pending cases, trying cases, record numbers, moving cases. We reduced the number of backlog cases by 80 percent or more. Some years later one of my daughters said, while I was still on the bench, ``Daddy, we have to watch our spending, and you could make a lot more money. Why don't you?'' I said, ``Sweetheart, if I have not taught you that there are some things more important than money, then I have failed.'' She said, ``I know, but it would be nice to have some big money come in from time to time anyway.'' My wife and I felt our best contribution that we could make to our community, our State and our country was for me to be a judge, and that's what we did. After years on the bench, it became clear that we desperately needed some legislative changes, and I believed it a constitutional violation to legislate from the bench. When a term to which I was appointed to finish as chief justice of an appellate court expired, I had to decide whether or not to stay on the bench in a justice role or wait and potentially run for Congress. Again, my wife, my partner, and I made the joint decision to step out in faith, not take a sure job, and potentially run for Congress. After leaving the bench, I successfully completed the ruling training and testing to become a recognized international arbitrator as well as a mediator, and was told I had the potential of making in a month what a Congressman makes in a year. But this country needed help, and it seemed to my wife and me, after much consideration, consultation and prayer, that this was a place, once again, where I could help. My wife Kathy has an MBA in accounting, had done excellent accounting work and had done so before she was invited to substitute at a high school for students with problems. She loved, as she said: ``Seeing the light come on in these young people,'' and she taught there for years before I began to run for Congress. She gave up her teaching job and worked for months without pay toward our goal. She is an incredible organizer and the most trusted friend I could have. We had the same goals of making this a better country. She knows our district; my supporters know her and love her and trust her. She makes constant appearances for me when I can't be there because of conflicts here in the District. She is invaluable to my reelection and works tirelessly, including in the evenings, when the day's appearances do not allow her to do her job then. As far as my family situation, we have one daughter who graduated in May from college and two more to go. The laws are such now that you really have to have at least one campaign employee even in nonelection years, and that hardworking confidante has been my wife. We began to pay her what she could make teaching, and it was completely transparent. Everything, as both sides know, has to be filed, and the public knows we are a campaign team with full transparency because of existing laws requiring transparency by campaigns. She gets paid much less than she could in business and has been offered more money in another job, and that is also why this has been a mutual sacrifice. One other thing: when we committed to make this run for Congress in 2003, which we knew would be over a 1\1/2\-year process, we gave all the energy, all the effort, all the work. We truly pledged, as was put in the Declaration of Independence, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Because I was running and could not provide the money production I had been before being a judge, my wife and I struggled with the decision, and ultimately decided to cash out my judicial retirement as well as her teacher retirement to live on while we pursued this dream of making America better. As most of America does not know but Members of Congress here do know, there is no great big fat cat retirement for Members of Congress, despite the e-mails people may read at this time unless someone has been here for many years. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, America should know that we are all enrolled in Social Security here in Congress. It may have not always been true, but it is now. An article recently indicated that, according to financial disclosure reports, I am the poorest Texan in Congress. As one other Texas Member of Congress said just a couple of weeks ago when he heard my wife and I both cashed out our hard-earned retirements to make a run for Congress, he said, Wow, you really did come here for all the right reasons. And I would certainly like to think so. But if this bill becomes law, there will be no rich Members of Congress reined in, no blatant abuses will be ended. None of the people who have gotten enormously wealthy while in public office will feel any pinch at all. If this bill becomes law, I will now have to fire my comparatively low paid but imminently trusted and qualified, actually overqualified, and currently only campaign employee despite the complete transparency and financial disclosures that are currently required. This bill doesn't drain the swamp, as has been represented, but protects the big swamp while adding another hurdle for anyone who does not have wealth to get here. In this job, it is important to have a spouse who can make campaign appearances when necessary or helpful. A couple in which both need to work to put kids through college will have more difficulty in getting elected, because you can't afford to have one or both not work still make appearances and put kids through school. My wife, as said earlier, works long and late, often at home at night to fulfill the requirements of a job which keeps getting more and more difficult because of the burdens placed by this body in an effort to look like we are reining in corruption. This bill does show, though it does not affect anything that is already transparent, it does show when it comes to doing something meaningful to end this corruption, the majority is going to look the other way and not talk about the elephant in the room. This bill, as I say, will not affect the major problems in Congress; but if it were to become law, it will end a beautiful partnership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend across the aisle, the idea of assisting with counseling for anyone who has been through something so traumatic as what David Ritcheson experienced is a good idea. I would support a measure of that order. Matthew Shepard was mentioned, as was James Byrd. Of course, most of us are familiar with those situations. Mr. Byrd was attacked because he was an African American. He was brutally drug behind a vehicle. And if I had my way and could put into law the law I would like to address that, it would be to allow the family of the victim to choose the terrain over which to drag the defendants, if they were convicted, and the rope by which to drag them. But, again, capital punishment was not an issue in this hate crimes bill. Mr. Byrd's perpetrators, two received the death penalty, as I recall, and one received a life sentence, and that was State resources without the assistance of the Federal Government. With Matthew Shepard, I believe there were two life sentences in those cases, which would further not have been enhanced. But I look forward to the day, as Martin Luther King said, when we are judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and I would submit not by any other factors over which we have no control. When it comes to a hate crime bill, we ought not to be dividing. A transvestite deserves protection. David Ritcheson, my goodness, deserved protection. We should work together to bring this Nation together, not divide it by saying some people deserve more protection than others. Again, I think the idea of counseling, it might have served David well because, goodness knows, he had been through a great deal of trauma. Perhaps that would have assisted him in not bringing a permanent end to a temporary problem, which made it all the more tragic. So I would welcome the opportunity, if something in the form of legislation along those lines were to arise, in working with my colleagues on the other side.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Chairman, I would like to address one thing very quickly that the chairman used. I could probably ask that his words be taken down. But to accuse us of parroting as Mao's little underlings did is offensive, and it reminds me of one of my mother's favorite expressions: I believe we have got the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I appreciate that very much. The Fairness Doctrine is such a misnomer. It may be an oxymoron, if you would. But one of the great things about this country throughout our history since we became a country has been that rather than have another revolution, people can express their views. They can say what they want. The Fairness Doctrine suppressed that a great deal and it fomented a lot of agitation. As long as people can get out there and express their views, we're going to be okay. We can disagree. We can fix things. We can complain about things. But when you run in and start saying you're talking too much about this issue, you're saying too much on this side, then we are looking for another revolution. I do not want to see that. We don't need the Fairness Doctrine, this misnomer. It is time to set it aside for good and move forward with free speech.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming my time, it is like my momma used to say, you are responsible for what you are responsible for. The numbers are going up every day and it is on your watch. And I congratulate the gentleman. The numbers continue to climb, and I look forward to seeing what you do with them.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have with me a sign that I am proud of tonight. This is entitled the Blue Hound Dog Coalition because it is such a great idea to keep reminding the majority of what the debt is. These are great signs, very similar to some we see around the halls. I know some people in our body are not wanting their signs to be brought to the floor; so I had to have one made up special myself. But it is a great thing to remind the majority of what the debt is because Democrats are in the majority. It is no longer Republicans that can be blamed for running up the price of gasoline. It is no longer Republicans that can be blamed for running up the debt.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding for the answer. I know we are all grateful to the Republican Congress since 1994 and 1995 and the great strides that were made in reducing the deficit. It has gone up since the war, and I look forward to seeing if you continue to increase it or help some of the rest of us bring it down.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much my friend from Hawaii across the aisle pointing out what he did. I would like to pick up on that. We are not just talking about lower fuel costs. That is extremely important. We are talking about that. We are also talking about jobs. In my district alone, we have a huge plant there. Their feedstock is natural gas. They produce plastics. They produce all kinds of great things. If we did an actual test and checked, did a survey, I would bet you that most of the jobs there are held by Democrats. So even if you just looked at it politically, my goodness, we are losing Democrats' jobs by not bringing down the price of natural gas. On top of that, it does cost other jobs when you raise the price of natural gas. For a country like ours that has natural gas all up and down our coast, east, west, down around the Gulf, there is a tremendous supply west of Florida in the Caribbean. We have all this natural gas. Yet what breaks my heart is that I see we are building new liquid natural gas ports on our coast so we can bring it in and become more dependent on people who don't like us. It makes no sense at all. It is clean burning. It helps the environment. Yes, my friend indicated that we ought to be drilling in ANWR. Yes, we should. The caribou proliferate when we give them a good warm place to mate, like the pipelines, as has already been shown. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend, Mr. Peterson, bringing this amendment. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to him.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of John Edward Dean's 90th birthday. John Edward Dean was born June 18, 1917 in Upshur County, Texas. He grew up in my district, in the town of Gilmer, where he attended Gilmer public schools and graduated from Gilmer High School in 1937. Mr. Dean would often ride horseback to school, and by the age of 15, he was hauling cattle to the Fort Worth stockyards to help provide for his younger siblings. In 1945 he purchased Snider's sawmill in Gilmer, where the company will turn 70 next year. John Dean is an American patriot, a servant who so many of us in east Texas have come to respect. He never missed a day of work or church due to an illness, and was never even hospitalized until age 70. John and the love of his life, the late Jane Holmes, have 3 children, 7 grandchildren, 8 great grandchildren, and has given generously to the Gilmer community. His lumber company is one of Gilmer's largest employers, and was a pioneer in diversity. He serves as a deacon at First Baptist Church of Gilmer, is a 20-year member of the East Texas Baptist University Board of Trustees in Marshall. I stand here today to wish John Edward Dean a happy birthday, Mr. Speaker, and to pray that God may continue to bless him and his family for being such a blessing to so many others.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank our subcommittee chairman, and I thank our full committee chairman and subcommittee ranking member as well. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. As it has been said, there exists in America an open sore that is yet to be remedied. I note that sometimes people see an amount of money that is being spent and say that is too much money. But in this case, there is an injustice that cries out for healing and for addressing. When one American, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, religion, national origin, when one is struck down, then all of us are struck down. We need to address this. Now, I am not one of those who believes that we need to run forward and apologize for the sins of others that we didn't commit. But in this case, this bill addresses an injustice. We have the power. We have the wherewithal and the ability to address this wrongdoing and this injustice. If we were not to take action, then this body would owe an apology, and I do not want to see that become necessary. There are times that we hear moving testimony, and our heart is moved. But we know for the greater good of the country we must do something else. This is one of those cases in which we heard testimony that was very moving, and the heart is aligned with the head. This requires action. I appreciate the leadership moving this forward so that this injustice, this open sore, can finally be addressed.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding, and appreciate the work he's been doing and pointing out some real economic truths. Some of these things are just so basic. As we've talked about before, you mentioned before, Ronald Reagan said we don't have a taxing problem, we've got a spending problem. And he was so right. But over the last 2\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, that my friend from Georgia and I have been here together, we've seen lots of indications, lots of signs out in front of offices talking about the national debt, and your share is so much. And I just think those are so good and so helpful. As we see here, Blue Dog Coalition, today the U.S. national debt is $8,809,000,000, and your share is $29,000. I mean, that's just staggering. And frankly, you know, I've begun to think I want one of those signs, because we know who's in control. And there are those of us for the last 2\1/2\ years, or the last 2 years that we've actually been here, that have been trying to push this body into having more economic responsibility. And we did see, last year, great strides made in the first time that discretionary spending wasn't just held even, it actually was cut. So we were making some real progress. We saw the Federal revenues come streaming up, as the gentleman from Georgia points out, that real progress is being made. And so I just want to applaud what has been done because really it's consistent with the efforts that so many of us have made, like earmark reform. We were trying to get earmark reform. And it only took a few dozen conservative Republicans to band together and not vote for key legislation unless we got some earmark reform. And that is when we finally got some earmark reform. Of course, you wouldn't know it to listen to me. They never talked about what we got accomplished, but being able to object, make a point of order on earmark reform. But I think this is a good idea to keep reminding everybody of how high the debt is, how much everybody's responsibility is. And, frankly, I want one of these signs. I may have to change the name to the ``Blue Hound Dog Coalition'' or something, but I would like to see everybody encouraging this Congress to move as we were able to push the Congress in doing in the last year or so, and hopefully there are people on the other side of the aisle that will be able to push the Democratic majority away from this just uncontrolled spending. Not only is the President's request up in most every area, but the proposals for appropriations from the Democratic majority just skyrocket above that in so many areas. So I don't know what the gentleman from Georgia intends to do. But I tell you, I like reminding the majority it is time to do something. We made some real progress the last 2 years, and I am hoping that folks are not going to let that die. Even though there is a major effort to try to get that killed, I think we should keep pushing, keep pushing. I just encourage all Republicans get a sign outside your door. Let's remind folks, not just the 36 that pushed for earmark reform. Let's get everybody out there reminding the majority. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's yielding, and I would just encourage you in all your efforts, let's get this done.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I read a sign almost every day, they are out in hallways all over, from the Blue Dog Coalition, and as of today, it says today's U.S. national debt, $8.807 trillion; your share, $29,000. There's some of us all the time we have been in the House been trying to do something about that. We have been trying to bring down the deficit. We have been trying to with our own party, the Republicans, with the Democrats now in the majority, get spending reined in. Also, in our Natural Resources Committee, as well as other committees around, we have been trying to find answers to our energy problem, because, let's face it, we're funding our enemies, people that want to see us, have damage done to our way of life, if not destroyed. So how do we get around this energy debacle where we keep using fossil fuels that keep funding our enemies? I heard a chairman say a moment ago, there is no silver bullet. I couldn't agree more. We need every single aspect of energy, all of the alternative energies, all of the energy sources we have, that includes drilling the Outer Continental Shelf and areas where it would be safe to do so. It includes drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska, and here we've got $142 million that is in issue here. As the saying goes, $142 million here, $142 million there, before long, we are talking about real money. People in our hometowns, they understand, this is a lot of money, may not be to some of us up here in Washington, but, as we have seen recently, as we have seen recently the last couple of weeks in Natural Resources, people keep wanting to study things, let's study this. We were ready to go on a biomass program. In the energy bill marked up last week, we are going to back up 10 years and have another study on that. We have these programs ready to go, and we keep wanting to back up and have more studies done. What we really need to do is just move forward. Some of these studies, when left to the private sector, they are going to recoup their money and their profits. Let them pay for these things. They are making all these profits. Why should we use taxpayer dollars to do that? So we have coal that if the bill becomes law that was passed out of Resources, it's going to make it harder to utilize the coal we have. All these different alternative energy sources are available, and we keep wanting to use money to study them. What occurs to me, when I hear there is no silver bullet, is not only do I agree that there is no silver bullet solution, but I keep feeling like, because we keep appointing studies and keep wanting to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money to study things, instead of just going ahead and producing, that the silver bullet may be in the Chamber that's pointed to our Nation's collective head here. It's time to quit studying. It's time to move forward, it's time to use money for purposes that are not those that should be done by the private sector, and then we can get back to money. Then, lo and behold, all those folks have been saying we really don't want to raise taxes even though it looks like it's going to be the largest tax increase in American history. All those who say we don't want to raise taxes, it's this $142 million here, $142 million there. Before you know it, we may even be able to lower taxes even further. So I will encourage my colleagues, let's quit studying, let's quit spending money that could be going back to taxpayers if we are not going to need it for something more pressing, quit studying, start producing and then that silver bullet won't be aimed at our head.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, this point of order did not ask for an explanation. It asked that the rules be followed, not explained.

Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. With regard to the remarks just made, Mr. Chairman, I think what is happening here from the Republican side is not an objection to funds for national security; it's the secret funds for Democratic security we're concerned about. So we've also heard discussion from the chairman of the committee about a circus. We heard the term ``circus'' numerous times, and that's what got my attention. It got me to thinking about a circus. Most of us have been to circuses. Let me tell you about a circus. A circus, it's not the most expensive circus, but it's one where you have some trained dogs, maybe they're yellow, maybe they're blue, but you have some trained dogs who get in a line and run in a circle, jump through hoops when the ringmaster tells them; they sit when the ringmaster tells them. These blue, yellow dogs, whatever color dogs, they stand on their hind legs and dance when the ringmaster tells them. They do what the ringmaster says, and it's against their instincts for their own security, it's against their instincts for their own well- being and their family's well-being, but it's all to please the ringmaster. Now, that is a circus. Now, regarding earmarks, we did have earmark reform last year, and when I heard all of the promises from the other side about there was going to be even greater earmark reform, I thought, you know, that really could be a good thing. But the old saying around Washington is that no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up, and I'm beginning to see there's something to that because all those promises about taking our earmark reform and going much further went out the window. As the minority leader said, we had earmark reform. We went directly after the airdropped earmarks so there could be no airdropped earmarks that would not be out of the shadows. Out of the shadows, we're told illegal immigrants need to be brought out of the shadows; they're out on the street marching. The only thing that seems to be in the shadows is these secret earmarks, and that is what we're about. Now, it would have been a great improvement if we could have moved further, but the truth is there were dozens of us in the Republican side last year that went to our leadership and said, we're not voting for appropriations unless you give us some earmark reform, and what we got was reform on airdrop. I wasn't leader of that, but I was sure proud to be part of it. We had Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, we had Jeff Flake leading the charge on those things, and because a few dozen, and I tell this, Mr. Chairman, through the chairman and hope that people across the aisle, whatever color dogs they may present themselves to the public to be, will understand that a few dozen people talking to their leadership that they're not voting for a bill until there's some earmark reform gets the leadership's attention. We got it on this side, and the Democrats can get it on their side once they get on their own hind legs when they're not instructed by the ringmaster. Now, there is a cloud of corruption that has been over this body. We dealt with it early on when we thought there was going to be minimum wage reform, and then we found out there was a secret exception, and then some said that it actually benefited someone or a business in the Speaker's own district, and we never heard the Speaker address that. Some said, well, there's a problem in the carbon footprint we're creating. Then we find out, well, some are saying there's an excessively large jet, and these kinds of questions arose. We find that a Democrat's indicted, and only then, even though months and months ago we see an 80-page search warrant affidavit with all kinds of information, it's only after indictment that the majority moves forward. We also know that there's an investigation ongoing, and the question has been raised is it appropriate for someone under investigation by the Justice Department to actually control the Justice Department's budget. There are all these kinds of things. We have had a chairman of a committee who had an earmark question, and then it's never been a denial that he threatened somebody that raised an issue. Did we bring that earmark into the sunlight? No. We not only didn't bring it into the sunlight, the person that tried to do that was threatened. And when he brought up the threat and the violation of ethics rules, then that was tabled.

Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that this woman is the one who had the time. She did not yield it back. It was not appropriate to go to someone else until she had yielded back her time. That is the point of order.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and was so encouraged to hear the majority leader earlier say, as I understood it, unethical conduct would be pursued no matter where, no matter who. And, of course, we just recently had an allegation by Mike Rogers regarding unethical conduct, and the majority leader moved to table that action in that pursuit. We know the majority leader to be an honorable man. I am deeply encouraged that apparently if Mr. Rogers will remake that resolution or motion, this time the majority leader would not move to table it, would not marshal forces to stop the pursuit of alleged unethical conduct, and we can get this body on track. And I am greatly gratified.