Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. There were three amendments made in order on this bill, and what I have a problem with is the process and how ridiculously partisan it was there, and there should have been more made in order here, but I do appreciate what has been made in order.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today and it goes back to the experience we had on the floor and in committee. Mr. Bishop had offered an amendment in the National Parks Subcommittee that would have improved this bill, in my opinion, because his amendment would have reduced the number of acres that are being added to this so-called park. This was not Carl Sandburg's original home. The acreage being added or sought to be added is not even available for view from the Sandburg home. It was not part of the original home. So it made sense that an amendment like this ought to have a vote and it did. When it came time for a recorded vote, the subcommittee chairman promised to hold the vote open for 15 minutes. About 8 to 9 minutes later, though, for some time the vote on the amendment was passing, once there was one more vote ``nay'' than in the affirmative, between 8 and 9 minutes later, the chairman closed the vote, even though he said he would leave it open for 15 minutes. He closed it as I walked into the door and others alerted him, and actually he never said that the vote was closed. He simply asked the clerk for a count at that point, and when it was pointed out to him that the vote had not been closed but simply a count asked for, and that I was there when he did that, he still refused to allow my vote, and my vote as reflected would have been ``aye.'' That would have tied the vote. We all know there were others on the way, though we knew not how they would vote. But I was promised that my vote would also be counted in the record but it, in fact, did not. And we went through a series of parliamentary inquiries to make sure that the chairman had every opportunity to do the right thing, and so that it was not quite as clear as it became, that there was only one reason that vote was held open, and that was to foreclose the opportunity to pass this amendment. Now, the House rules say that a record vote shall not be held open on the floor for the purpose of changing the outcome of a vote. Clearly, that's what happened here. Clearly, it would have changed the outcome of the vote, at least as I came in, to a tie with other people coming if the vote had been held open as long as the chairman said he was going to. But the promises of bipartisanship in this Chamber, as we saw it yesterday, as we saw in this subcommittee hearing, are about as hollow as some of the other things around this floor. Now, as far as the rule, it should have been open to this amendment. The amendment should have been part of the original bill, but through this procedural folly, it was not. And so I object to the rule. I rise in opposition to the rule, and I would encourage our colleagues across the aisle to remember their promises. I know it's been clear back to November and all those campaign promises leading up to November, and that's a long time, even though the Attorney General is being condemned for forgetting things further back than that. Nonetheless, we won't get into questions of hypocrisy. I just ask you to remember your promises about bipartisanship and open government, because this rule forecloses the openness that we were promised we would have, especially when it pertains to a good amendment that deserves consideration before this floor.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I didn't have planned remarks, but then again, I didn't think what we just witnessed would take place today. We had heard for 1\1/2\ years, 2 years, that if the Democratic Party got the majority in this House, we would have the most bipartisan Congress ever. We were told there would be no earmarks if the Democratic majority took control of this House. There would be all love and affection. Well, of course, we saw how procedural rules went early this year, had things crammed down our throats, no chance for amendments, no participation, no committee involvement. Then we have a threat, an unrefuted allegation of a threat over earmarks. Unbelievable. This party that was going to be so bipartisan will not even let discussion take place over whether or not a threat occurred. This House is falling down around the majority's promises.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the question, and the answer is that this is such a big-hearted bill from the majority that it will be able to provide grants to people in Federal prisons, after they are released from Federal prison, people in State prisons, people in county jails. We are going to make this program, and this is just a start. This $360 million really is just seed money to see how many we can help with that and then take off after that. This is just the beginning. But the answer is it will be for anyone who commits a serious enough offense or alleged offense to get themselves locked up wherever they get locked up in the United States.

Mr. GOHMERT. It will provide training education grants. It is open- ended enough, that is a possibility, yes.

Mr. GOHMERT. There are organizations that could apply for the grants to assist in that education, yes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, that is absolutely true. But another dimension that is added to this is the fact that it can go on beyond your incarceration. You and I both agree that when it comes to retraining and education and drug and alcohol treatment, we really do need to do a better job of that in prisons. But this goes even beyond that, and there is no end in sight. Like I said, I tried to end some of these benefits at 6 months after release. One of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle asked me what was so magic about 6 months after release from prison. I said there was nothing magic about it. I think the training and education should end when you are released, but since I am a Republican and I am in the minority, I knew that they didn't want to end it the day you got out of prison. I was hopeful they would be willing to stop spending tax dollars for criminals who had been incarcerated at least 6 months after they are released. Unfortunately, they voted that down. At this point it is open end. As you are aware, we have never continued to provide benefits to convicted felons after they get out of prison.

Mr. GOHMERT. It is not a guarantee, but it is the provision that there are grants available to provide medical care, open-ended medical care. I tried to limit it to 6 months after prison. It should be limited to the day they walk out. I tried to limit it to no plastic surgery in prison. They didn't do that. So, yes. You can continue to apply for medical care.

Mr. GOHMERT. You make a great point about this being just the start, the well over $360 million, but I love Ronald Reagan's old quote about, beginning a government program is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that we. Have and so if Reagan was right about that, just beginning a program like this means as long as there's a United States, it's probably going to have a life.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Texas, dear friend, and with regard to this bill, it is well-intentioned. They mean well, and I believe they believe the things they said. And it takes me back to the arguments in this House, on the floor of this House, back in 1935, 1936, when something called Social Security was being created. And I am informed that debate came up regarding this new creation called a Social Security number, and some were upset and they said they were very concerned that that might end up becoming a national identification number. There were people who promised and assured and said there's no way that will ever happen; the Social Security number will be only used to just number the account, it will never be an identification. We can assure you that will never be, that situation, which is kind of like somebody from the government showing up at the door and saying I'm here to help you. You just get really concerned that that's not the case. But I see our friend from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) at the mike. I would yield to Mrs. Blackburn.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my former judge friend. You brought up about our soldiers going door-to-door in Iraq looking for the three soldiers that are missing, how critical intelligence is. Now, I know the gentleman from Texas, my friend, the gentlelady from Tennessee, you both recall, though none of us were in Congress, I recall, because I was in the Army, and when President Carter started making Draconian cuts in our intelligence, and started cutting out critical areas of intelligence that would help us in the military, it hurt. Now, when you are in the military, you cannot say anything derogatory about your Commander in Chief, that is a court martialable offense. But we took up an intelligence bill, and, of course, as we know, some of the information that we have to go up and review in a classified setting, in a top secret setting, and things we learned cannot be revealed and will not be disclosed and divulged, but something that has been discussed on this floor in that intelligence bill is we cut some vital programs. We cut some vital eyes and years information that would help our military to have what they need to know where the enemy is, where they are coming from, what they are doing, those kinds of things. And to help look for global warning evidence, to look for global warming evidence. I don't know about you all, I was seeing just this week some information about the polar ice caps melting, how devastating that can be, how that can bring about the end of the world, and we have to cut CO2 emissions. But the polar ice caps I am talking about were on Mars. Now, how are our CO2 emissions on Earth, staying in our atmosphere, causing the Mars polar ice caps to melt? Gee, could it have something to do with maybe just more sunspots? In any event, that is a whole different matter. The Constitution says we are to provide for the common defense. And when you cut programs that will help with eyes and ears to our military, I don't see how you can go home feeling too good about what we have done. I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentlelady. You have made some great points. During the 1990s, though, we were assured; we heard so many times all these lies about weapons of mass destruction. And maybe it is unfortunate that it turns out that all the times President Clinton assured us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, maybe they were right, maybe President Clinton was lying all those times that he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Madeline Albright was lying all those times she said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe George Bush should not have believed all the information they provided to him about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. But, nonetheless, we are now hearing people even in some of the debates and whatnot blaming this President and saying, if we would just leave the jihadist extremists alone, they will leave us alone. And they want to blame President Bush, the current President Bush for our Americans being killed. If you are going to do that, though, you have to blame President Clinton for 9/11 because all the time, he was President. Of course, they tried the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that failed, and then they began planning for the next, and that was 9/ 11. Now, I feel like President Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but to blame him for Muslims plotting during the entire time he was President to blow up and kill thousands of Americans doesn't fit, because during his Presidency this country, nearly every time President Clinton committed troops or military assets it was to protect Muslims around the world. And yet all that time the jihadist extremists were plotting to kill thousands of Americans. So this stuff about blaming President Bush doesn't wash. You go back to 1979. I was at Fort Benning. The first jihadist attack, taking our American embassy, that is an act of war. You are attacking American property, that is an act of war. Taking hostages. We did nothing but wring our hands and beg them to let them go. That was a breakdown and that was a glitch right after we fled from Vietnam. It was not a good chapter. But the fact is, there are people that want to destroy our way of life. And we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The President did. I know, having taken that oath as a member of the United States military before, that is all taken very seriously. And there are people that want to destroy our way of life. We owe it to them to provide them the common defense. And we see things being weakened here, and it breaks my heart. The American people, any time you see a program cut, whether it is under President Carter, President Clinton, or now under the Democratic majority cutting some intelligence program, and then you find out that it goes to some pork barrel earmark to somebody in the majority, it just breaks your heart, I can tell you, having been in the military when those things happen. And so it is heartbreaking to see the way it looks like we are going to head down that path with this Democratic majority. I would yield to my friend from Texas for further comment.

Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding back. It is a good note to finish on because people are paying too much for gasoline. And I go back to something I said in, January a few months ago, after the Democratic majority rammed another bill through that was going to cut the incentives for drilling, for refineries, some of the things that we have done in the last couple of years that we were here. And I came to the well and I said then, and I will finish with this: If you are going to do things that make gasoline go up, at least have pride enough when the price goes up to come to the floor and say, ``You bet you we are the Democratic majority, and we drove up the price of gas and we are proud of it.''

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such an honor to be part of this body when you know the sacrifices that have been made by so many just to allow us to be here at this time in history. There is a defense bill that we will be talking about some in the next 60 minutes, but in leading up to that, I wanted to address a bill that was on the suspension calendar earlier this week and was pulled from the suspension calendar, and I have been told it probably will be coming up very soon. Like so many things that have been done in this body that has unintended consequences, the Second Chance Act is very well intentioned. As a former judge, I know well that we have got to do a better job of rehabilitating, of educating, with drug treatment and alcohol treatment for those that are incarcerated in our prisons. There is just no question that we should do a better job with those things. Unfortunately, this well-meaning bill, the Second Chance Act, goes so far beyond what is helpful. This bill will provide more benefits to felons than are available to those risking their lives in the service of our United States military. For example, this bill apparently will provide over $360 million. I say apparently will provide over that amount, because one provision says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' There is no way to know how much money that may be. But, in any event, this bill, for example, seems to leave medical care potentially unending after confinement. I realize as a Republican I was in the minority in our Judiciary Committee hearing, so I attempted to limit the medical care to 6 months after a criminal was released from prison for the extent of the medical care. That was voted down by the majority, who believed that we should leave it open-ended. I was in the United States Army for 4 years, and I can tell you that unless you retire with over 20 years of active military service or you are disabled as a result of your military service, you have no medical care waiting for you at the end of your service. That means if a military member who serves less than 20 years wants a chance at free medical, he will need to commit a serious enough crime to get him locked up. When a military member is sent to serve on one of the many unaccompanied tours of duty, his family suffers greatly, particularly if this is a Reservist or a National Guard member. However, under this Second Chance Act, which is really more of an ``Infinite Chance Act,'' we will provide taxpayer dollars to help with transportation for an inmate's family to get to and from the prison. Grant dollars are there for that. If you are in the military on an unaccompanied tour and you would like to have your children nearby, you are out of luck. However, if you are a confined felon, under this bill there will be tax dollars in the way of grants to pay for nurseries or preschools at the prison so you can have your children close to you. If you are a U.S. servicemember away from home and long to provide your family or your children the technology to ease the distance between you and to ease the loneliness, you either must reach into your small amount of pay, or you could commit a felony and get locked up because there are millions of dollars in this Second Chance bill for grants for technology or tapes or DVD or players, even cell phones, things that help bridge the distance. A criminal may have broken into your home and stolen or destroyed your property, but under the Second Chance Act, we are going to take some more of your tax dollars to help provide criminals or their families with this type of technology. Law enforcement in this country get paid very little compared to the protection they afford us, and they do not get the government to buy such things for their families, but the criminals they lock up under this Democratic majority bill will have this as a bonus. If you are in the military and you want plastic surgery to make you look better, normally you are out of luck for elective surgery. But when I tried to limit this legislation in the Judiciary Committee to prevent tax dollars from being spent for things like rhinoplasty, a nose job, liposuction, breast augmentation, even that amendment was voted down by the majority. Now, if you are a law-abiding citizen and you do not like your field of employment, you have to scrape together enough money to also go to school or be retrained in order to find another job. Not so under this bill if you commit a heinous crime. If you go to prison, there is grant money in this bill, not merely to train you in prison; but after you get out, there is grant money. We can retrain you every time you want to change jobs. We can pay grant money to agencies to find you new jobs. This is a well-intentioned bill, just as the legislation in the 1960s that decided to do something to help mothers, single mothers, unwed mothers who were having children and having to deal with deadbeat fathers. So back in the 1960s, the decision was made, best intentioned, we want to help these single moms so we are going to start as a Federal Government paying for every child you can have out of wedlock. It was well-intentioned, but 40 years later we have gotten exactly what we have paid for. As a broken-hearted judge, I had to sentence women who said they were encouraged to have a baby in order to start getting a government check. So they dropped out of school, had a baby, and then tried to live off the relatively small income they were paid from the government to have babies out of wedlock. And they told me that started their decline into desperation that ultimately led them to my courtroom, either for welfare fraud when they got so desperate they realized they needed to get a job but they couldn't give up their child support from the government, so they didn't report it and then they came to me for welfare fraud. Or some others would realize in desperation they couldn't live on the small amount that the government paid them to have children out of wedlock, so they got into the terrible drug trade and that brought them to my court. I came to Congress deeply desiring to avoid creating benefits for doing something that hurts you. Yet here we are again taking this same kind of well-meaning perilous road. The bill is well-intended, but when Congress creates more benefits for creating serious crimes than for risking life and limb in the United States military, guess which one you will have more of 40 years from now? There are a number of groups who support the Second Chance Act. They have big hearts. They mean well. They want to help criminals turn their lives around; but they don't realize the full parameters of this bill. So we are going to talk a bit tonight about the military, but I wanted to start off and touch on this since it is a bill that provides more benefits for those who commit serious enough crimes to be locked up than we are currently providing for our United States servicemembers in a number of areas, and so I think it needs a second look. I am hopeful that we will be able to do that. I don't know when it comes up if we will be able to make amendments. I certainly hope that the procedures that have been followed so far this year that make this the most partisan Congress in history, there was a rule that was attempted to be changed today that has not been changed since 1822. That would have made it an even more partisan Congress since 1822. So I am glad after a procedural stand taken by the minority that we were able to get that worked out at least for the next couple of weeks and we will be able to have some limited participation. I hope we will be able to have participation in this bill. I see that my colleague and dear friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is here, another former judge, a recovering judge as he likes to say, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is also here. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do applaud the chairman and the ranking member for the work on this bill. Madam Speaker, having started out as an assistant district attorney, and then my years as a judge, I constantly saw how difficult it was in our Smith County District Attorney's Office to hire good lawyers, even to hire any lawyers. Thank you for your efforts on this behalf. I think it's a great bill and the right way to do things, providing incentives to do good things. I appreciate it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take a 1-hour special order tonight for the Republicans.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this bill starts off with a preamble that makes it faulty to begin with. There are all kinds of recitations in the beginning, factual, so- called findings that were not supported and are not supported by any evidence. That is a major problem here. First of all, people want to talk about how desperately this is needed to stop hate-based crimes. However, there are laws that protect every man, woman, and child from violent acts. In fact, I have heard my colleague across the aisle reference that the Matthew Shepard case shows how desperately we need hate crime legislation. Those perpetrators that did that horrible act both got life sentences under regular murder laws. This was not necessary. People in committee threw up the Byrd case, a horrible tragedy where a man was dragged to his death simply because he was African American. Those two main perpetrators got the death penalty, and no hate crime that has been passed would address that. Now, these statistics, if you really want to look at the facts before we pass bad legislation that is not justified by the facts, and I do take issue with the preamble's fact findings. There is no evidence to support them. But let's look. Since 1995, the FBI statistics show that we have gone from 9,500 to 12,400 agencies reporting, more of the country is being covered, and yet a steady decline has gone from right at 8,000 to 7,100 incidents. Offenses have gone down near well a thousand, to 8,300. Victims have gone down 1,600. Offenders have gone down 1,600. The laws are working. What this is trying to do is protect a class from any ill speech, anything that's derogatory. Now, friends across the aisle say no, no, no. We put that in the bill. We've got an amendment that protects that. But if you go to the law in this bill, it says that, yeah, religious or protected speech would not be used at trial, unless it pertains or is relevant to the offense. And as anybody that's prosecuted someone as a principal, not a conspiracy, but a principal, a principal under Federal law, it says whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures a crime's commission is punishable as if he committed the crime. And this is where this is going; ministers reading from the Bible, rabbis reading from the Torah, imams reading from the Koran who say sexual activity outside of marriage of a man and a woman is wrong, if they have somebody from their flock, some nut go out and commit a crime of violence and, by the way, this is not a restricted crime of violence. It could be violence against property. It can be a touching to be bodily injury. We've lowered the standard in this bill.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical piece of legislation, not from the good that it will do, but from the chilling and even killing effect it will have down the road on free speech. Now, I know that there are people that have said that this is an overreaction, much like people said in 1935 and 1936 that those nuts here on the floor that were concerned Social Security numbers, once created, might be used as identification numbers, and they were promised and assured that it would not happen. But some folks here could see down the road where it was going. Now, the rule on this is so grossly unfair. If you really want to deal with hate crimes, what about the hate crimes for the elderly? We've seen that recently. They're not part of this. No, that wasn't part of the agenda. You can have a 100-year-old woman beat up by some mean thug, but that doesn't count; we're not going to prosecute. She doesn't deserve protected status. Frankly, I had a hard time believing we were taking up this law immediately after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. We even had a Holocaust survivor that was randomly shot. I had an amendment proposed that was struck in committee, and the rule being proposed is a closed rule, no amendments, but that would address random violence. Because what we see is a Federal offense where a defense will be, you know what, I didn't hate these people, I just randomly chose someone. It's a senseless act of violence. That will be a defense to an important element of this new created Federal offense. Another thing we keep hearing people say is, and I had an amendment to address this, is being shut out. We should have had a right to vote on this. People say, well, no, you are specifically protected under the rule of evidence provision in this law. We even had Mr. Davis' amendment that further said religious speech is protected. But what they don't point to is what I'm pointing to, under that it says, ``It may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.'' Well, when you tie that with current existing Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2(a), the law of principals, which is a good law, most States have it, the Federal Code has it, it says, Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures a crime's commission is punishable, just as the principal. And for those of us who have been judges or prosecutors and have prosecuted or seen prosecuted people as a principal who didn't commit the offense, but they induced it, then you know every statement, things that you said to induce, could be introduced. That's where they go after ministers. I think a large part of this is the fact that many people do not understand a Christian heart because they just don't like people that disagree with them. Whereas the Christian, the true Christian heart can disagree with people and love them, love them deeply and be willing to give their lives for them. This is an unfair law, the way the rule is being put to it. We are not going to protect religious speech because you can go after a minister, and this came up in committee, you can go after a minister who says, gee, relations outside of a marriage with a man and a woman is wrong. Someone goes out after hearing that, shoots somebody, and then he says, well, the preacher told me it was wrong, that's what induced me to do that, the sermons, the Bible teachings, whatnot, that the preacher used that this person may have heard are all relevant on whether or not he was a principal and can go to prison for the actual shooting. And it also provides that nothing changes the rule of impeachment. So if he says, well, no, I never advocate violence, well, here comes everything he has ever said, his hard drives, his files, and we had an amendment to deal with that, and we were not allowed to use it. This is not a good law. These things are already protected. We ought to have an open rule to fix it.

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will take up legislation that is referred to as hate crime legislation. On its face that sounds pretty innocuous, something we should all agree on. We are against hate. Those of us who believe in the Bible would say that is not something that anyone should engage in. Hate. But the fact is there are laws across America that deal with crimes. What hate crime legislation does is carve out essential exemptions, special punishments for people who commit offenses. In the past, hate crimes have been limited to felonies that involve serious bodily injury, that kind of thing, in most areas. But here for the first time, we are not going to enhance punishment, we are not going to just only spend money of Federal dollars to help other jurisdictions enforce their hate crime legislation. Now we created a special Federal crime that will allow the full weight of the Federal Government to go after those who, according to the law we will vote on tomorrow, in any circumstance, basically, willfully causes bodily injury to any person. Now, most hate crime laws refer to serious bodily injury, but not in this legislation. We refer to bodily injury. We have lowered the bar dramatically. There are some jurisdictions that would say bodily injury can be temporary, no matter how temporary. It can be a touching, a pushing. So, in other words, if someone opposed to your position that, perhaps, was having gender identity issues, like a transvestite, got between you and your office, and there were numbers of them, and you tried to get through to your office, then, as has happened in other places, he may be inclined now to go to the Federal Government, file a criminal complaint for which you could be arrested, and that would be bodily injury sufficient to rise to that level. Now, some have said, in our committee, that this does not affect any speech, this is only actions. But the trouble is existing Federal law, under 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, and I have taken an excerpt from it, says: ``Whoever aids . . . abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures'' a crime's commission is punishable as if they had committed the crime itself. That's referred to in most jurisdictions as the law of principals. It's not a conspiracy law, it's a law of principals. Therefore, as I ask about a hypothetical in committee, if a minister were to preach from the Bible or simply read from the Bible, or a rabbi were to read from the Torah or teach from it, or an imam was to read from the Koran, indicating that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of the marriage of a man and a woman; if someone heard that and went out and committed an offense causing bodily injury, shooting someone, and then when they were questioned, they said, well, my minister, rabbi or imam said this was wrong, and this is what induced me to do this, well, under existing Federal law, when coupled with the law the majority wants to pass tomorrow, that minister could be charged under the law as a principal, as having shot the victim. That would mean that any sermons, any Bible teachings, any Koran or any Torah teachings that were perhaps on file at the home, in the office, on the hard drive, would then be admissible, because that is evidence that this individual taught and preached how wrong this was, which induced the individual to commit the crime. Now, others say that's ridiculous, and it reminds me a great deal of the debate in this House in 1935, 1936, on Social Security, when some stood here and said, we don't want Social Security numbers because those will one day be utilized as identification numbers. That was roundly guffawed, this is ridiculous. This is simply a number on a Social Security account. It could never be identification. That's ridiculous. Others say, look, we have a provision in here that says first amendment speech.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over again once again in this debate about all the lies that got us into this war. Let's go back to the lies that got us in this war. And I was really gratified to hear my friend across the aisle, from Ohio, a moment ago refer to a quote from the Bible. In that same book, it constantly talks about forgiveness. Yes, we heard the administration talk about weapons of mass destruction over and over again, the Secretary of State, but it is high time we moved on. It is time to forgive President Clinton for all those lies. It is time to forgive Madeline Albright for all those lies. It is time to forgive President Bush for being so dadgum gullible that he believed all the stuff that was passed on to him. So let's forgive them and move on. Now to fulfill, Mr. Speaker, a commitment that I had at the funeral of Travis Buford from Douglas in my district: He died February 22 in Iraq, an IED, and among the tears, as we stood there, it was an open casket, and I asked his mother if there was anything I could do. She said, just tell the Congress to shut up and let the military finish their job. I've done what I said I would.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I need to respond to my friend from the District of Columbia with regard to have I talked to the State of Maryland. All I can do is what we can do here, what we can do constitutionally. And I am shocked at the inference that Maryland thinks so little of the people of the District of Columbia that they wouldn't want them, but that is their call. This is something we can do constitutionally. And to my other good friend from Texas, who mentioned there is another provision, it is article I, section 8. And there is nothing in here that gives us the power to change the Constitution to revoke this word ``States.'' And if you give it that broad, sweeping definition that my friends across the aisle are trying to do, then what will end up happening is, you want to help the fighting people that have given their lives for us and others who continue fighting? This says we can give them their own representative. We can give the Pentagon a representative. We can give every fort and post and base in America their own representative. Let's don't go that broad.