Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the chairman for the Judiciary Committee will be closing. Is that correct?

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion on this amendment, it is an amendment for 10 years from now. I did not realize originally, as did many others, that this was extending actually 20, the bill before us extending 26 years from this summer. But let me reinforce my point earlier, and Mr. Lungren's point earlier about the dangers of having this go too long. This was testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from Professor Richard Hasen. He is with Loyola Law School. I don't know the gentleman personally. But they are in Los Angeles, California. I understand he is probably not a conservative Republican. But his position before the Senate Judiciary Committee was: ``Congress should impose a shorter term limit, perhaps 7-10 years,'' he said, ``for extension. The bill includes a 25-year extension and the Court may believe,'' talking about the Supreme Court, ``it is beyond congruent and proportional to require, for example, the State of South Carolina to preclear every voting change no matter how minor through 2031.'' He was thinking it was 25 instead of 26. But in any event, it brings the point home, if you really want this to all survive constitutional muster, if you really want it to stay and continue to help, then why does it not make sense to continue to monitor it? I know there are so many games that get played around this floor, but I am telling you and I am giving you my word as I stand before this body, I will work with anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this body, when there is proof of racial discrimination to help work to make this act stronger and better to stamp that out. You run the risk of creating an unconstitutional act and undoing so much of what has already been done. We have heard the argument, gee, it takes too long to reauthorize. I applaud my friend, Mr. Chabot, who has done such great work, heard from all of the witnesses. As he has indicated, he has taken months of testimony. But I would humbly point out that it has actually taken a year less to get this thing to the floor to reauthorize than apparently was anticipated, because here we are a year before the bill was actually going to expire renewing it for 26 more years from now. So I am not trying to play games. We are better continuing to monitor this. This is too important to put it off and not relook at it constantly. But folks, you know, Mr. Chairman, you know if it is not coming up for reauthorization, it is hard to get anything done to fix something that is broken. Besides that, the Supreme Court may fix it for us as ruling it more punitive than remedial. With that I would encourage the Members of the House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to please let's vote to extend this for 10 years from now and not for 26 years from now. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's bringing up the period of extension that my amendment provides. It is exactly 10 years from now, 2016. That is what the amendment has said all along, 2016; and it does raise a very interesting point. What I think most people do not realize is that the bill on the floor today does not actually reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for 25 years from now. It actually reauthorizes the bill for 26 years from now. So that should be understood by others. And I would only submit that since evidence now exists that there is even a jurisdiction in Wisconsin, California, New Mexico, a number of places that are not currently covered, you bring this back up 10 years from right now and a 10-year additional history may very well be plenty of history to assuage the concerns about historical discrimination. If areas continue to have the discrimination that are not currently covered and it continues for 10 years, then that should be enough to effectively convince people on both sides of the aisle that the Voting Rights Act needs to be extended and it needs to be expanded so it truly is remedial and not just punitive. Mr. Chairman, there are others who wish to speak, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the question came up previously from a colleague about did Iraq intend to give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers, and I want to clarify that. The National Security Adviser said just earlier regarding alleged comments from the Prime Minister that supposedly amnesty would be given to some who have killed Americans. He said, ``This is not the case. I am sorry to say the Prime Minister of Iraq has been misquoted and misunderstood. He did not mean to give amnesty to those who killed Americans.'' So that should clarify that. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are those who have said it is a quagmire in Iraq. It is a mistake for us to be there. Some made these statements from personal heartache. Some, on the other hand, were made from partisan political motivation, and some from disdain for our President and a desire to see his efforts fail, even though it risks world stability and national security. But our soldiers are there. They know they have done great things and will continue to accomplish more. They have seen the admiring faces of Iraqi children that were never present in Vietnam. They have heard gratitude from many there in Iraq that was never heard in Vietnam. Our valiant soldiers not only fight, protect and defend, they also see the frantic efforts of terrorists who are terrified that democracy and the people will begin to rule over them and their oppressive dictatorial ways. They keep many terrorists occupied there rather than here in America. Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we get to ask a question that I didn't get to ask as a judge. It was inappropriate because of the separation of powers. And that is, who will be hurt or helped by the actions and, in my case as a judge, by the ruling? Well, here in this debate as legislators we get to ask that question. Who will be hurt by pulling out? Those yearning for freedom who have it within their grasp will be hurt. And ultimately America will be hurt because of terrorist activities that would resume and multiply unabated in Iraq, and bin Laden would have been proven right, that we didn't have the stomach to go all the way to victory. Who would be helped by our pulling out? Well, there are some families that would not endure the heartache from losing or having a wounded soldier in their family. But the price in lost lives might be far more expensive in the future. Who would really be helped would be ruthless, heartless, finger detaching, hand removing, throat slashing, decapitating, women raping and abusing, child misusing, corpse abusing, merciless, calloused, deranged, religious zealot, murderers who think they are going to get virgins in the next life, but may find they are the virgins with what happens to them. Let me just close by saying, some have not had nice things to say about our colleague, Mr. Murtha, and others wanting to pull out of Iraq quickly. But I understand the faithful visitation that he does routinely. So I say thank God for his big heart. I say thank God for his compassion. Thank God for his visits to the wounded. Thank God for his ministering to grieving families. But thank God he was not here and prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific, or we would be here speaking Japanese or German.

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield? You want to know which locations?

Mr. GOHMERT. Normandy was a horrible bloodbath.

Mr. GOHMERT. I have been over there. I haven't been fighting.

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, no, I wasn't.

Mr. GOHMERT. No, sir, I wasn't.

Mr. GOHMERT. And I do admire the gentleman's compassion, and I do appreciate all that he has done for our wounded. He has done a great service, and that would be you, Mr. Murtha. Thank you for your work.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming my time, you brought up the point about an arbitrary date earlier tonight and then again just now, and for illustration purposes I can't help but think about World War II. And here you had Hitler basically hunkered down trying to withstand the onslaught as Patton and the 3rd Army and Montgomery moved forward. What if Congress had demanded a date at that time or before then and said if we do not win by, say, December 1 of 1945, it is hard to imagine but you know good and well Hitler would never have killed himself. He would have been in a bunker saying if we can just hold out, if I can stay on the run and stay alive until December 1, I win and I will be alive and can carry on some other day and continue with basically guerrilla tactics. As the gentleman from Connecticut has said, no war has ever been won by setting an arbitrary date beyond which we were not willing to fight. Once the enemy knows that there is a date and that is all they have to get by, then it is just a matter of their surviving until that date and then they win.

Mr. GOHMERT. Of course, being a history major at Texas A&M, I also am a great fan of history and do believe the adage those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. And then, of course, the follow-up to that is those who do learn from history will find new ways to mess up. But going back to the Revolutionary War, the gentleman from Connecticut gives a great example. As history indicates, and McCullough did a great job of documenting this in his book 1776, before the victory December 24, 1776, where Washington crossed the Delaware, there was not much to really crow about. And as the gentleman well knows, that retreat from over to Manhattan with the superior British forces there could have been a disaster and would have been if the wind had been blowing the other way. But I think it was providential that fog came in and covered their retreat. But I believe it was on December 27, not only did the Congress not set an arbitrary date by which he had to win, they were so committed to victory, they passed a resolution that basically gave Washington whatever power he needed, whatever authority to spend money he needed to get the job done, to get the troops reassigned so that they could fight until they won the war. That is how committed they were. And in the cover letter, as I recall, and this is a testimonial to Washington's being the man for the time, it went along the lines of basically we submit a copy of the resolution and knowing that neither man nor his liberty will be in jeopardy with your having all this power, and then when it is no longer necessary, you will return it back, as well he did. But what a contrast to the discussion today to say, you know what, let us set an arbitrary date over here and then just pull out after that. We would not have had a successful conclusion to the American Revolution. I would like to address something here. This is taken off-line from USA Today. And it says ``Text of a Document Discovered in Zarqawi's Safe House,'' and then it has updated June 15, 2006, 2:31 am, the Associated Press. And it says ``Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi's hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National security adviser Mouwafak al Rubaie. And this is supposedly from these guys, that it was discovered in a safe house. And it documents exactly the things that so many on the other side and a few on our side have been saying is not the case. Our own enemies have documented what Mr. Scott will be glad to know are good results that have been occurring. And it goes on to say, and these are the terrorists writing this: ``As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries due to the losses they sustain economically and human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance.'' The terrorists call themselves resisters. ``For the following reasons: Number one, ``By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.'' The resistance being the terrorists, which is just what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) was saying earlier. We have been there. They are training them. Some opponents are saying we have not been able to train people, that they cannot protect themselves. Well, the terrorists are saying in this document that our forces have been able to form them and train them and reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations.

Mr. GOHMERT. This would be al Qaeda that is saying this. They realize that they are in a crisis, they are big trouble, and that we are prevailing and that the situation looks bleak. We believe the United States will prevail in the global war on terror and the noble struggle to protect freedom from terrorist adversaries will be all worthwhile.

Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly will yield.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the remainder of the time being there is no one here.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time here tonight. There has been so much discussion today about the resolution on which we will vote tomorrow that we wanted to address that. And I have a friend with whom I went to Iraq in April, Congressman Shays from Connecticut, who will also be assisting in this hour. I would just like to clarify for those who are interested what this resolution involves. Because the time is short remaining, I won't read all of the whereases, but I will go straight to what is normally referred to as wherefores. Resolved that the House of Representatives honors all of those Americans who have taken an active part in the global war on terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles. Honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and our partners in the coalition and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and others who risk their lives to help defend freedom. Number 3, declares that it is not in the national security interests of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq. Number 4, declares that the United States is committed to the completion the mission to create a sovereign, free secure and United Iraq. Five, congratulates Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new Constitution. Number 6, calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom. And 7, declares that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. And I think that last point, Mr. Speaker, is the one on which there is so much dissension from the other side and there are a few Members on our side that are concerned, but it declares, we actually believe, and a positive vote tomorrow will indicate, we believe we are going to prevail in the global war on terror. And the truth of the matter is we don't have a choice. It is either prevail on the global war on terror, or be prepared to give up so many freedoms that I do not want to see this Nation give up. Far too many people have given their lives to get us what we have. Now, one note I would like to address that has been brought up time and time again, well, the President lied to us about WMDs. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Well, we know there were at one time. But to hear it said over and over, and hear again today, during the day today, over and over, well, the President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. The President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. His administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. And I think the jury is still out. We are finding documents that apparently refer to things that were taken to Syria. There may be things that turn up that we haven't yet found. But let's say, for argument purposes, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. You know, being a Christian is part of who I am. We have been taught to forgive. I think it is high time, if the President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, then let's forgive President Clinton for all those lies. Let's forgive his administration, people like Madeleine Albright that lied, and let's move on. Let's put that behind us and just get on down the road. And I would like to say, I do appreciate the visitation that Congressman Murtha makes to those who have been injured and harmed and to the grieving families. He is very devoted in his visitation. And it obviously, as I have talked to him, it obviously affects him, as it would any of us that see people suffer. There in East Texas, in my district, we had a Private First Class Steven Wright who is 19 years old. Was killed, he was from Kilgore, Texas. And, you know, some us, this was before I got elected to Congress. But having spent 4 years in the Army, I have been to funerals enough, back in the days when people didn't come to service members' funerals. And they present the flag to the deceased family and say, on behalf of a grateful Nation and they would look around, go where is the grateful Nation. There is nobody here. Just a few friends. Where is the grateful Nation? And so out of concern that there might not be many show up to that young man's funeral, this hero, Steven Wright from Kilgore, many of us showed up from around east Texas that have been in the service before. And I am telling you, that little rural church was a few miles from the cemetery there on Highway 31. And I ended up at the back, and I checked the mileage. There were cars creeping along three solid miles to have their opportunity at the cemetery to pay tribute to that young man and his family. And I saw them again Memorial Day, his family. They know what the price is. They are not ready for us to cut and run. They know that to do that would diminish the value of what Private Wyatt fought and died for. We had a Marine that I visited 2 or 3 weeks ago from Marshall, Tony Flynn. He took a mortar round in the chest. And I think through the prayers and the grace of God, he is doing well. And his mom was there with him. He is doing well. I tell you, there have been so many sacrifices. How tragic if we were to cut and run and leave all that has been done. So close. I mean, democracy is right there within their grasp. And when I was with Congressman Shays and Congressman Marshall over there, we had a meeting, the leader of the Kurdish party, Shiia party, Sunni party, and in talking with them, one of the things I mentioned to them was that it is within their grasp. Just get the Prime Minister appointed. Get the cabinet appointed; that they can let this opportunity pass them by and they will be forgotten, or they can grasp it and they would be the George Washingtons and the John Adams and the Patrick Henrys of this next, well, of the next generations to come, as well as in the Middle East itself. I couldn't help but note, my good friend Mr. Scott said there is no good result that can occur from what we are doing there. Well, I have got good news. There have already been good results. You took a country that had never experienced democracy, never knew democracy, and yet in 2005, that first election, there were fliers all over the country, little fliers, had two sentences in their language that simply said, you vote, you die. Despite those all over the countryside, people turned out in millions to vote. They did it again for a constitution, and they came out in even greater numbers, and the Sunnis participated in the election in December. I am so proud of the courage of those people. And I would like, at this time, to yield to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). As far I know, I don't believe there is any other Member of Congress that has been more times to Iraq to ensure that we are doing the right thing, that our money is being spent appropriately, that we are giving our troops the things they deserve because of his heartfelt desire, and he is a big hearted man. But his heartfelt desire to make sure that our people are protected, our guys in harm's way are getting what they need and we are doing the right thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing from my good friend, Mr. Shays from Connecticut, on this subject at this time. I yield to Mr. Shays.

Mr. GOHMERT. Those are important words from our former President Clinton, who had said himself numerous times that they did have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam did, and I am glad to hear that he is recognizing that an arbitrary withdrawal would be devastating. There are numerous other things here in this document. If I could just touch on a couple very briefly as our time comes to a conclusion. He goes through about how the picture is bleak, and he goes on to say: ``Based on the above points,'' and there were seven of them, ``it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one.'' And he has a strategy. The strategy is to use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance, or otherwise the terrorists. Another point was to create division and strife between America and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it. And then after seven more points, he says: ``In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis,'' he calls it a crisis, ``is to entangle the American forces into another war . . . ''

Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming the time, it is such a great point. He was killed. I will tell you, I do not know if the gentleman has been hearing some of the ridiculous reports. One thing we have seen from this administration is they cannot keep secrets too well. The President went to Iraq without but a handful of people knowing. But if they try to keep a secret very long, somebody leaks from all over the place. And so there were some reports, and I couldn't help but shake my head, that said, We think they had Zarqawi on ice in a freezer somewhere and they just brought him out. And some have said he was beaten to death, that a bomb did not do that. Do you want to know how absurd that is? Can you imagine this administration having Zarqawi in a freezer somewhere for weeks and somebody not leaking that? I am sorry. That could not happen. That would have been leaked by somebody that they have got Zarqawi on ice.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to take issue with some of the comments by Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary General of the U.N. Mr. Brown recently stated in a speech that there was ``too much unchecked U.N. bashing and stereotyping.'' Well, at first I was a little offended by that, and then I got to realizing we haven't been doing enough bashing of the U.N. You look at what is going on. We have had some problems with criminality in this body. Those are being addressed. As bad as they are, that criminality shows rank amateurism compared to what is going on in the U.N. We have got families in the U.N. profiting from their other family member's positions. We have got some of the worst violators of human rights in charge of overseeing human rights violations. We even had Libya as chairman of that group back in 2003. Six of the worst, of the worst as designated last year, are on the human rights committee now. We have got problems with their diplomatic immunity, we have got people where they turn around and try to take credit for things like polio eradication that Rotary International did, when they cannot find anything else to take credit for. Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying this, it is time we did some more bashing of the U.N.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with a heavy heart. A constituent of mine, Smith County Constable Dale Geddie, was shot to death in Smith County and Deputy Daniel Leon was injured Wednesday morning as they responded to a domestic disturbance dispute call just outside Tyler, Texas. Tyler deputies called for backup that morning, and Dale responded the same way he had his whole life, by getting to the scene as quickly as possible, without regard for his personal safety or what might be waiting for him at the scene. Having known Constable Geddie well and understanding what a crucial role he played in his community, it is understandable, Mr. Speaker, that the community, the county, the State and so many around the country, including law enforcement, have extended condolences to his family during this tragic time. It is, indeed, a sad day for East Texas and the United States. Born in 1960, the son of a Smith County sheriff's deputy, Dale Geddie attended Rice Elementary School and Whitehouse Elementary School before his parents bought a ranch in Winona. Constable Geddie graduated from Winona High School in 1979 and began his law enforcement career as a jailer with the Smith County sheriff's office on August 23, 1985. To further expand his expertise and intellect in the law enforcement arena, our fine constable attended the East Texas Police Academy at Kilgore College in 1986 and graduated at the top of his class. Following graduation from the academy, Dale transferred to the criminal investigation division as a deputy investigator, and during his time as a detective, Dale also served for a time as an undercover narcotics officer. Our friend Dale left the sheriff's department in 1996, and he spent some time as a freight driver and even as a farrier before opening Lovelady-Geddie Private Investigators and Polygraph Service. Dale signed up to be a reserve deputy for the Smith County Sheriff's Department in July of 2004 as he was gearing up for his first political race. Many in the community encouraged Dale to run for constable, which he won, garnering around 58 percent of the vote. Constable Dale Geddie's personal life, as well as his professional life, was shaped by his integrity. Many friends who knew him best cited his deep faith and his commitment to his family. Whether for family, friends, community or Nation, Dale truly did strive to serve and to protect. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me read a short quote that Mr. Geddie's neighbor, Justice Sam Griffith, gave when hearing of the constable's death: ``When I heard he had been killed, I immediately thought of the scripture, `Well done, good and faithful servant,' '' Justice Griffith said. Mr. Speaker, God be with the Geddie family, his loved ones, as well as the Daniel Leon family and Daniel Leon as well.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this week, America, Texas and East Texas mourn the loss of Federal District Court Judge William Merritt Steger. As former law clerk and good friend Andy Tindel said, ``Judge Steger was one of the finest, fairest, most honest man I have ever had the privilege of practicing law before.'' While Bill Steger was studying prelaw, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. And within 24 hours the 21-year-old had withdrawn from Baylor University and volunteered for service. The Dallas native has always wanted the opportunity to become a pilot, and with the Nation entering World War II, he took a chance. On November 9, 1942, he got his wings. Then after training he was sent to Casablanca and flew 56 combat missions for which he received an air medal and four oak leaf clusters. While later training other pilots, Captain Steger also tested the first U.S. jet airplanes. Once his Nation was secure, Bill Steger went back to school and received his law degree from Southern Methodist University, that is, their law school. He married his wife, Ann Hollandsworth Steger, on Valentine's Day in 1948. They had one child, the late Merritt Reed Steger, who was one of my younger brother David's closest friends. Judge Steger entered and engaged in private practice in Longview and Tyler and headed up numerous east Texas campaign clubs for Dwight D. Eisenhower for President. After the election, President Eisenhower appointed Judge Steger in 1953 to the position of U.S. attorney for East Texas at the young age of 32. In 1960, he and a good friend debated which one should run for governor and which one should run for senator. Their goal was to bring the Republican party into popularity in the State of Texas. Because Texas was conservative, it seemed to Judge Steger that it would be a good fit, but he was blazing a trail. He ended up being the one to run for governor against a very popular John Connally, and Judge Steger's good friend John Tower ran for senator. The Republican party had never before then received enough votes to hold a primary, and though Judge Steger knew he would not win the race, he hoped he would get the requisite 200,000 votes so the Republican party could hold a primary in the next election. Judge Steger actually received more than 600,000 votes. In 1962, Judge Steger was persuaded to run for Congress and received 49 percent of the vote, lacking only 1,300 votes to beat his Democratic opponent who was the incumbent. Bill Steger became a Federal district judge for the Eastern District of Texas in December of 1970 after President Richard Nixon nominated him. He truly loved being a jurist, and he was a hardworking, dedicated, cerebral, no-nonsense, constitutional constructionist judge whose discerning intellect could always cut straight to the heart of any issue. In 1987, Judge Steger assumed senior active status duty, but since then still continued to handle a full docket. December 1, 2005, marked 35 years on the Federal bench for Judge Steger, and since his appointment in 1970, he had handled more than 15,000 cases. Judge Steger received the Justinian Award May 7, 2004, at the annual Tyler Law Day luncheon for his community service, legal ethics and professionalism. He was a Baptist, a charter member and a deacon of Green Acres Baptist Church, helping to nurse it through its early days of going from nonexistent to its current 12,000 members. He was a confidant for me, a friend and a wise sounding board. He and Ann endured the worst heartache a couple can face in the loss of their only child, Reed, in a tragic scuba diving accident, but the manner in which Judge Steger dealt with such devastation and allowed his faith, God's help, and Ann's companionship to help overcome the horrendous blow will help inspire me the rest of my life. Judge Steger was a heroic patriot; a caring father; a loving husband; an even-handed, clear-thinking, constitutionally reverent judge; a personal mentor; and a cherished friend whom I came to know through my brother 25 to 30 years ago. Always having had the courage of his convictions despite the odds against him, Judge Steger was and is a profile in courage whose memory will continue to inspire me the rest of my life. God bless the Stegers and God bless America.