Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from California for pushing this forward. The abuses of intellectual property are not only harmful economically, but they can be harmful to our physical well-being and safety, and not just here but also in the Russian Federation. When Russian companies steal products that are patented, copyrighted or trademarked, but they do not adhere to the proper safety standard such as electrical wiring, car parts and hair driers, consumers can be physically harmed. So there are really two prongs why we must urge Russia to shape up their intellectual property enforcement. First, because of the harm to our creators and artists; and, second, to the threats to safety since oftentimes the goods that infringe are substandard. Copyright piracy abroad hurts our economy here and the high-tech industry, since it is such a strong driving force behind our economy, piracy stifles its growth and productivity. Copyright holders should be protected to ensure that we continue to innovate and advance technology both at home and abroad. Local industries have been crippled when high-quality pirated versions of their products are sold abroad. This can also result in lost tax revenues and lost jobs here at home. The Russian Federation must also work to protect and enforce intellectual property rights for its own good as well. For example, if the intellectual property rights that encourage innovation and invention are not protected, incentives will be lost, the innovations and inventions will cease; therefore, the Russian Federation as well as the rest of the world will lose out on these life-enhancing innovations. Nonenforcement of intellectual property rights because of either neglect or greed will figuratively as well as literally kill the goose that is laying the life-enhancing golden eggs.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. I do appreciate the time. I appreciate all the assistance in this bill. The chairman has been wonderful in helping with this and making this a reality. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. This bill prevents, protects, and punishes. It prevents future attacks, it protects the entire courthouse family, and it punishes those who threaten the safety and security of our Nation's courthouses. The time has come to restore some sanity and security, and it is the responsibility of the government to assure our citizens have a safe courtroom. The legislation will work to prevent future attacks in our Nation's courthouses such as what happened at my former courthouse in east Texas. That tragic day in February, we lost a brave man, Mark Wilson, who stepped up to attempt to save the lives of innocent citizens at the courthouse and was killed the same day. Also, Deputy Sherman Dollison was badly injured while he attempted to protect those at the courthouse. With passage of the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act, we are taking an important step toward prevention of similar events happening again. This bill has garnered a lot of support across the country since its introduction in April, and I want to take a moment to thank some of those who have supported H.R. 1751. First of all, I thank Judge Cynthia Kent, who hails from the Rose City of Tyler, Texas. Judge Kent is a talented judge and a good friend. She testified before the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee about the tragic events that took place right outside the courtroom she presides over. She, too, knows personally about threats against her and her family. Her input and support have been extremely helpful in developing this legislation. Judge Jane Roth, former chairwoman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, also testified and was very helpful; Honorable Paul McNulty, who was then the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and also Honorable John Clark, who at that time was a U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia. I would also like to thank Judge Joan Lefkow for her testimony before the Senate supporting the court security legislation. I have spoken with her personally and again just in the last hour, and she is most gracious and also grateful for the overall bill. She had also mentioned previously when I talked with her a concern about provisions regarding writs of habeas corpus procedure. That has been pulled from the bill itself. It is not part of the overall bill today. We also know that her elderly mother and husband were tragically murdered by a disgruntled gentleman who was upset by a ruling she had made in a case. This bill requires consultation and coordination of U.S. courts between U.S. Marshals and the courts themselves. It will open the lines of communication between the marshals and the courts and, therefore, help with the prevention, protection, and penalties in this bill. Those of us who have had threats against us as judges, but particularly against our families, understand all too well the importance of this bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for shepherding this legislation as he has through his committee, through the rules and here to the floor. It is an honor to serve with him on the Judiciary Committee that he chairs, and I thank the chairman for that continued support. This legislation will protect immediate family members of federally funded public safety officers and judges at all levels. It also provides enhanced penalties where the victims are U.S. judges, Federal law enforcement officers, federally funded public safety officers, and includes now a provision to protect National Guard troops when they are acting as public safety officers. It increases the maximum punishment for crimes against victims, witnesses, jurors and informants. This bill adds a new Federal crime prohibiting recording a fictitious lien by covering officers and employees of the United States, including the Federal judiciary and its employees. It provides a 30-year mandatory minimum to life in prison, or the death penalty for killing a federally funded public safety officer. Of course, for the defendant to get the death penalty, a death must have resulted from their actions. The bill includes killing members of the National Guard, as I mentioned, and gives them added protection. There has been some mention by the gentlewoman from Texas regarding mandatory minimums, and it should be noted that we removed a number of mandatory minimums in this bill for things like simple assault and threats. So the court has that consideration. But when it comes to seriously threatening, killing, kidnapping, conspiring to do these things, there should be a mandatory minimum and there is. The folks that we attempt to protect are on the front lines. They need protection. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Rules Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). His bill was added to this, the David March provision, making a new Federal criminal offense for flight to avoid prosecution for killing a peace officer. It imposes 10 years in prison in addition to whatever the defendant receives. So it stacks it. This is not intended to usurp State authority but to assist the States where they need it and where they are unable. This valuable piece of legislation is seeking to ensure the safety and security of America's last bastion of civility, our Nation's courthouses. I urge all Members to vote yes.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there are some people that just cannot seem to get beyond these allegations about the President of the United States lying to us. Over and over we are told the President of the United States lied to us. But I am not sure that that is actually the case. There is evidence. Even Joe Wilson's initial oral report to his superiors indicated some support for that idea that Saddam was trying to get weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps, maybe the President lied to us. Maybe his wife, who reportedly said the same thing, maybe they did lie to us. Maybe it is because of my Christian background that teaches forgiveness, but I say: In order for this country to move on, it is time to forgive President Bill Clinton if it was a lie and move on.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I so much appreciate the chairman and the proponents of this bill bringing it to the floor. What brings this about is one more reason why it is critical that we do not have Supreme Court justices who read the Constitution while they are having visual hallucinations. That is what has been happening. There is no way to read this, ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,'' that is in the fifth amendment without realizing that means public use. It does not mean taking property from someone who has lived there for generations or some farmer that has been farming the land, to give it over to some developer just because he is going to give a bigger kickback to the local government. That goes back to the days of King George when he says, gee, you have been a good friend, you have paid taxes, but this guy over here has promised me a bigger kickback, so I am kicking you off your property. We had a revolution to try to stop that kind of thing. Anyway, I just want to put this question to my friends across the aisle. I know I have heard them express their concerns about constituents and the poor and those who cannot help themselves, and we ought to be helping them. Do you really want to go back to your constituents, do you really want to tell voters that you support this ridiculous Supreme Court notion that a government can take their property, not property that is a threat to the community, not that it is blighted, but take their property against their will to give it over to someone richer who is going to pay more taxes, and that is the only reason? That is not the American way. That is not what the supporters and proponents of this bill want to see happen. We are sending a loud message, that is not what the Constitution says, it is not what is intended, it is not what we fought a revolution to end; and we will not stand by and allow a ridiculous Supreme Court decision to overrule that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. ``The Supreme Court has improperly set itself up as a third house of Congress, reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there and which were never intended to be there. We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation when we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it.'' The preceding words were a quote from President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. He reformed the Court by appointing eight out of nine justices. Today, the Supreme Court must have at least one more judge who can read the Constitution without visual hallucinations. It sounds like Judge Alito is such a judge. Without five constitutionally literate justices, the Supreme Court's traditional pronouncement as it enters the courtroom should be changed to that of a confused bailiff in east Texas while flustered who once announced a judge's entrance by proclaiming: ``God save us from this honorable court.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to listen to people come up and talk and talk and demagogue that, gee, the Republicans are letting the deficit grow so big, when the people that are talking about it keep promoting one giveaway after another giveaway after another giveaway. It seems to some of us that we spend half our time trying to fight off the incredible giveaway and deficit spending of those who are accusing the Republicans of letting the deficit get too big. You bet, it is too big for me. I do not like it. I do not want to saddle my children with indebtedness, so we are working and fighting to keep some of those who are complaining across the aisle from giving away even more. So thank goodness there are some conservatives who are trying to keep the deficit down. Thank goodness we are making headway. Thank goodness the deficit is going to be $200 billion less than what was expected. We are making progress. I cannot apologize for having tax cuts that go to those who pay taxes, because to give tax cuts to those who do not pay taxes is not a tax cut, it is a giveaway, yet another giveaway. After 9/11 we should have had another 1929-type depression, it was that devastating to this country. Yet because we had a President who pushed forward with a tax cut to those who pay taxes, we ended up having a mild recession and came charging back, as we continue to do. So in closing, it just seems to me that people who are pushing for giveaway after giveaway, or runaway spending, and who then come in and complain about the deficit is a bit, it seems to me, like a herd of cattle standing around a lake complaining that the water does not taste all that fresh. For those of us who are fish that are trying to have clean water, it is just a little difficult to have people plopping stuff in the water that is just tough to swallow.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Saturday was a great day in American history. It was a great day in international history. And for those of us that do not read Time Magazine, it was a great day for democracy. The Iraqi elections came off Saturday. The results are still coming in. We do not know all that occurred. But there are great things that already can be gleaned from what happened. The Iraqis showed an extraordinary amount of courage. Whereas in America on election day we have people who say, I don't know if I can brave going down and standing in line for 5 or 10 minutes. That may be more than I can handle. Or, gee, the traffic is kind of heavy today. I don't know if I am going to go vote. I don't know, it looks like it might rain. I may catch the next election. Not in Iraq. The Iraqis had the opportunity to vote on a constitution. They had an opportunity to vote for governing themselves for the first time in the history of mankind in what many acknowledge to be the cradle of humanity, where mankind began, and they came out and voted. When I was in Iraq earlier this year, it was after the January elections, and they talked in terms of 8 by 11 flyers that were posted all over the countryside, around the voting areas, that simply said, If You Vote, You Die. Those people that voted knew they were going to have to dip their fingers into permanent blue ink that would be on their fingers for probably a couple or 3 weeks. They knew they could be targets by what they had marked on their fingers. Yet they had the courage to step forward. Some of the things people do not hear and do not read because not all magazines give you all the facts, but there were many places where Iraqi policemen stepped up to protect the voters. These were not American soldiers. These were not American police. They were Iraqis protecting Iraqis who had developed national pride in what they were trying to accomplish. I did not hear it on any of the media, I certainly did not read it in Time Magazine, but there were a couple of policemen who gave their lives in stepping forward and trying to protect voters. I was told by the Iraqis when I was over there, the voters never got out of line because they realized if they got out of line from voting and ran for cover, those guys that died protecting them while they tried to vote would have died for nothing, much like if we cut and ran from Iraq before this process is finished, then those valiant, brave people whose names we have just heard more of would have died for nothing. Thank God we have a President who is seeing this through to the end. There was an additional policeman, I was told by Iraqis, who found a suicide bomber in the voting place. He grabbed him, rushed him outside, threw him to the ground, threw himself on top of him and they were both killed in the ensuing explosion. Nobody got out of line, they told me, because they knew that would have meant that the policeman died for nothing. They stayed, they voted, and thank God they have some great days ahead. It is not easy days. It is difficult days. We have got to stay the course. Some of the headlines I did read, not in magazines necessarily but some of the periodicals said it turned out to be the most peaceful day in months, this preceding Saturday when it was voting day. Only one of Baghdad's 1,200 polling stations came under attack, another article read. The relatively small number of insurgent attacks compared with the last poll may be a sign of how Sunni involvement in politics can complicate matters for insurgent leaders whose aim is to destroy the political process. Just as evil unimpeded and unobstructed by good people will spread in an insidious way, so will good and democracy spread just like sunlight during the dawn of a new day as it touches more and more land and spreads. That process is in its infancy in the Middle East, but it is a beautiful thing to see occurring and we can thank God and thank those people who have served their country and given their lives. Here are other comments. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Sunnis are now invested in this process. There is no political base any longer for this insurgency. I was told by a former general under Saddam Hussein this past spring in Iraq that if you will just stand behind us in America until we get our constitution voted in, until we have an election under the constitution, you will see violence subside. We are very grateful for all those who have contributed.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate what an inspiring talk that was that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has provided this body and those who all may be tuned in. It was very touching, extremely informative, and most helpful; and it was a pleasure to hear. As I think about some of the comments that have been said in recent days regarding the Iraqis and the Iraqi government and those people who are trying to become a self-governing people, I am struck and I am brought back, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) was, back to the days of this country's battle for independence, and all the naysayers that were around. It is estimated that perhaps less than a third were actually those who were actively involved in seeking independence and truly believed in the cause. Having been in Iraq earlier this year, after the January elections, having seen what the Iraqis were getting a glimpse of, it is like being a teacher and seeing the light come on with a student. They get it. They understand. Make no mistake, there are corrupt people in Iraq just as there are in America. There have been elections stolen in America. There have been, I am sure, improper voters everywhere there has ever been a vote. But this is truly an awesome historic time. Could it fail in Iraq? It sure could. Could it fail for sure if we abandon what has been done in the cause for which so many have already given their lives? It sure could. It could fail. And it is heartbreaking when people say, let us just get out before the job is done and let us just get out, meaning that those people who laid down their lives in service to this country, in helping to spread freedom and fighting insurgency and terrorists in other streets so we do not have those fights here in this country, we will, we have, but the major battles have been overseas because the terrorists get it. They understand once the seed of democracy begins to bloom in the Middle East, then it grows and it spreads seeds that then grow up and democracy spreads because once people get that glimpse of self- government it is an incredible thing. Just like John Adams wrote his wife, Abigail, and explained, the thing that philosophers through the ages have talked about, this idea that people could govern themselves is just within our grasp. Oh, to be living in this time when it is so close within our grasp. Well, we have been the beneficiaries of that. As I spoke to people in Iraq one gentleman, tears began to come as he talked about how brutal and barbaric it had been in Iraq under Saddam and how because of Saddam's spies that were everywhere, neighbors could no longer trust neighbors. They could not speak what they thought without worrying about somebody turning them in. They could not make anybody mad in the neighborhood because then somebody might enter a false report to get them arrested just out of spite. Even the spies had to be careful because they were spied on by others. And so it was a paranoid area. He said neighbors for years had quit speaking to neighbors out of this kind of fear and paranoia, but it was not just paranoia. There were really people out to get them in order to move up. I know having spent a summer in the Soviet Union, it was the Soviet Union when I was there back in 1973. I had asked one of the Soviet students when somebody rushed out of a room, I said, Where is that person going? He said, She is going to tell on me because in your country maybe money helps advance you, but in my country the only way you get anywhere is to step on other people on the way up. That is the way it was in Iraq. You stepped on other people to move forward, and it was a terrible time to live in. And this man, as tears welled up, he said on the day of the election neighbors that had not spoken for years, they came out, they held hands and they walked to the polls together to vote. Now, anybody that would seek to demean the great things that have already been accomplished that has put the self-government within these people's grasp so that the seed of democracy might grow and flourish and develop and spread to the surrounding countries, is just intolerable. There are great things that have occurred. There are people who have laid down their lives so this could happen. There are people who have laid down their lives in service to this country. There are people that have been wounded and hurt. And as the speaker said, we have visited those people, we have been with families at funerals and it is heartbreaking. But there is a seed of freedom and democracy and the potential for self-government that has been granted. Now, comparisons continue even tonight to be made by a colleague across the aisle who wants to compare this to Saigon. This is not Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. It is completely different. That advisory action where we had advisors in Vietnam that was escalated by President Kennedy and then escalated further into a full war even though it was called police action by President Johnson, and then was ultimately, even though he is no hero of mine, President Nixon did get us out of Vietnam. I am not pleased with the way it was done, but people were made to die for nothing. But they did not die for nothing. They died for the ideal that man was created by their creator with God-given rights. They did not die for some wishy-washy government in Washington. Now, this election in Iraq and what is going on over there is historic. It is awesome. It is being done by valiant people to demean what has been done and the lives that have been sacrificed, even by Iraqis, is simply inappropriate, excessive political exuberance at the cost of truth, honesty and dignity. Now, the naysaying brutality that is being heard verbalizing this idea that we should have our head in the sand is simply inappropriate. I was grilled by some Al-Jazeera reporters. They said, You must have been upset by the January elections. Your candidate was not elected. I said, We were not here about a president. We were here about a process, that you would govern yourself, and you would select your own president. It is not about a president. It is about a process. And they began to see. And some of the Sunnis had said, you know, we were told by our leaders not to vote; that, for one thing, the vote would not come off because of all the violence, and we saw that did not happen. People did vote anyway. We were also told it would be a fraud, that the Americans would use this as a way to install their puppet government. But that did not happen. The guy that was most friendly to the United States got third place. We saw, wow, this was a real election and we missed it. We are not going to let that happen again. And even though it may not have been a majority of the Sunnis, the Sunnis bravely came out and voted. And they voted knowing even still their religious leaders were speaking against it. I was able to relate to the Al-Jazeera and some of the Iraqis present with a story that can be depicted in the beautiful huge portrait outside this very floor of the Constitutional Convention with Chairman Washington standing there. The story that was told was of Benjamin Franklin sitting there, as depicted in his chair at the Constitutional Convention after they had come up with a document, finally. And he said, you know, I have been looking at that half of a sun engraved on the back of your chair trying to decide through the process of this convention if that was a rising sun or that was a setting sun, and now I believe it is a rising sun. And I related to the Iraqi reporters, I believe what I am seeing in this country is a rising sun. It is an incredible day in the history of mankind that in the area where many believe the cradle of mankind existed, where mankind started, for the first time in thousands of years that area is about to govern themselves. We have done a great thing. There are things that I have heard right here on this floor that I might disagree with our President over, but I thank God that he has stayed the course. Because if the seed of freedom and self-government is allowed to grow and flourish in Iraq, it will spread with other seeds. We are already seeing that, as the gentleman from Connecticut pointed out, in surrounding areas, if we stay the course long enough to let them take over, let them govern. We have trained their policemen. We are training their soldiers, and they are nearly ready to take over. What a glorious day that will be for them. They are not going to agree with us on many things, but they will be a free people and they will understand that freedom. I thank God that in the late 1700s, 1776 to 1789, that the naysayers that said how stupid this was, that those in France who were the naysayers to this gentleman, Lafayette, who really saw something in the potential for these colonies in America, I thank God, the very God we see inscribed above the Speaker's chair, where it says ``In God we trust,'' I thank that God that the naysayers did not prevail; that the naysayers, those with their heads in the sand, the negative people, that they did not prevail. Thank goodness that freedom won out. And I am praying to that same God that it prevails in the Middle East, despite the naysaying of those who would be heard even in this body itself. And, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to have addressed this issue this evening.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Texas' 1st Congressional District, I would like to recognize the efforts of the 3,000 members of the East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse organization and the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse in promoting Texas' fourth Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week from October 3-7, 2005. East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse (ETALA) is a respected and effective organization that works to educate consumers about the human and financial costs associated with frivolous lawsuits. This organization has led successful efforts to reform our states medical malpractice system, reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits in Texas, ensure that Texans who are truly injured have access to our court system and educate Texans about how to become wise legal consumers. ETALA is recognized locally for their efforts to encourage personal responsibility among local school children. For the second year, they are sponsoring a personal responsibility essay-writing contest among local sixth and seventh graders. What is most interesting and encouraging is that our children seem to understand this basic concept that has escaped so many adults. We support ETALA in their efforts in support of civil justice reform and wish to thank their many supporters, board members and staff in their efforts. Through the courage and dedication of these individuals, what was once only a nice idea, has now become a reality. It has been my pleasure to work with ETALA in the past, and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, somebody once said when talking about government, no matter how cynical you get, it is never enough to catch up. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing for so long the Republicans should do something about bringing down gas prices. Well, we have an energy bill, and we are going to have another one. I have heard a lot of talk now that we are actually going to talk about the ability to have additional refineries, gee, we do not need them now it turns out. Yes, we do need them. We have not built one in 30 years. Even though some have pushed their capacity up a little bit, it is time to allow for a new refinery in the United States. We are becoming far too reliant on foreign gasoline, and that continues to grow. It is time to do something, and we are going to have a chance to do that. It is time to put up or shut up. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will find out who really wants to help Americans pay less for gasoline, and we will find out who wants to keep sticking them with higher prices.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman not only yielding me time but, more especially, I appreciate all the work that he has done in this. We heard over and over in the hearings that Democrats really appreciated the way in which the gentleman reached out and started from scratch and negotiated with them. Everything was honest, open, above board and that the gentleman's example was one to be emulated by people that wanted bipartisanship. Of course, we get to the floor and I am hearing some different things now. But nonetheless I also want to thank those Democrats who, with an open mind and with a regard for fairness, have assisted the chairman in trying to put together a good bill. Now, it seems to me what this comes down to is a couple of differing philosophies here. On the one hand, you have a philosophy that says private property ownership rights are important and on the other says King George, before we had the revolution, did not have such a bad system. If you were a suck-up to the king, if you paid homage, kind of like the Kelo decision, you were the better friend of the government, then the government was going to treat you good. Never mind your private property rights. We will tell you how you can use your property. We will tell you what you can be compensated for and how and when. Now, under the substitute amendment, it is pretty clear you do not get an honest answer from the government. Do my private property rights violate or infringe upon some endangered species? Will it amount to an inappropriate use? Well, maybe it will and maybe it will not. We do not have to give you an answer, but you will have to buy a permit and then under the bill, the chairman has come up with you get a straight answer and you get it quickly. And if you do not get it within 180 days, then you have got your answer as a matter of law. Under this substitute, all property owners can find out is if they need to be having a habitat conservation plan and if they do, well, gee, the government will help you fill out the application in begging to see what you can do with your own property. We give you a straight answer yes or no under the original bill, and that is how it should be. The substitute amendment is going to stick the private property owners with the fees. And, boy, I tell you what, when I hear this word ``entitlement'' as if it is going to somebody that is not entitled to something. I tell you, entitlement has a different connotation here. But under this bill, under the original bill it is not an entitlement the way most people see it. If you own property and it is taken away from you, you cannot use it the way you want to because some Federal entity says you cannot. By golly, under our system of law, the way our Constitution is written, you ought to be compensated for it. That is America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, a number of our friends across the aisle yesterday once again demanded that an independent commission is vital to what they said is getting to the truth about the response to Hurricane Katrina. They want a commission like the 9/11 Commission. They put their hope and their avowed trust in a so-called independent commission. They also said, in fact, that there had been no adequate investigations in recent years, even though their glorified 9/11 Commission occurred during that time. Yet it was their glorified 9/11 Commission that recommended putting FEMA under Homeland Security even though it had been working just fine where it was. FEMA previously had the ability to put resources where it needed them without worrying about a higher boss redirecting resources in the budget. Well, folks got what they wanted, and it may have been a huge mistake. Our friends across the aisle said yesterday that all that goes on around here is whitewashing and a cover-up and that is all Congress will do anymore. But during my years as a judge, I noticed people will often ascribe to the opponents the very motivations and characteristics that they themselves have and then assume that the others around them are just as devious as they are. Now, whether or not that applies here, I will leave for other consideration. The fact is, however, if they bear to watch the hearings that have been on C-SPAN or gone to the hearings themselves instead of calling for a press conference or participated in some way, they have would have seen that tough questions were being asked. In fact, some were so tough they were really a bit unfair. It is Congress's job to oversee such things, and the mere fact that Congress has punted such obligation in other cases so it can point blame elsewhere if a bad decision is made is no reason to run from our responsibility here. In the congressional hearings both sides get to ask questions. You get to submit witnesses. And if you do not like the majority report, you file a minority report. That is not whitewashing. It is simply disingenuous for people to come to this building and say by their actions and their words that if they cannot be in charge, then they are simply not going to participate. Like on schoolyards, some child stamping their foot, stomping around saying, if we are not going to do it my way, if I am not in charge, I will not play. The trouble is this is not a game. This is our Nation at stake. Members of Congress were elected to do a job, not complain why someone should be doing it for us. We do not need an independent commission. We need some additional independent-thinking Members across the aisle to step up and help us by doing their job.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to congratulate a remarkable young constituent of mine, Mr. Andrew Stuckey. Andrew is a high school student senior from Longview, Texas, an extremely bright young man who is planning to attend Texas A&M University after he graduates; he also happens to be deaf. He is very involved in SkillsUSA, a national organization serving teachers and high school and college students who are preparing for careers in technical, skilled and service occupations, including health occupations. More than 280,000 students and instructors join SkillsUSA annually, organized into more than 14,700 sections, and 54 State and territorial associations. SkillsUSA has served more than 8.8 million members. Andrew is a talented drafter and won ``best in show'' for his work in the district competition. He currently serves as a SkillsUSA Texas State Parliamentarian for 2005 and 2006. Mr. Stuckey is an extremely focused, motivated young gentleman; and I have no doubt that he will succeed in whatever career path he chooses. Again, I come to the well to pay tribute to a hard-working young man, and may God bless him in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this body passed the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) hate crime bill with very little notice. Some here were heard to say, oh, well, they will just take it out in conference. However, there is a decent chance that will not happen. It is true that people who act out of hate can and do cause devastation and severe hurt. There is no question about that. Those who cause such harm deserve and should be punished severely. As a former judge, I have sentenced and severely punished people acting out of hate, including signing legal orders that the perpetrators should be put to death. Ironically, the cases often cited as a basis for creating hate crime laws usually include the horrible dragging death of the African American in Texas or the poor young man in Texas who was killed for being a homosexual. The main perpetrators in those cases got the death penalty that I believe they deserved. Those were cases in which no hate crime law would have made any difference whatsoever; yet they are constantly cited as a reason for it. In the dragging death case, I personally might support punishment by allowing the victim's despondent family to choose the rope or chain and the terrain over which to drag the heartless defendant to inflict the death penalty. But the hate crime laws do not offer a more painful form of capital punishment. The one yesterday certainly does not, so it would have had absolutely no effect on the very cases its proponents often herald as poster examples. What was done yesterday created a vague, ambiguous Federal offense which sends a message that random, senseless acts of violence are far more preferable in our society than such acts with a motive. Never mind that sociopaths or antisocial personalities who commit random, senseless acts of violence are unlikely to be rehabilitated. They will not get punished under this new law passed out of this House yesterday. This new hate crimes bill that passed yesterday, this body said to the world that ``sexual orientation'' and not just ``gender,'' which should be respected, but ``gender identity,'' whatever that is, are in the same category as those unfortunate individuals who have suffered because of the color of their skin or their religious preference. Have the Members ever stopped to think about the words ``sexual orientation''? Regardless of what definition they may give those words, when we pass laws, the words used create an exceptional chance that at some point down the road someone is going to say the words mean exactly what they say. In the case of ``sexual orientation,'' someday someone can look at those words and say they have the very meaning they state: That includes those who are sexually oriented towards animals, those who are sexually oriented towards corpses, those who are sexually oriented towards children. That is abominable. But someday those words could be cited by some appellate court as having their very plain meaning, not just the meaning that is socially or culturally accepted at the time they were passed. There is another aspect that is not discussed or debated but is coming some day through this new law. It is true that the law addresses crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, ``whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures'' a crime's commission is punishable just as if he is the principal. Do the Members understand what that means? Let me ask my colleagues if a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious leader teaches and preaches that homosexuality is wrong or is a sin and someone in the leader's flock commits a crime against a person who chooses to practice such acts, has the religious leader counseled or induced such an act through his or her teaching? Someday someone will say so, and ministers will be arrested for their preaching. They will be said to have incited such conduct through hateful teaching. As a matter of fact, some people already blame religious leaders for acts of violence in such cases, and I do not defend any minister who encourages such conduct. That should be punished. They are wrong. But having harshly sentenced people who have committed crimes of hate, and also those who have committed crimes at random, cold-blooded, heartless thugs, I can tell my colleagues that the victims and their loved ones in all of these cases are all traumatized and distraught and deserving of sympathy and compassion. So what is the message our great hate crime legislation sends? Apparently, through hate crime legislation, we are simply saying to the world, if you are really going to hurt me, please, please do not hate me. Instead, make it a random, cold-blooded, senseless act of violence. That is what we prefer in this country, according to this bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we just passed a hate crimes bill. There is no Federal nexus, not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, but then again we have a Supreme Court that often does not recognize the Constitution as written. It rewrites it to suit its own whims. As a former judge, I was a tough sentencer when that came about, but I am telling you, 10 years from now, when your preacher or even a Muslim leader says something about the Bible or the Koran or something saying that this sexual preference is wrong and they get arrested, then there will be people in this body that say, you know what, maybe I should have voted against that amendment.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, a dear friend, for the time. We have made a lot of new, dear friends in past days. There have been hundreds and thousands of people that have come through our east Texas area, and it has been a real privilege and honor to witness and to reach out to those folks that are staying in centers all over east Texas. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Houston, indicated, they have many tens of thousands in Houston; but it has been an amazing thing to watch. I have seen people on the networks, I have seen leaders in various positions accuse others of being racist in the handling of this matter. And I am telling my colleagues what: anybody that says that there is racist activity needs to come to east Texas because there Martin Luther King, Jr., I think, would be proud to see his dream taking effect, where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and even one step further, beyond even character, by the depth of the pain and the hurt they are experiencing. There are people, whites, blacks, Hispanics, different races, that have come together and embraced physically, literally, figuratively. The people all over that I have witnessed firsthand have opened their arms. They have opened their hearts. They have opened their wallets and become as one people, getting through this tragedy. Abraham Lincoln is attributed to have said, Those who look for the good in man will surely find it. It is true. If we look for the good through this tragedy, we find incredible stories and testimonies of the goodness of man, of the hope that springs eternal in the human breast. They are all over the southern area of America as it is responding to this tragedy, and the hope continues. I was continually asked by people who have come, many of them from New Orleans, most of them from southern Louisiana in our district, do you think we will ever rebuild? I am telling my colleagues, there will be a rebuilding. New Orleans, southern Louisiana, southern Mississippi, southern Alabama will rise again and be a testimony to the strength of character and the depth of compassion that exists in this country. Our hearts and our prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones, who are continually reaching out trying to find their loved ones. We continue to help. The gentlewoman from Texas had a good idea, but our prayers and our efforts and our money will go to help those people.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a man of great intellect on a Court that is saturated with great intellect. He was also a man of vast common sense. Unfortunately, common sense was not so well and evenly distributed on the Court. Nonetheless, as a gentle man, a man of class, a man of integrity, he brought great wisdom and great honor to the Court. As a former prosecutor, a former district judge, a former chief justice of an appellate court in Texas, I watched his actions, I read his opinions and appreciated his great intellectual honesty and appreciation for the Constitution. He was a rare man, a man that brought great honor upon the Court, upon this country, and upon the Constitution. He will be sorely missed. It is with great respect that we extend our sympathy and our sincere best wishes and our prayers to the family and those closest to the Chief Justice. We all mourn the loss of a very great American.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor to be here to talk about the great Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The gentleman knows, those of us that really believed in strict constructionism, that the Founders and writers of the Constitution meant what they said, know this to be a great man, a brilliant man. We do mourn in the passing of the Chief Justice, 19 years, as the gentleman pointed out, as the Chief Justice, 34 years as a Justice. That is incredible that he maintained his humility, his sense of purpose, his servanthood-type mentality. I just want to highlight some things. Under his leadership the 10th and 11th amendments began to have more meaning, as they were intended. For so long they had just been forgotten. The 10th amendment talks about if it is not an enumerated power, basically it is reserved to the people in the States. This is a man that had an intellect unsurpassed by anybody on the Court, past or present, and yet sometimes the intellect seems to get in the way and you cannot see the forest for the trees. He saw the words in simplistic brilliance. He knew they meant what they said and he said so. In Alden v. Maine, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, U.S. v. Printz, U.S. v. Lopez, that was one the Chief penned himself, those were cases where he pointed these things out. In the Lopez case, it is a great case, one of my favorites, it had the powerful language that reins in the commerce clause power that Congress has. And he explained that commerce clause means what it says. You cannot just keep reaching out and say a school is part of interstate commerce. That is not the intention and everybody knows it. And he helped rein in the Court to where it should be. Now, the Chief Justice wrote the 2005 opinion Van Orden v. Perry that allowed the State of Texas to continue to display a monument containing, among other things, the Ten Commandments. As I sat there and listened to the oral argument before the Supreme Court, and I am a member of the Supreme Court bar, and it was an honor and privilege to be sitting there, you look up and you see Moses holding the Ten Commandment tablets and, here they are trying to decide if it is okay for the State of Texas to have a monument to the Ten Commandments. He understood the hypocrisy. He understood how silly it was for people to try to be so intellectual, as a lady back in Mount Pleasant where I grew up used to say, ``Some people have a Ph.D. but the truth is they are still P-H-U-L's. They are fools.'' But the Chief Justice had that kind of delightful sense of humor as well. In the establishment clause he framed the issue very well when he said, ``This case, like all establishment clause challenges, presents us with the difficulty of respecting both faces. Our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Yet these institutions must not press religious observances upon their citizens. One face looks to the past in acknowledgment of our Nation's heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and State. Reconciling these two faces requires that we neither abdicate our responsibility to maintain a division between church and State nor evince a hostility to religion by disabling the government from, in some ways, recognizing our religious heritage.'' At times, like the World War II monument where they just did not include the part where Roosevelt said, ``So help us God,'' like that was going to offend somebody, it reminds me, I had a summer in the Soviet Union back in college. Stalin wrote Trotsky completely out of the history books. That is what Chief Justice Rehnquist was saying. You cannot just rewrite history to suit yourself. A Supreme Being, the acknowledgement of God, has been part of our history, and it should not be ignored. The Chief quoted a case previously decided by the Court in 1952 because he also believed in precedent, like we do, like we did as judges; that is what we are supposed to do. That has been placed as far back as a rule for justices to follow. He understood that just because something, a monument, a speech or a display, contains religious symbols or words, it does not mean that it violates the establishment clause. On the sensitive issue of abortion, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) pointed this out, he was steadfast. He said the States have that right. They have the right. So he dissented in Roe v. Wade; and again, he dissented in Parenthood v. Casey. It was clear to the Chief, he believed, that States had a right to place restrictions unless they were prevented from doing so by clear language of the Constitution, and that simply was not there. This same usurpation that Members of Congress just talk about daily, this was a man that lived it. He did not believe in usurpation of the State and local governments' rights. As I reflect on the Court and awe and reference from such a humble man of peace, man of life, I could not help but think about the words in the Declaration of Independence. We are created equal by our creator, but it is pretty clear a lot of us did not get this equal amount of common sense. Everybody on the Supreme Court is brilliant, some of the brightest minds in this country; and yet the common sense was not equally passed around those nine Justices. So things that made complete sense, common sense, were so simple that it apparently flew right by some of the pseudo-intellectuals. Here was a man who made the complicated simple, as it should have been. He is a man this country owes a great debt of gratitude to. He is a man that I will always have great respect for. He is a man that should and could be a role model for all Americans. He loved liberty more than self. He was a servant, and I thank God for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I thank God for the life he lived. I thank God for the life he tried to make sure that others would have as well, and our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with his loved ones. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for giving me an opportunity to share in this tribute. It does weigh heavy. It is important that we pay tribute to such a great man.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from my colleague from Iowa regarding his saying in elementary school that he wanted to change the government. I think about the example of the emperor who had no clothes, yet all the crowd got swept up in seeing clothes that were not there and saying, Oh, are the clothes not beautiful? They were not there. Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of those if he had to stand alone and say they are not there, there are no clothes, he did it. Just in conclusion, I think about the end of Frost's poem: Two roads diverged in the woods for Chief Justice Rehnquist many years ago, and he took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. It has, in fact, changed a Nation for the good.

Mr. GOHMERT. But we all loved, I think, his simplicity. Even towards the end of this great man's life, I remember seeing on television the reporters all after him, asking are you going to resign or are you going to retire? And he came back, this man of brilliance yet simplicity, and said, It is for me to know and for you to find out. That is the kind of man he was even to the end, cute, humble, and a lot of fun.

Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman will yield, I might just say that it is easier to grade papers after people have shot from the hip.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think about one of the last cases the Court decided under his Chief Justice administration, the Kelo case. He was in the dissent, and it brings to mind the quote, ``The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'' He did a great deal. He was able to help turn the Court back toward having the Constitution mean what it said. Yet, here again, the Kelo case, he dissented. He was, as you say, very clear, very precise. He had Justices Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor with him on that in dissenting. They all four dissented, and yet a majority of the Court turned around, said you know what, we are going back to the day of fiefdoms and kings and dukes. So whoever is better friends with the ones in power, well, they can just flat take land away from those that have, if they are going to promise to provide more bounty to the ones in power. Phenomenal decision, just an embarrassment. It should be for everyone who sits on the bench anywhere. Yet, to the very end, he maintained his integrity, he maintained his principle, he maintained the clarity of mind to understand not only is that not right, not only is that not fair, not only is that un- American, it violates the Constitution.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of this bill. We have had some great debate, 11 hearings, and I appreciate my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts' point about Section 215, but the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) is right. I mean, library records are being used as a red herring. We have seen over and over that libraries have been used by terrorists and this will help address that. The thing is so far that provision of 215 has not been used with regard to libraries. But if a terrorist is using that information, as a former judge, I would not hesitate if the information were there, raising probable cause. But there are safeguards in 215. There is a court. There is a judge reviewing. I was terribly concerned about the right to an attorney not being in there. That is being amended to include that. I was concerned about not having a provision for appealing that power under 215. That has been added and amended. And so we are coming to a great bill here, and it has come about through great debate, back and forth. And I would also point out though, with regard to the London bombings and the further activity today, you know, our hearts and prayers go out to our friends across the ocean. But we cannot lose sight of the fact either, we have not had one yet here, not since 9/11. And if you are in a position to review top secret records, you will see that this has been used effectively. And as far as 215 and the passion my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), had about we have got to have a sunset, good news. The sunset is in here for 206 and 215. So I am proud to rise in support. I have had great concerns about some areas. They are being addressed. We do have some sunsets to provide some protection, and I am proud that this administration has not abused any of these until we can get these holes filled.