Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, being a Republican has allowed me to take issue with people I have deep respect for. On this very Patriot Act, I have had some severe concerns. I am grateful that we had Democratic and Republican amendments that fixed the concerns that I was concerned about. And I believe with the sunset provisions we have, which of course it is a little bit different than what the Senate came out; so there will be some debate. There will be some give and take, but we will sunset provisions coming out of conference. But through this process I talked personally with the Attorney General. He contacted me, Alberto Gonzales. I have great respect for him. He had been on our Supreme Court there in Texas. He is a good man and he works for a great President. We have had frank discussions. There were things we disagreed on. I have talked with the Assistant Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General. I talked to the White House legislative liaison on these issues. We have been able to have a great debate, and we have come to a meeting of the minds on most of the things we disagreed about. But I tell my colleagues I appreciate the freedom we have had to work on this because it is not about Democrats or Republicans. We are talking about the future of the United States of America, and I appreciate the dedication and the massive debates we have had on this. And sometimes it scares me the way we make laws and we see each other running through the halls to try to get back to another hearing and vote on some issues. But we have done something good for America. And there is always room for improvement. There are always things we can do better. I do not know about my colleagues, but to talk about not doing or our job with oversight, as long as I am on the Committee on the Judiciary, we are going to do keep doing oversight. That is our job. We are going to do it.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not mind, I would like to have a dialogue. I would like to have a ``quadolog'' with our other colleagues here. I think we could have a good discussion because something good happened today. It was not just today; it was not just the hours and hours we spent on debate on this issue today. It was not just the 12 hours that we had during markup, or the hearings. I thought it was 11, the chairman said we had 12 hearings. I knew it was a lot. Or the dozens of witnesses we had on the PATRIOT Act, the oversight, the review of what needed to be. But I do not now how it struck the gentlemen, but I think most of them were in here when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was making a floor speech just earlier tonight and he made the comment that we need to stop fear mongering. He told us to stop fear mongering. I do not know what news he is watching, but I do not think we have to say anything about fear. We are trying to fear, like that fine President Roosevelt did, ``nothing to fear but fear itself,'' but we do have to deal with people who do want to destroy us. And the news even this very day shows what demagoguery that is, to tell us to stop fear mongering when we have terrorists bent on our destruction, they are blowing up the subways, trying to blow up subways. In London those people have done a great job of resilience and trying to stand tall and firm through these crises. And we could have an attack tomorrow. I know the gentleman from Washington is on the Committee on the Judiciary with me at the current time. I do not know if my colleagues had a chance to go by and look at the top secret documents. I have had people say, Well, I would tell you, but I would have to kill you. They told me that if I told anybody that did not have the clearance then they would kill me for telling somebody else. So, anyway, we cannot go into that stuff, but we can say that we know they have stopped terrorists by use of the PATRIOT Act. It has been used to keep Americans alive. That is not fear mongering. That is looking at the facts and just calling it like it is. And I would like to point out, with all the mess that gets thrown into the air, there has been bipartisan debate. There has been rigorous debate. There are people on the other side of the aisle with whom I disagree. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I have had some rigorous discussions, debate. He has never lied to me, and he has been very honest and forthcoming. I voted for one of his amendments today, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), one of his amendments today. And the truth is on the PATRIOT Act, there were six Democrat amendments that we took up today. Five of them passed. I do not know about my colleagues here, but I voted for five of them. I thought they were good amendments. There was one person that surprised me. Normally that particular Democratic congressman does not have all that good amendments and had a good one today. One of the things I like about being a Republican is the freedom we have. We can read the amendments, we can determine whether it is a good idea or not, and vote for it. So I did not know the gentleman's feelings, but he had to notice there was bipartisan support and the Republicans were open to good ideas.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank it is worth noting that these people who are bent on our destruction are so consumed with evil and hatred that they would blow up sweet little innocent Iraqi children. They are not just killing Americans, they will kill anybody that stands in their way. And the only thing these people in Iraq, we have met them, we have talked to them, they want to be, they want to live. Yet, they are so consumed with hatred they would blow those innocent people up, Muslims themselves, and they blow them up so treacherously. I believe that all of us here share the same passion. Mr. Speaker, I do not want people at home in America to think, well, they think they have done it all, now that they have passed the PATRIOT Act. This is an ongoing thing. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is an ongoing battle that we fight here for America. But another thing that we have to take up is securing our borders. This is one of the tools, securing our borders will be another, and I think the gentleman shares my passion that that is another thing we have to take up, it is another thing we have to do to protect America. I am proud to stand, to sit, to debate, to be on the same side with the gentleman.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting here when we look at this to note: Since the attacks of 9/11, the number of individuals arrested by the Department of Justice as a result of international terrorism investigations, 395. That is 395 that there was probable cause to believe were trying to do us harm, trying to destroy our way of life, and some of those have been very recent. And the PATRIOT Act, as the gentleman has said, wow, what a help to find these people before they kill fine innocent Americans. The number of those individuals convicted, we are not talking about indicted and we are not talking about probable cause. We are talking about beyond a reasonable doubt. Two hundred and twelve of them have already been convicted. And the former judges here with us, they know that probably some of those that were convicted were because some of the others that were arrested and charged turned evidence and helped them out on those convictions. So it is doing its job. We may have another attack tomorrow. But thank God it will not be because we did not give the law enforcement and the intelligence community what they needed to try to protect us. And one thing I would like to add about that too. We know historically that evil people try to destroy good wholesome ways of life. They just do. Evil is around in the world. But thank God. Over the years there have been dark ages, there have been periods when people have been subverted and put into real terrible situations . We have seen it even in the present day. But I thank God I live in a country where we are determined not to let that happen here, not now, not on our watch.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, once again, there has been no shortage of a man named Mr. Joe Wilson on television. Who is Mr. Joe Wilson? Why would he want to use false claims to attack this Bush administration? Mr. Joe Wilson endorsed Senator John Kerry in October of 2003. According to media sources, Mr. Joe Wilson contributed $2,000 to the Kerry campaign in the same year. The Boston Globe has reported that Mr. Wilson spoke to the Kerry campaign at least once a week during the campaign. Well, he himself has even said that he advised the Kerry campaign on foreign policy. So now this Kerry supporter and adviser is on television pointing fingers at the administration he despises. Now, during my tenure as a judge, credibility of witnesses could usually be judged by seeking to learn if the witness had a bias. Obviously this witness has quite a bias. It has also been reported that he and his wife supported Albert Gore for President against George W. Bush in 2000. The motive for bias seems to deepen. The press has reported Mr. Joe Wilson was, in fact, the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1991. He was also the envoy sent to Africa to investigate reports that the Iraqi President had tried to buy nuclear material there. Was it possible he hated President Bush so much that it got in the way of his ability to assess the facts and actions and motives of his old acquaintance, Mr. Saddam Hussein? Perhaps his intentions were loyal to the security of the United States in 1991, but if that is the case, while serving as an official envoy to Niger, as he claims, it appears he brazenly spoke out publicly against our own administration. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Mr. Wilson's report, ``rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case for most intelligence analysis.'' So now it appears that, like his favorite former presidential candidate, Mr. Wilson is flip-flopping. The typically softspoken Senator Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was harsh in his condemnation. ``Time and again Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied and that he had debunked the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Not only did he not debunk the claim he actually give some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts went on to say that it was important for the Intelligence Committee to declare that much of what Wilson said had no basis in fact. Contrary to what he has said publicly, Mr. Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, did recommend him to serve as envoy in 2002. It appears obvious that neither Mr. Wilson nor his wife had conducted themselves properly in the best interest of this country. Why would a former ambassador privately report inaccurate facts about Iraqi officials potential dealings with business men in Niger? Why would his wife float his name to serve as envoy on this trip if they wanted to stay out of the public eye? I have come to know people after they retired from being covert agents of the government. It seems that the best covert agents are the kind of people who go into a room, and when you look around that room, you do not notice them. They blend in. They keep their names off lists so they do not make contributions, especially to political figures. They keep a low profile. They certainly avoid having their picture put in popular magazines. It really appears that the Wilsons' disdain for this administration will likely go down as one of the greats in history. But they have been so blinded to something we would call the truth. Some of our colleagues across the aisle and Senate Democrats down the hall have embraced this man on little credibility in efforts to harm this administration that is determined to protect us from evil men with evil motivations desiring to destroy our way of life. Their rhetoric is based on two news stories--both of which appear to exonerate Rove. The facts are simple: Joe Wilson said the Vice President sent him to Niger and that his report was shown to the Vice President. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that Rove was right and Wilson was wrong: The Vice President didn't send Wilson anywhere. Karl Rove then discouraged a reporter from writing a false story that was based on a false premise promulgated by a lying or blindly prejudiced Mr. Joe Wilson. The main questions now on the matter should be what else has Joe Wilson lied about and why is anyone putting him on television? Perhaps if recommending a blindly prejudiced man to go to Niger to do critical research for our country is any indication as to Mr. Wilson's wife's judgment, then maybe it is a good thing she has not been trying to be covert for several years.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in the entire realm of human history there exists periods of time when evil people bent on destroying good, wholesome, wonderful ways of life get enough power to try to do that and to create chaos and to literally try to send us into a dark age. It happens where books are burned and people live in squalor and fear, and it has happened where al Qaeda has gotten a stronghold. We cannot let that happen here. Now, as a former judge and appellate judge, chief justice, I am very sensitive to the issues of due process, but we are in a war. Going back to the Civil War when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, it is in the Constitution, ``The privilege of writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' He felt it did. We have not suspended writs of habeas corpus, even though we are in a war for our very existence. Now, there has been oversight. There will be oversight, because many of us are deeply concerned about our safety and about our liberties. So when the minority whip says, and he says he chooses his words carefully, and he says that this represents a craven, and I know I may look stupid, but I know what ``craven'' means, he says this represents a craven failure of our oversight responsibilities, then it tells me there might be a craven failure of his recognizing the oversight that we have conducted. I have been there. There have been 11 hearings and 35 witnesses. We have delved deeply into this. Among Republicans, we have been deeply divided. We have taken each other on. I wanted sunsets. We have got sunsets on the two most controversial provisions. We do not have to wait 10 years, even though that is what the sunset provision says. We can come back before then. But I am grateful, I am glad for the amendments we were able to inject on providing for an attorney and allowing for appeal under 215. Anyway, the gentleman across the aisle says if this is approved, part of our tree of liberty will die. I think it is quite clear, if we do not approve this, American people will die. If you do not believe it, go look at the reports, as I have.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And I do appreciate being in the presence of two of my former judge colleagues. They all understand due process. They have dealt with it. They have reviewed the affidavits. They have signed the search warrants. They have signed the arrest warrants. They understand due process. And what made me feel better about the PATRIOT Act, because I, like many Americans, had concerns about it, was getting into the meat of it and seeing that there are some safeguards here. But some of us did fight to have a sunset provision, and that is the way it came out of committee. And by the time we came out of committee, every single Republican, I believe, if not all, most all, voted to have a sunset provision on 206 and 215, those two provisions. So there are people that are extremely interested in keeping our liberties as much as possible while we battle a nemesis that wants to destroy our way of life, and I think that is what people lose sight of, that we are in a war for our very existence. It was a pleasure to follow in the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Carter) footsteps into the Committee on the Judiciary. I was advised that, at least from our side of the aisle, I am the only judge, former judge, that is on there after he left. But, nonetheless, these are people that are concerned about due process. We had 11 hearings on the sunset of the PATRIOT Act and what needed to be kept and what did not. And we had 35 witnesses we heard from, and we heard from various positions. All different aspects were looked at. So it was not like we went blindly into this. There was tremendous debate. There was a lot of discussion because people are concerned about the rights of Americans. And one of the ongoing battles that we fight is balancing liberties with complete freedom. And I admire one of the quotes from John Locke, and, of course, my colleagues recall that John Locke was an individual who was studied heavily by the framers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution. And Locke said this: ``In all the States of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from the restraint and violence from others.'' That is pretty profound. ``Liberty is to be free from the restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists.'' Pretty profound stuff. But it is a balance between the incredible important liberties that we have in this country that people fought and died to make sure that we secured, and also our security. And I love Patrick Henry and I love his quotes: ``Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' Those are profound words, but we fall in the shadow of these giants, and it is not lost on us, and it was not lost on the Republicans as we have struggled with these issues and to balance. But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. We are in a war for our survival. There are people that are bent on the destruction of our way of life. I was a history major at Texas A&M. I love history. And the fact is throughout the history of mankind there are always people bent on evil, but every now and then through history evil men emerge bent on destroying everything that is civilized, everything that is good, liberties of others. They want to destroy them. And the danger is another dark age is if we do not oppose that evil, if we do not take it head on. And throughout our history where good people did not oppose evil, they tried appeasement like Neville Chamberlain: This means ``peace for our time.'' Fortunately, in the 20th century, even though appeasers went too far at times and they let evil get too much of a foothold, ultimately people cared so deeply that they came forward and they gave it their all, and some made the ultimate sacrifice to fight evil so we did not go into another dark ages. Mr. Speaker, that is what we face. My colleague from Texas understands that, and my colleagues from around this country, they understand that. And as we reviewed top secret intelligence information and as we continue to do that, some of us in the Committee on the Judiciary this week, there is no question that, perhaps not the level of 9/11, but there are disasters that have been averted by use of the PATRIOT Act. We need it. We need to protect ourselves. On balance, on the other side, as we struggle among ourselves, and I am grateful to colleagues, I see my friend from Massachusetts across the way, there are people that struggle to make sure that we have and preserve the freedoms that were fought for, and that is why we agreed and have a sunset provision, so that we can come forward. I want to say this, make it clear, that we did not fight for a sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act because we are concerned about the Bush administration and our wonderful Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. These are good people. They have been forthcoming. There have been no abuses. The record is clear. We got to review the information, they have done a wonderful job. But I can tell the gentleman, I had concerns. Like in 215, the language in there says basically when the order is issued to produce documents from the court order, that it is secret. It is kept secret, and you cannot disclose it. Well, I am proud of this Justice Department, I am proud of this President, and I am proud that the position they have taken is that even though it says nothing could be disclosed, their position has been, of course you can talk about this with your lawyer. Of course you can appeal and have due process on this order to produce. But I was concerned that if we had a lesser, freer-minded administration following this one, that perhaps they would say no, the law means what it says. It says you cannot disclose it to anybody. No, you cannot have a lawyer, you cannot appeal, and then we would really be in for a battle. So I am grateful that the Department of Justice and the administration were in favor of amending that to make clear for future administrations what this administration has done, allow people to consult their attorney, allow an appeal to make sure due process takes place. In 215 we are looking at those amendments to put that insertion, you consult with your lawyer, you can appeal. The librarian exception keeps being brought up, but it is a business records exception. As a judge, I do not know about you all, and I use ``you all,'' and I realize I am in a national setting here, but, by golly, the language needs a second person plural, and we in the South have provided it. It is ``you'' and ``you all,'' and that is where we are. But as far as these provisions regarding library business records, it is not just librarians, it is business records, and if there is reason to believe that these things need to be pursued, then they will be pursued. Just like I have issued orders to banks to produce information when there was probable cause, I have issued warrants to produce information, there are safeguards to ensure the same thing here. But I am glad we are going to have those amendments in there to make sure. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time, because these are very serious issues. I know the gentleman believes that and knows they are. So it is the balance. But, make no mistake, evil people are bent on the destruction of our way of life, and if we flinch, if we cringe, if we weary from this struggle in the war against terror that would undermine all that others have given to us through their sacrifices, then we have not done the job we should have. The PATRIOT Act allows us to do that. It provides for sunset provisions which will allow us to revisit these issues in the future. If you go back historically, when people combat evil and they are victorious, you put that evil back in a box and we do not go into a dark age. There is another period of enlightenment, like I believe we have gone through. But we must battle, put it back in the box, hopefully for another 100, 200, 300 years, so we can continue in this great sense and state of freedom that our forefathers and foremothers have given to us. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I congratulate the gentleman on taking the time for something so important.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the London bombings were indeed tragic. They bring us back to what really matters. We saw the resolve of the British people after the attack. Life would go on. Here in America, we have been so deeply blessed, and just as the words above the Speaker's head say, in God we do trust. I have been reminded today why we do what we do; why we try to make a difference, why we push on and try to make this a better place. There are 144 members of my church, my youth choir and sponsors, that have come in today, and with the vitality, the youth, the enthusiasm, the wanting to make a difference, it lifts me up, and I would encourage all of you to be lifted up by the hope that springs eternal in their breasts. Mr. Speaker, God has blessed America, and with the youth and vitality as demonstrated in Green Acres Baptist Church, I know that we will in the future be blessed by God.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, there have continued to be reckless, anti-American comments made by some who even work in this very Capitol building. The truth has been emerging more recently of our soldiers' incredibly hospitable treatment of our enemies. Though there is still some rhetoric denouncing our amazingly humane treatment of combatants, others have begun to change their comments, congratulating our servicemembers on their progress since they were called Nazis and cruel. The fact is, our treatment has not had to progress. Our servicemembers were never Nazis, were not cruel. Their humane treatment of evil combatants who throw urine and fecal matter or semen and spit on them has been unparalleled in combatant history. The constant demonizing of our servicemembers has been played and replayed by our enemies abroad and has done more damage to us, our servicemembers, and our reputation than any isolated members themselves may have done. Some liberals have worried about what might happen in the future to American POWs because of our treatment at Guantanamo. Let me give a quick reminder. They killed thousands of people on 9/11, innocent people. They took people they captured and took hostage, put them on their knees with blindfolds, and sawed and cut off their heads. These are not nice people. They have not been nice before anybody ever heard of Guantanamo. Quit beating yourselves up. We have got to learn that we are in a battle for our lives against evil men who do not admire weakness among their enemies.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in ancient days of kingdoms and fiefdoms, those in authority would sometimes arbitrarily and sometimes capriciously order the transfer of property from one owner to another person who was in greater favor with the ruler at that particular moment. The owner from whom the property was taken had no recourse once the king or ruler had made the decision to transfer the property. To back up the transfer, the tyrannical despot would make clear that the full weight of his military or local law enforcement could be brought to bear against anyone who attempted to stand in the way of the transfer. In the recent Supreme Court case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., the elaborate 20-page majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court is one of the most eloquent, articulate, intellectual efforts to ever rationalize or try to cerebrally legitimize the forced transfer from the legal, legitimate owner of nonblighted property to someone who is in greater favor with the ruler of that area. It is something that our high court can point to with pride that they almost make it sound fair that private property can be taken from one legitimate owner and forcibly transferred to one who offers greater financial rewards to the ruler of that area. What a great day for the intellectual superiority of the highest court of the land as it gets a 10 rating in the field of mental gymnastics, even from the Russian judge. But what a very, very sad day for truth, justice and what used to be the American way.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as the right honorable gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a good friend, former coach, had indicated, there are Members of this body who believe the solution in Iraq is to set a date certain by which we will begin removing or have our troops removed from Iraq. When asked recently if such a strategy would not have been devastating if used in World War II and would not have left Hitler in power, one Congressman said, well, World War II is not really an appropriate comparison. He believed the more appropriate model was that of Vietnam, where we set a time and then we got out. I do not question anyone's motive here, but for freedom's sake, what in the world kind of a mission is that? The retreat from Vietnam created a vacuum that was filled by dead and mutilated bodies of those we ran out and deserted, and it is one of our darkest and most heinous hours in American history. It is rivaled, however, for its humiliating nature by the very war in Vietnam itself in which we sent soldiers to fight but tied one arm behind their backs and did not give them the equipment and backing to actually win. They were not authorized to win. They were told to just hold what they had. No war can ever be won unless there is a commitment by the government to win. If we did not learn anything from the wars of the 20th century, it would be obvious here, but in 1979, we had an attack on American soil. That is what it is when someone attacks an American embassy, and they took hostages of our diplomats and we did nothing. We failed to defend our soil and our people and our diplomats and a terrible message went forward. We failed to address the attacks properly of the first bombing of the World Trade Center and on the U.S.S. Cole and other attacks. We have sent a terribly erroneous message in the past that America does not have the courage or the stomach to complete the defense of ourselves or to finish what we start. That is what Osama bin Laden has been saying for years. If we just keep attacking, keep up the insurgency, America does not have the stomach to win. We will wear them down. And now I hear colleagues verifying they do not have the stomach to complete what we started. My colleagues, when I was in Iraq in March, one former general under Saddam looked me in the eyes, a Sunni, and said, If the U.S. will just stay behind us and back us until we get our constitution and have the next election, you will see most of the violence in Iraq stop. The terrorists know how critical it is that this battle go on. They know that if freedom and a free society take hold in Iraq, in a Muslim country in the Middle East, they lose. Some of the people who now are calling for a date certain to withdraw are some of the same people in 1991 who screamed at former President Bush, stop, stop, do not attack, they are surrendering. Get out. Do not go to Baghdad. And shortly after that, after he did as they implored, they said well, he is just too weak. He did not have the stomach to finish what he started. He was a weak President. He should have done what he started and gone on to Baghdad. Now they are doing the same thing to this President. I thank God he has the backbone to stay in there. Please, I would encourage my colleagues to not push for a date certain. It would not have worked in World War II or in any war. It tells the opponents, the enemy, that we do not have the stomach to stay in there. We have a plan. We are training policemen, we are training soldiers. They will be able to defend themselves. Let us ensure that Iraq will win the peace and that the terrorists lose.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, with the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Ten Commandments, they basically ruled as they had inferred, during oral arguments, as I witnessed them personally, in their chamber. They made fairly clear through their opinion that the only way the Ten Commandments are supposed to be displayed is if it is done in such a way as to render them completely meaningless. Now, they just seem to have forgotten the fact that when the Founders and writers of the Constitution were alive, Old Testament scriptures, including the Ten Commandments, were frequently cited as a basis for laws being passed. Now, the majority has become wise in their own eyes to the detriment of the country, but it is only when the Ten Commandments are rendered completely meaningless that you can come out with a decision like we had the last 2 weeks where a city is allowed to take someone's property just because they think somebody may build a bigger, better, more expensive house; they can get more tax dollars. We need to shed some light in the windowless ivory tower in which these decisions have been made.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The United Nations, at its inception, was one of the most noble undertakings in modern human history. Its vision was of world governments working in concert to ameliorate, if not eradicate, world problems. This ideal, however, has over its more recent course become a body where some member nations appear more focused on institutional anti-Americanism than addressing the growing maladies that face the world's citizens. If the U.N. member nations insist upon open antagonism toward the United States at seemingly every turn, then the time has come to reexamine our role as their benefactor. It is counterintuitive to financially reward countries whose motivation is in opposition to American efforts. In order to correct this problem of incongruity, I propose a simple solution. My amendment would cause the United States to end all financial assistance to those countries who vote against us more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations. That also includes an end to training the soldiers of nations who oppose us. The ban on our funding antagonistic nations, however, would not begin until March of 2006. March 31 of 2006, the next report will come out that says how everyone voted on each position. This will give all such countries notice of the coming consequences of their action. The rationale is simple. They are sovereign nations, they can make their own decisions, but we do not have to pay them to hate us. Throwing money at our enemies has made them more contemptuous, not less. I share the concerns of many Americans about the U.N., its bureaucracy and its approach to world problems. They run counter to U.S. values and interests. The U.N. is currently an inefficient bureaucratic organization badly in need of reform, and too often it has become a forum for radical anti-American rhetoric and policies that would violate many of our Nation's most cherished freedoms, laws, customs and recognized human rights. My amendment simply stops the flow of American tax dollars to countries that claim to be our allies and who are happily taking the hard-earned tax dollars from American pockets, then using the money to spew anti-American venom all over the world. My constituents in east Texas have told me, I have heard it around the country time and time again, they are fed up with this anti- American rhetoric coming out of the U.N. that their money is paying for. Surely we can find a better use of this money than to fund nations that oppose all we hold dear. On numerous occasions I have had citizens ask me why government is sending their money overseas to support governments and countries that are against the amendments and things for which we stand. Some say we should be more loving and send these billions of dollars anyway. Friends, your heart may be good, but you are not using your head. I have relatives and friends that I love with all my heart. I would give my life for them, but if they are doing things to demean and destroy the very things I am fighting to preserve, I would not send them money. Accordingly, and in conclusion, we do not have to pay these countries to hate us. We do not have to fund our opposition. If a foreign nation wants to take the tax dollars of hard-working Americans, well, then they better start helping us seek truth, justice and freedom's ways at least 50 percent of the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOHMERT. It extends in whole if they are going to vote with us more than 50 percent of the time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I am nearly done. But that makes an exception. That gives them flexibility. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response, and of course I have nothing but utmost respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and it is a pleasure for me to support your amendment, and all three of the distinguished gentlemen that spoke bring up a good point. The Secretary of State does need flexibility, and that is why in this amendment I provided flexibility. If the Secretary of State certifies that there has been such a change in the regime attitudewise, personnelwise, that he or she firmly believes that the next session they will be voting with us more than half the time, then that makes an exception, and they will get funding.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the rule and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act, and just as proud to rise in tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) feels something needs fixing, we had better take notice and know it needs fixing. We need an organization of nations that cares about human rights, but we need a united group of nations that believes more in the rights of individuals than it believes that the right of individuals is to plunder others. It should be noticed that at a time when the United Nations' reputation for truth, justice, and following its own rules is at an all-time low, it should be doing everything it can to bring information to light, whether it is good or bad. If the U.N. leadership, however, spent half the time lining the fabric of freedom than it has been lining the pockets of friends and family, then this would be approaching utopia. That is not the case. Last month there was an investigator who had something called a conscience. He wanted to come forward with information. What did the U.N. do? They hired attorneys to have an injunction to keep us from knowing the truth. It is time to be united and holding the United Nations accountable. Support the rule on the Henry H. Hyde bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on the birthday of my daughter, Katy, who was born 8-10 weeks prematurely, but still lives and blesses my life. There are so many well-meaning people who want to see others cured. We, everyone of us in this body, want that. We know that. It is being said that no one will be harmed by the use or destruction of human embryos that were going to be waste anyway. Dear friends, when you use the product of the callous mistreatment of life, even though you use sterilized gloves, you nonetheless are an accomplice after the fact in encouraging future such destruction and mistreatment--even though you have the very very best of intentions. How many times as a judge have I heard, ``But, I never meant to hurt anyone. I thought I was just helping.'' In the recent past, we lost a great American who had been injured in an accident and who encouraged the use of embryonic stem cells. That man had a heart as big as all outdoors and is an inspiration to so very many of us. His strength and courage and perseverance in the face of unsurmountable odds should be an encouragement for all who face adversity. He is quoted as saying something that others have said, but as a justification for embryonic stem cell usage--basically that we should be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is the utilitarian way. It is worth noting that if a society only did what was the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that society would kill off the elderly who were no longer productive and kill off the young who were not likely to ever be very productive. That would also be a society that did not spend time trying to fix something that had been extremely broken. That is a society that would simply weigh the cost to repair a human, decide that such person was ``Totaled'' then clone a new one to replace it. That society would be killing its very soul. That is not the American way. We want to be a help to the helpless, and speak for those who can't speak. A moral society should do that. To demand money from American taxpayers so that we as a Congress can encourage the destructive use of life under the guise that it may be thrown away anyway, is not a direction that this America should go. Our history has been that, rather than destroying life, we go to all kinds of extremes to save it. If a child is in a deep hole, America sends all the resources it has to try to save it regardless of cost. When someone may not return from a trip to the moon, we use every available resource to try to bring them home. When a soldier is captured or out on the battlefield wounded, many others often risk their lives to save the one. That has been, that should be our legacy. What a legacy! But to demand money with the full force of the federal government's enforcement and the IRS so that the beginning of life can be destroyed, will add such a darkness on the conscience of this society, we simply should go no farther down that road. It is a bit offensive that some would come forward and assert that we are telling individuals with Lou Gehrigs disease and other terribly debilitating diseases that we will not look for a cure--that we basically do not care. We are looking for cures and we are doing so with the most promising avenues available and that is with stem cells that do not destroy life. It is extremely offensive that some would come forward and say basically that in the name of religion, Christian and Jewish groups support the federal government's certain destruction of embryos under the possibility that at some point it somehow may lead to possibly saving a life or lives. If we are going to invoke the thought of, as our forefathers' put it, our Creator, then let's at least invoke our Creator's unwavering honesty. The truth is that this bill is not determining whether embryonic stem cell research will go on. IF it is so incredibly and amazingly promising, do you know who would be all over this? Private pharmaceutical and health care industries would be in pursuit knowing that if they find a cure, they will be the most profitable company on the face of the earth. But it is not private investment capital that is being sought. It is people wanting grants that will be torn from the pockets of taxpayers against the will of perhaps half of them or more (polling data from those with an agenda is not all that trustworthy) and putting it into someone else's pocket in the name of destroying embryos. Embryonic stem cell research can go on and has gone on with billions of dollars from some states and from some private money. What many of us are saying about this legislation is, if it is so promising, you go raise the capital privately by buying stock to use in embryonic stem cell research, and let our tax dollars go to the stem cell research that seeks to both save and make lives better. I know this is a matter of conscience, and I do so know and believe in the integrity and great intentions of many of those who disagree, but please do not take my tax dollars for money to destroy life. Let those who feel so compelled, spend your own, but I would hope even then you would spend your own money on the lines with the most promise and not take life in the name of helping life. May God not only bless, but have mercy on us all.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do applaud the comments being a Rotarian. Rotary International has done a great deal. But I rise today because, yesterday, we heard and read news reports of the United Nations efforts to keep secret the very information with which it should have been most forthcoming. At a time when the United Nations' reputation for trust, justice, fairness and following its own rules is at an all time low, it should be doing everything it can to bring information to light, whether it is good or bad. However, this United Nations and apparently its leader has far more guilty culpability than many of us ever suspected. The United Nations' leadership seems united in one thing: Do not let people discover the truth. The U.N. leadership, if it spent half the time lining the fabric of freedom as it is alleged to have done in lining the pockets of his family and friends, we would not have these problems. If the U.N. is going to cover up the wrongs it has done from those who pay for the U.N., then it is high time we cover our U.S. bank account from them. We are literally paying them to hire guns, to hide information from us. Organized crime is said to have cleaners that come in and clean up after illegal activity. Sounds like the Secretary General himself has full-time cleaners on his staff. It is time to hold the U.N. accountable.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the former judge from Houston. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I thought those were very profound comments. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) mention something earlier and this was also touched on by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), but regarding the beginning of this Nation and how we had separated ourselves from Europe, particularly in the War For Independence that began with the 1776 Declaration of Independence and how we won that war and we separated ourselves. And then of course the Articles of Confederation did not work, and then 1789 we did have this wonderful Constitution. I had also heard the gentleman say we won yet again, the battle with the British in the War of 1812. As the gentleman mentioned, here where we are standing and actually back in Statuary Hall as it is now, that was the old House Chamber and the British came up and they burned it, and actually the middle part burned. It was wooden. And the gentleman mentioned that we had defeated them. We ran them out after they burned much of Washington. I would like to expand on that. I had thought, an old history major like me, I thought our American forces rallied and drove the British out in 1814 after they burned much of the town. But apparently the American forces were in such disarray they were in no situation where they could have allied and defeated the British at that time. We had some help at that point. It turns out the night they set what is now Statuary Hall and the old Senate Chamber on fire, there was a big rain storm that came that put out the fire that kept the fire from completely destroying the building which left enough that they could work from afterward. It was not American troops the next day and after that drove the British troops out. But as it turns out there was an incredible wind storm that arose. And it was of such force and such magnitude, it is given credit for killing 30 British troops. It knocked British cannons off their mounts. It created a great deal of confusion. It played a part in the accidental explosion of the British gunpowder statutes. It created such chaos the British fled on their own because of those acts of nature. Well, as you know, insurance companies would call those acts of God, and I would tend to agree with them. Those were acts of God. I would like to think the Americans rallied. They could not do it. There was a higher power involved. But when we look at this issue, the gentleman took the oath to the Constitution. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I took that same oath when I went into the United States Army. I spent 4 years on active duty. It is worth noting in a letter to Abigail Adams dated September 11, 1804, Thomas Jefferson was very concerned after the decision in Marbury v. Madison; he cautioned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism. Judicial review is not a power explicitly granted in the U.S. Constitution. But in Marbury v. Madison, the court inferred this power based on the fact that Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But judges should always remember that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of this land and that each judge should never forget their oath to uphold the supreme law of the land and not be citing the law from other jurisdictions, from other lands that have nothing to do with our Constitution. I tell you that Justice Scalia is an amazing intellect. In the Roper v. Simmons case, I do not take issue here with the outcome of the case, but for our purposes I would like to take issue and I think it is critical we take issue with the methodology in arriving at their opinion. And Justice Scalia did that in his dissent on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Rehnquist and also Justice Thomas. He said this, this is just an excerpt, ``In urging approval of a Constitution that gave life tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representative, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this since 'the judiciary has neither force nor will but merely judgment.' '' That is from the Federalist No. 78, page 465. Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary ``bound down by strict rules and precedents which served to define and point their duty in every particular case that comes before them.'' Bound down indeed, says Scalia. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years. Not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to revert not to the original meaning of either amendment, but to ``the evolved standards of decency'' of our national society. It then finds, and this is Scalia still talking, it then finds on a flimsiest of grounds that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worst still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not in the last analysis matter. This is Scalia still quoting: ``In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of acceptability of the death penalty under the eighth amendment.'' Now, the Court has thus proclaimed itself the sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards, and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility, purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our eighth amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution should be determined by the subjective views of five members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent. This is Justice Scalia. Similarly, in Roper, Justice O'Connor called on the Court to substitute basically its own moral judgment for ``the judgment of the nations' legislatures.'' The majority, however, persists in imposing its will on the States and backs its decision up by citing the mandates of foreign legislatures. The usurpation of the voice of the people began roughly with New York v. Lochner, and the word Lochnerization has since been used to describe cases in which the judiciary overrides the democratic law-making authority and imposes its own morality, or in some cases lack of morality, on the people. Lochner was a 1905 case that has since been overruled; but in this case, the Supreme Court told the New York legislature it could not regulate certain items. So this usurpation continued with Roe v. Wade and again most recently in Lawrence v. Texas. Now, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) had mentioned, there was a very nice lunch today. And the Supreme Court was very gracious in reaching out and having members of the Committee on the Judiciary. There were Senators. There were some of us from the House Committee on the Judiciary. There was a few staff members. And we heard from Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter. I would say those are very, very hard-working, well-meaning Justices. But good intentions are not enough. We know from history itself when we think about the words ``this means peace in our time,'' Chamberlain had the best of intentions. He meant well. He thought he was doing what was best for the world, and what he was doing was giving homage and helping a tyrant like Hitler. And so good intentions simply are not enough. That oath must be upheld. So that is why I do take issue with the rationale in these cases. These are fine judges, but they have gone astray when they venture out beyond their oath and neglect that from which they have sworn to uphold. If I might, one of the most frustrating things in this body has been the way people can play fast and loose with what is real, absolute truth. The Constitution is truth. The Constitution does not change. It should not just go flittering here and there, depending on the whims of the Court. Just like I heard prior to us coming in, the prior presentation about Social Security, and I could not help but note when there was talk of, well, in 2017 these old Republicans, they are talking about it is going bankrupt, and that is just all a facade of sorts, basically paraphrasing. Then the words were said, but it is actually in 2017 when there is more cash going out than comes in. We fall back on these trillions of dollars that are in cash bonds that will continue to earn interest. Cash sounds like there is cash there. There is nothing there. There are IOUs. There are Federal IOUs, and to say they will continue to draw interest, they stick more IOUs in there and say there is your interest. That is just so disingenuous. It is so misleading, and even though I really believe those people saying those things have the best of intentions, they are doing great harm to the Nation by misleading. In the same way, the Court has the best of intentions. They mean well. They think they are doing this great service. They go to the different seminars and they speak in different places, and they hear these different things from other people who maybe look down on our laws for this or our laws for that. That has nothing to do with our Constitution. I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) yielding to me to say some of these things that are so overwhelming in my heart and soul, as I look to the days ahead. I know they trouble my colleague greatly and I know that both of us came from the same school, if you are going to legislate, by golly, take off the robe, come off the bench, run for the legislature and if, God willing, you get elected, then you can come legislate. I agreed with you on that. We did the same thing. We are here, and hopefully America will help bring the justices back to reality, and the reality is they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. So I appreciate that time, and let me just say, there has been a lot of misleading information saying that some people, by their comments, they are doing great harm and inciting violence. I tell you what, as a judge I know you were tough and I was, too. Anybody that threatens, attempts to use force, attempts to use violence of any kind, they need to go to prison when it comes to our courts. That is why we are pushing the bill to make the sentences even tougher for anybody that is involved in that, but by golly, our Constitution promised us that First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Neither the Supreme Court nor anybody else should restrict what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has granted to us. God willing, they will not and America will not let them do it in a nonviolent way. I thank the gentleman for yielding.