[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6345-H6347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    AMERICA, THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my dear friend from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  I know we have a good friend here on the other side of the aisle who 
was recently quoted as saying something along the lines that Mr. King 
and I have never met an immigrant that we didn't think was a criminal, 
something of that sort, and I like the gentleman from Illinois, Luis 
Gutierrez. I think he is a good guy. I think he has a big heart. But 
the truth is escaping him on such grandiose claims. He doesn't know my 
heart. I know he is a good guy. He has a big heart. But he doesn't 
understand the role of government.
  When I looked at one of the most beautiful little girls I had ever 
seen. It was a Saturday night in the wee hours. She had been drug clear 
across Mexico. She was asked about home. Well, were you anxious to 
leave home? She starts crying. She didn't want to leave home, she said. 
She misses her family. But some adult decided that because the 
administration's policies are luring people here with the promise that 
they will most likely be able to stay, then people are coming and the 
children are not afraid of violence in their home country. Some adults 
may be. But they are adults making decisions to subject a beautiful 
child like that and so many of the others that our border patrolmen are 
processing, our border patrolmen and -women are processing out there, 
especially in the McAllen sector, which is a rough area.
  It was interesting seeing my first tarantula in the wild. I have seen 
plenty of rattlesnakes before in that area of Texas, but I haven't seen 
any in the last month that I have been down there. I know they are 
there. The border patrolmen tell me they are there. But I had never 
seen a tarantula in the wild like that. It was interesting.
  But parents are choosing to send their children, bring their 
children, in some cases put their children in the hands of drug cartel 
human traffickers hoping that the tremendous money they pay will get 
them to the United States rather than make them sex slaves. Some make 
it, some don't. Some die on the way. Some are raped. Some are abused. 
And it is all because there is what, under the civil law, might be 
called an attractive nuisance.
  We learned in law school that if you have a swimming pool and you 
have no fence and a child comes over and drowns in your pool because 
you didn't have a fence, then you would be liable for civil damages for 
having an attractive nuisance that lured a child to his or her death. 
Well, this administration has created an attractive nuisance under 
civil law.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I know the United States is not a nuisance. It 
has been a force for good because it has applied the laws of the Judeo-
Christian heritage. That is why George Washington, in the resignation 
he sent to the 13 Governors, as the first and only general commander to 
have led the military in revolution, won the revolution, and then 
resigned and went home, asking nothing further.
  But at the end of his resignation that he sent out to the Governors, 
he had a prayer for the Nation, praying that he hoped we would never 
forget those who have served in the field. And I am grateful that both 
sides of the aisle repeatedly are grateful to our military for their 
service.
  I have, in past years, heard someone say, you know, no liberal ever 
spit at anybody in uniform. Well, they just don't know; because I 
served 4 years in the Army after Vietnam, and it was not a good time to 
be in the Army as far as accolades for your service. I have been spit 
at.
  And when I went through basic at Fort Riley, Kansas, there was a 
standing order from our commander going through training that we were 
not to ever wear our uniform off post because--though Kansas is one of 
the greatest States there is, with wonderful people--there were people 
who didn't like the military. And if they found you as one or two 
together, then you would likely get beat up.

                              {time}  1800

  They had had instances, and we were ordered--that is what we were 
told--we were ordered not to ever wear uniforms off post or in basic. 
Every now and then, even at Fort Benning, Georgia, there would be 
indications, orders, don't be wearing your uniform off post this 
weekend. So it was not a good time. And I thank God that people have 
realized the importance and value of our United States military men and 
women who take an oath and are willing to lay down their lives for 
their friends and for their fellow Americans.
  But government has a different position from individuals. And that is 
why some Christians get confused and say, well, I am a Christian. I am 
supposed to turn the other cheek. I am supposed to love my fellow man. 
I am supposed to reach out and help sojourners. All of that is true. 
The beatitudes that Jesus gave are the kinds of things we need to be 
doing for anyone who is a Christian, and I would humbly submit for 
anybody who is an atheist, Buddhist. Buddhists practice many of the 
beatitudes and are very noble in doing so. But for a government, it is 
different.
  The government's role, even when it is composed of Christians, is to 
make sure that the law is enforced fairly and impartially. Romans talks 
about the government being an agent for good, for encouraging good, but 
if you do evil, be afraid because the government is not given the sword 
in vain. If you do evil, the government is not supposed to turn the 
other cheek. It is supposed to apply the law fairly across the board.
  So when an adult child of one of the wealthier families in all of 
east Texas who was before my court--and my predecessor had repeatedly 
given her probation--I couldn't give her probation because I knew I 
would not do that to anyone else in her situation. So I sent her to 
prison because I had to be fair and impartial despite knowing the 
parents, the family, and knowing that that family brought most of my 
contributors, the biggest contributors I

[[Page H6346]]

had, into my courtroom the day of sentencing.
  Well, it would be nice to do special favors for friends, and I 
realized that day there may be nobody in this courtroom that ever 
supports me for office again, and if that is the way it is, so be it. 
But I had faith in my friends that they would understand. Some didn't, 
most did. But it is the job of the government to apply the law fairly 
across the board, whether it is a very wealthy person, as the girl I 
sentenced, or whether it is someone of no means whatsoever, the law is 
supposed to be applied impartially.
  In that case, it was some years later, I heard that she had served 
her time and been released and that she got involved in her father's 
business, but he had passed away while she was in prison. I knew her 
parents hated my guts and would probably never speak to me again, but I 
had heard she got off drugs, cleaned up her act, got involved in the 
family business after she got out, and was doing well.
  When I was walking the neighborhood, I walked by the parents' house. 
And I thought, well, they may still hate me, but I want to let them 
know how proud I am of their daughter that has gotten out of prison, 
has gotten drugs under control and was clean and sober. I knocked on 
the door. It took a while for her mom to come to the door. Eventually 
she did. I didn't realize her sight had gotten so bad. She asked who it 
was. I said, it is Louie Gohmert, and she immediately opened the door 
and said, please, please come in and sit down.
  We sat down there in the foyer of their beautiful home. She said, I 
feel a bit guilty. And I said, I don't know why you would feel guilty. 
She said, because I owed you an apology and a thank you. And I said, 
you don't owe me anything. I just stopped by to tell--I was hoping your 
daughter would be here to let her know how proud I am that she was able 
to overcome her addiction. I know it is a daily fight, but that she is 
doing so well. I just wanted to encourage. I was hoping you didn't 
still hate me like I knew you once did. And she said, no, my husband 
and I were visiting our daughter. In one of our trips to see her in 
prison, we realized you gave us our daughter back. You saved her life.
  I didn't do anything special. I just stood up to those who wanted me 
to act partially and give special favor to very wealthy friends. I 
couldn't do that as a judge because I had the role of government. I had 
to treat people impartially and fairly across the board, and that is 
what I did.
  Someone once raised the issue that perhaps judges--and I know they 
had gotten it at a seminar--raised the issue that maybe your judge--
since judges, even though they don't select the grand jurors, they 
select the grand jury foreman, the one that leads the grand jury--
raised the issue, especially in death penalty cases, that judges have 
been unfair racially and that there would be racial disparity in their 
appointments.
  So I got a subpoena to appear to talk about my appointments. But then 
the criminal defense lawyer got my grand jury records and found that 
there was a great racial disparity in my appointments of grand jury 
foremen, men and women both, that I had appointed, and the great racial 
disparity was that I had appointed significantly more African Americans 
to be grand jury foremen, men and women, given the racial components of 
our district. And so I was notified I was no longer needed and was not 
wanted to testify.
  Well, I didn't pick grand jury foremen because of their skin color. I 
could have cared less. I looked at all of those people, the 12 that 
were on the grand jury each time--and I knew so many of them--and I 
picked people I knew were upright, good, and smart leaders. And each 
time I selected grand jury foremen, I would ultimately have people come 
to me that were on the grand jury individually and say, you really made 
a good choice of your grand jury foreman.
  Well, it was because I did so fairly and impartially without any 
regard for their status in the community. They were good people, they 
were leaders, and I knew they would do a good job leading the grand 
jury without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, or 
gender. It didn't matter. It was who would be the best. That is what 
government is supposed to be about.

  Mr. Speaker, it breaks down a government's effectiveness when the 
leaders of a government use partiality to make decisions. It may have 
been humorous, but, as it is often said, humor usually has a little 
element of truth, but I sarcastically and cynically sent out a tweet 
yesterday that since basically we knew the President--according to the 
United States CIS, they said that the President had given amnesty to 
553,000 or so people who were here illegally, and that there had 
recently been another surge, we were told by sources like The New York 
Times, of another 300,000, and then we hear yesterday that 38 people 
were being deported. And so my cynical tweet was, in essence, that the 
Obama administration had dramatically lowered the chances of anyone 
coming in illegally being able to stay from 100 percent to 99.9955 
percent, and that should scare people.
  Dana Loesch responded that the administration must have found 38 
Republicans, which is rather funny and amusing. But the little element 
of truth is that this administration has been partial, and they have 
been unfair.
  This administration, through its Internal Revenue Service, has gone 
after conservatives and Republicans even to the point of demanding to 
know the contents of their prayers and demanding to know information 
they had no business knowing. Actually, they were violating the law and 
committing crimes by turning over information to other entities. That 
was a violation of the law, and they did so knowingly. Crimes have been 
committed, and it is important we have a special prosecutor because 
this Attorney General has made clear his Justice Department is about 
``just us.'' It is more a Department of Injustice.
  So it is time to make a change.
  Through all of this, the story yesterday from The Hill, by Alexander 
Bolton:

       Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, on 
     Tuesday asserted the southern border is secure despite the 
     massive surge of illegal minors from Central America that has 
     overwhelmed federal agencies. ``The border is secure,'' he 
     told reporters after the Senate Democrats' weekly policy 
     lunch. Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat from New Mexico, 
     talked to the caucus today. He is a border State Senator. He 
     said he can say without any equivocation the border is 
     secure.

  Well, it is not. And anybody who will be fair and impartial and with 
the least semblance of objectivity who has eyes to see and ears to hear 
will go to the border, as I have a number of times now, and find the 
border is not secure. That is how you have 550,000 people that this 
President gives amnesty to.
  Then this article from NetRight Daily by Robert Romano:

       Last September, the National Council of La Raza issued 
     comments in favor of a Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development regulation. Under the regulation, in October the 
     Obama administration will be empowered to condition 
     eligibility for community development block grants on 
     redrawing zoning maps to create evenly distributed 
     neighborhoods based on racial composition and income.

  Mr. Speaker, this article is exactly what I am talking about. The 
Bible warns against, and wise people throughout time have warned 
against, if you want to have peace in a nation, you must have a leader 
or a government that is fair and impartial across the board, that you 
do not look at people's race, you don't look at their income, you do as 
I had to do to that very rich lady when I sent her to prison. Why? She 
was white, and she was rich. But I knew anybody else in her 
circumstance I would have sent to prison, so I sent her. That is why 
perhaps she was able to turn her life around.

                              {time}  1815

  One of the saddest things I ever heard during a sentencing was during 
her sentencing. They put on quite a dog and pony show, some impressive 
evidence about the family and the upbringing and she never really had 
discipline growing up, never had to make up her bed, study for school, 
and all kinds of things.
  At the end of the hearing her lawyer basically said: Is there 
anything left you want to tell the judge?
  She looked up at me with tears in her eyes because she knew what I 
was going to do because I was going to do what I would do to anybody in 
her situation with the priors she had, the

[[Page H6347]]

chances she had already had, she looked up at me with tears in her eyes 
and said: I just wish someone had told me no before today and meant it.
  It was tragic. Nobody had told her no before today. She was raised so 
wealthy. She said I was the first one who ever told her no because I 
was being fair and impartial and treating her like any other defendant.
  Well, this government, this administration, wants to look and be 
unfair and partial and make decisions based on the color of people's 
skin, rather than on the content of the character, and in fact, this 
administration is taking us away from the dream of Martin Luther King, 
Jr.
  He is the one who said those fantastic words. He had a dream, and 
part of the dream was that people would be judged by the content of 
their character and not by the color of their skin.
  We have made so much progress in America, and the President that went 
abroad and criticized America for being divisive, he has divided this 
country more than any President in my lifetime--along gender lines, 
along racial lines--by playing partial politics.
  It looks, from this article, as if it is going to happen again:

       In 2012, HUD dispersed about $3.8 billion of these grants 
     to almost 1,200 municipalities.
       According to La Raza's comment in favor of the regulation, 
     Hispanic families often do not know their housing rights and 
     have cited fear of deportation as reason for not reporting 
     rights violations.
       This is telling. By La Raza's own analysis, then, HUD 
     implementation of the racial rezoning rule will benefit those 
     who have cited fear of deportation--that is, low-skilled, 
     low-income illegal immigrants, either those who are outright 
     illegal the moment they set foot in the United States or who 
     have simply overstayed their visas. After all, who else would 
     fear deportation?
       Therefore, one of the sure effects of HUD's regime will be 
     to flood unwilling communities with a significant percentage 
     of illegal immigrants.
       While the current relocation of thousands, including 
     children, from detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border 
     has garnered national headlines and the ire of elected 
     Republicans, including Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of 
     Illinois, and Governor Dave Heineman, Republican of Nebraska, 
     the HUD regulation has largely flown under the radar.
       But it is every bit as important. It is not enough to 
     arbitrarily implement amnesty, whether through refusal to 
     enforce existing law or congressional action. The Federal 
     Government wants to draw the maps of where the new residents 
     will live, forcing local communities to make room whether 
     they like it or not.
       It is no secret that Republicans, with their low tax 
     message, tend to do better among the middle and upper middle 
     classes, while Democrats with their social welfare regime 
     tend to do better among the poor. The political effect of the 
     HUD rule will invariably be to gerrymander Republican 
     districts at the local level.
       Take a Republican State like Texas as a prime example of 
     how this might work. Houston, currently controlled by 
     Democrats, has accepted $38.5 million of these community 
     development block grants. Harris County has accepted another 
     $10.3 million. Dallas, another Democratic stronghold, has 
     accepted $16.6 million, and Dallas County took $2.1 million. 
     Austin, too controlled by Democrats, took $7.5 million of the 
     grants.
       Republicans at the State level cannot block these grants 
     going to these municipalities, and now, thanks to the HUD 
     rule, by virtue of accepting these grants, bureaucrats in 
     Washington, D.C., will get to redraw zoning maps along racial 
     and income boundaries to include more affordable ``units and 
     combat discrimination.''
       It has all the hallmarks of a master plan. Too 
     conspiratorial? It does not take a cynic to see who the 
     winners and losers will be in implement the racial housing 
     quotas.
       In the case of La Raza and illegal immigration amnesty 
     proponents, the likely beneficiaries of the HUD rezoning rule 
     will be Democrat parties across the country. Both U.S. and 
     immigrant-born Hispanics favor Democrats by nearly 2 to 1, 
     according to Gallup.
       What emerges is a plan to resettle as many as 20 million 
     illegal immigrants in specific communities as a pretext to 
     tilt the political scales on the national and local political 
     scenes to favor Democrats.
       Fortunately, the House of Representatives has already 
     acted, passing an amendment to the Transportation and HUD 
     Appropriations bill by Representative Paul Gosar, Republican 
     of Arizona, in a close 219 to 207 vote to defund 
     implementation of the regulation.

  Anyway, I keep coming back to true peace in a country can come from a 
government that treats everyone impartially, and the great genius of 
America has been free enterprise, the ability of somebody like Darrell 
Issa that is a captain in the United States Army, who comes up with a 
brilliant idea of a door lock that would go up and down automatically, 
which idea was apparently stolen, as I recall, and then he figures, 
well, I can spend 20 years in litigation or so, or if I can come up 
with something smart then--I can come up with something else smart, and 
he comes up with the idea of the automatic car alarm, and my friend 
Darrell has done quite well with that.
  This is America. It is the genius of American free enterprise. Let 
people profit when they have good ideas, when they work hard and do 
well. America is a stronger place to be.
  But the results of failing to enforce the law fairly and impartially 
as it is written, also brought about this headline today from 
Breitbart, ``Released Alien from Border Crisis Arrested for Alleged 
Murder, Kidnapping in Texas.''

       An illegal immigrant who was released by U.S. authorities 
     with a notice to appear has been arrested for the alleged 
     murder of a woman and kidnapping of children on U.S. soil. 
     The alleged crimes occurred after the man was released.

  It goes on in the article and talks about the AP actually reported 
this, but they neglected to say the man was an illegal alien. It is 
time for the AP, for the media, for this administration, to start 
following and enforcing the law, and this country will be a better 
place in which to live.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________