[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 67 (Friday, April 29, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2142-H2145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Russell). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting time. Sometimes you
think about the literary quote ``These are the times that try men's
souls,'' but there have been trying times before and there will be
again.
But our Congress continues to be urged to do things that sound like a
great solution, sound like a good, compassionate thing to do, but when
you get to the bottom of them, sometimes they are the most
uncompassionate things we could do.
For example, there are reports of sexual abuse victims who are female
being deeply troubled. There are FBI statistics that indicate that
perhaps 18, maybe 20, percent of women in America have been sexually
assaulted. Other types of crimes on females raise the percentage even
higher.
There are statistics that indicate transgender may be three-tenths of
1 percent. Who knows what the right numbers are? But I think we should
be far more compassionate with female sexual abuse victims that
comprise such a large number in weighing whether you want to have men
come walking in on women in restrooms, dressing rooms.
Also, the talk has been this year that we are going to have
sentencing reform because it is the compassionate thing to do.
We are told that there are massive, massive numbers of people who
have been incarcerated in Federal prison for simple possession cases,
and we have moved on. We have evolved in this country where we don't
look on those as critically. So it is time to start releasing some of
those people.
Having been a judge of a felony court, I can't say I did the right
thing on sentencing in every case, but I can say I struggled. I got all
the information that was available. I considered it before we ever
undertook the sentencing hearing. I considered everything submitted at
the sentencing hearing and wrestled and tried to get to a just and
appropriate sentence.
Judges do that all over the country. Some think they are being
compassionate and quickly release criminals, not being quite as
dedicated to reviewing backgrounds and the indications of repeat
offenses to come. So they release people too quickly, sentence them too
lightly, and they go back and commit other offenses.
We know from the recidivism rate that is going to happen, but you try
[[Page H2143]]
your best, as a judge, to do the right thing.
Then the thought of someone in Washington that never ever reviewed
all of the facts of the case, never heard all of the evidence that you
or the jury heard in assessing sentence, who have just got some big
picture that they think they may be able to apply and generalize
sufficiently--the thought is repugnant that they would come in and say:
We are going to have this blanket set aside, a reduction in the
sentence that was achieved through a very deliberative process.
{time} 1245
There are also a lot of fallacies and a lot of fiction that has been
thrown out regarding sentences, some vast many that have been sentenced
to and sitting in Federal prison for just having a little bit of
marijuana; we have got to let those go.
Anybody that has prosecuted knows, whether you have prosecuted as a
State prosecutor or a Federal prosecutor, Federal prosecutors have
traditionally not been interested in small possession cases. They are
not interested. They weren't in east Texas.
When I was in court, when I have been a prosecutor and a judge, the
State prosecutors in east Texas and the Federal prosecutors actually
worked very well together. Every now and then there might be a rare
case where the State prosecutors would realize that there was a very
heinous offense that was committed, but the Federal Court may have a
higher range of punishment, and because this person is such a threat to
society, might ask the Federal prosecutors to take a look to see if
this is something you would be interested in pursuing. More often than
not it was not. But most of those cases are handled in State court.
I don't have any doubt that we should be reviewing drug offenses when
it comes to the new opium-related cases. There have been so many
developments. We have got development of synthetics now that were not
known, so they are not listed as items that would generate a prison
sentence, that do enough damage to individuals that they should be
considered to be listed in a crime to possess. So those are things we
need to be constantly looking at.
There is an article from Adam Kredo of the Free Beacon from
yesterday. The headline is: ``Obama Administration Freed 19,723
Criminal Illegal Immigrants in 2015.''
It says: ``The Obama administration released nearly 20,000 illegal
immigrants convicted of crimes from custody in 2015, according to new
figures published by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau.
The 19,723 illegals freed from custody during the last year had a total
of 64,197 convictions between them, according to the data. This
included 8,324 violent convictions and 208 homicide convictions.''
Those are people who came into the country illegally who not only
broke our immigration laws to come into the country, but some of them
are coming in more than once illegally, some after they have been
deported and come back in to commit more crimes, but nearly 20,000
released in 2015, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
according to ICE, and it doesn't appear that they are all being
deported.
Certainly if they were, there is no bar to them turning right around
and coming back. One man who had, I think it was, nine DWI cases that
came before me in a felony court, and the Federal authorities had never
been interested in deporting him until he had a violent accident. He
came before me, and I sent him, appropriately, to prison. Within 6
months he is back in my court. So I had to ask, through the
interpreter, that since I sent him to prison, how is he back in my
court for a new crime of violence on other people?
It turned out that very shortly after I sent him to prison, finally,
the Federal authorities acted--just much too late for victims that were
involved--and they deported him. According to what he said through his
interpreter, they took him down to the border and watched him go across
the border. Then as soon as the people that deported him left, that
same day, that same hour, he came right back across the border.
What about all the victims? Do we want to talk about compassion? What
about all the victims of the people who have been harmed, hurt, and
obviously cases of people being killed because we don't secure our
border, and instead of letting people serve out the sentences that a
court very deliberately sentenced, they let them go?
As if we are some ubiquitous group here in Washington, somehow once
you come into the District of Columbia, we are so much wiser than any
judge sitting on any court anywhere in the Federal system that we know
better than they did.
I can tell you I have heard from judges from around the country that:
If I had known that some jerk in Washington was going to come around
and reduce my sentence that I agonized to arrive at, I would have
sentenced much more harshly so that the appropriate sentence would have
been what was arrived at by the brilliant, wise, ubiquitous jerk in
Washington that set it aside too early.
This article from April 12 is: ``Sentencing Reform Legislation Would
Disproportionately Favor Noncitizens.''
It says: ``U.S. prisoner data clearly shows two things. One, the
majority of low-level drug offenders are serving their sentences in
State, not Federal prisons. Two, most of those incarcerated in Federal
prison for drug charges are noncitizens. While it may be worthwhile to
pursue reform at the Federal level, it will do very little to address
the problems identified by proponents of sentencing reform, and it
would do almost nothing to reduce sentences for U.S. citizen drug
offenders.''
In fact, on further down it says:
``As of April 7, 2016, there were 196,285 prisoners in the custody of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, with 46.5 percent of these prisoners--
91,270--sentenced for drug offenses. The percentage of prisoners
incarcerated for drugs is just over 2\1/2\ times greater than the State
prison population. However, overall, there are fewer prisoners serving
time in Federal prison for drug charges than in State prisons,'' which
have 212,000.
``The Federal Government collects data differently for State and
Federal prisoners. In order to get the breakdown of offenses for
Federal drug prisoners, data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission is
available. Looking at the sentencing statistics from FY 2007 to FY
2015, a clear distinction between Federal and State prison populations
is that the proportion of Federal prisoners serving time for drug
possession is much higher than that for State prisoners, and Hispanics
are disproportionately represented among Federal drug inmates . . .
There is a higher ratio of Hispanics serving drug sentences for both
trafficking and possession convictions in Federal prisons. As Daniel
Horowitz points out, this is because many of the drug offenders in
Federal prison are serving sentences for drug convictions related to
the illicit drug trade on the U.S.-Mexico border.
``In response to a congressional request regarding sentencing data
for Federal drug offenses, the U.S. Sentencing Commission sent data
showing that 95 percent of the 305 individuals serving time in Federal
prison for simple drug offenses are noncitizen . . . only 13 simple
possession cases were tried in nonborder districts in FY 2014 . . . In
a letter sent to Senator Jeff Sessions last fall, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons reported that 77 percent of individuals convicted of Federal
drug possession charges and more than 25 percent of individuals
convicted of Federal drug trafficking charges in FY 2015 were
noncitizen.''
Sometimes graphs give us a good look and give us a better picture of
what we are talking about than a word picture does. So here is what the
Federal Bureau of Prisons reported last fall, that of all the people
in prison, in Federal prison, U.S. Federal prison for drug possession
charges and convictions, 77 percent are noncitizens of the United
States.
That is right. We are using our United States prisons when it comes
to Federal possession of drugs. Seventy-seven percent of them housed
are noncitizens. Twenty-three percent of those in Federal prison for
drug possession charges and convictions are citizens of the United
States.
``The profile for Federal drug prisoners is different than at the
State level, and this is why Congress needs to recognize and address
these differences when crafting legislation that will effect this
population. Federal drug and immigration enforcement are for now
[[Page H2144]]
inextricably tied together, and Mexican drug cartels are a serious
threat to public safety. A serious debate over how to best address the
War on Drugs and its effects on American communities can not ignore the
immigration component.
``Sentencing reform bills reducing penalties for some Federal
prisoners . . . are being portrayed by their supporters as a long
overdue corrective to harsh sentencing laws for individuals who violate
Federal drug laws, which they argue create racial disparities in the
Nation's prison population.
``Reforming drug sentencing laws is one thing. Releasing criminal
aliens back into U.S. interior is quite another. The Obama
administration has already shown its willingness to do the latter,
including those who were deemed to be criminal threats to the public.
Without a bill with strong, clear language and, most importantly, a
Congress willing to extend oversight over the executive branch, it is
plain that the sentencing reform legislation likely to soon come before
Congress will accomplish little more than to provide an early release
for dangerous criminal aliens, while still failing to hold President
Obama to account for his failure to enforce U.S. immigration law.''
This article from Daniel Horowitz from this month's Conservative
Review said: ``Yes, it was all an April Fool's joke. The entire
rationale and premise on which the top legislative priority of the D.C.
people was built is an illusion. On a Federal level, there is no
widespread epidemic of people being locked up for nonviolent drug
offenses.
``The entire debate over the prison population on a Federal level is
absurd. Proponents of jailbreak legislation speak about the issue in
the abstract and concoct all sorts of myths as to who is sentenced for
Federal crimes.
``This is, in fact, a finite and verifiable population. Why don't we
stop talking past each other and actually take a look at what is the
800-pound gorilla behind the Federal criminal justice system?''
{time} 1300
From there he goes on to talk about illegal immigration and the
effect on our prisons. He said:
``What is clear when you juxtapose the total convictions to the large
number of immigration-related sentences and the drug trafficking
convictions, the 800-pound gorilla in the room when dealing with
Federal crimes, is--illegal immigration. Both directly, by clogging up
the system with immigration cases, and indirectly, through the open
border and drug cartels and proliferation of drugs, more than half of
all Federal sentences are a byproduct of immigration and the drugs that
are brought in as a result of the porous border . . . Hence, the entire
premise of Federal jailbreak legislation--that there are infinite
numbers of individuals serving time in Federal prison for `nonviolent
drug offenses'--is complete bunk.
``If we would deal with the immigration problem and keep out much of
the drug infestation by building the fence''--it doesn't have to be a
wall--``and implementing visa tracking, both the direct effects of
immigration and the drug problem, which is a byproduct of immigration,
would reach a manageable level. We would save a lot of money on
incarceration costs and dramatically reduce the prison population, all
without risking the safety and security of Americans by
indiscriminately and retroactively releasing violent criminals into our
communities.''
And people should understand, what most prosecutors will tell you is,
especially in the Federal system--they don't have plea agreements like
normally you find in most States--they agree on what charges they will
allow a defendant to plea to and which ones they will drop. So, if
there is violence in an offense, if there is a gun used in a drug
offense or violence in a drug offense and a Federal prosecutor is
trying to get someone involved for carrying out that violent drug
offense, but they know they want to get the guy that is over this one,
they want to get the bigger fish and the even bigger fish, they are
going to have to have some kind of negotiation at that level. And what
they negotiate is: ``All right. We will leave off the violent part of
this offense and let you plead to that,'' or, ``We will leave out the
burglary,'' or, ``We will leave out this other. We will leave out
something else and we will let you plea to this, and the State has
agreed they won't pursue that burglary.'' They work out an agreement so
that part of the offense that would have gotten them a much more severe
sentence is left out in return for their cooperation to go after the
bigger fish.
So when somebody in Washington that has not analyzed the facts of
each case and the reason for the recommended charge to be accepted by
the court goes about and just releases somebody, they are normally
going to do an injustice to the victims. Some say drugs are a
victimless crime. Some are tempted to think that until they look at the
involvement of drugs and violent crime in burglaries. It is phenomenal.
With a porous border the way we have, we see the drugs pouring in.
And I literally say ``we see.''
We had a hearing yesterday with a lady who lived down near the
border. Actually, she pointed out that our Federal law enforcement
immigration officials are about 25 miles north of the border. We are
not enforcing the border there in Arizona where she was pointing out.
She and her husband put up video cameras and displayed it in the
hearing. Clearly, these were guys carrying big amounts of something,
apparently drugs, passing by back and forth, just bringing drugs into
America because we were not enforcing and securing our border and our
country.
If we want to have true sentencing reform, it should not be
undertaken until the border is secure so that we know we are not
releasing more criminals to the interior of the United States to commit
more crimes and to be back involved in the drug trade.
I know some years back, after I got here, Congress decided to make it
more difficult for people to get Sudafed because it was used in the
process of producing methamphetamine. In east Texas, cooking
methamphetamine was a problem. But most of the cooks stunk, so when
people would smell something violent and they called in, immediately
law enforcement would think, oh, maybe some meth is being cooked. They
would go, and often that was the case. So we made it hard for law-
abiding people to get Sudafed that works a whole lot better than
Sudafed with any initials after it that is not true Sudafed.
Some in the DEA and law enforcement back in Texas tell me what has
happened: Yeah, we were able to shut down a lot of methamphetamine
cooking in Texas, but since our border is so porous, the drug cartels
in Mexico right across our border are pouring through synthetics and
far more potent drugs. They are hooking our young people, our
Americans, on drugs that are harder to get off of and induce more
unpleasantness and crime.
We really didn't solve anything because we didn't deal with what was
called the 800-pound gorilla in the room. It is illegal immigration. It
is an unsecured border.
And, of course, some can't help but raise questions about political
motivation. Because when you are trying desperately to win, say, a
Presidential election or a local election, say, in Virginia, and you
know from surveys that have been done, if you can restore the voting
rights to people that have been in prison, a big majority of those will
vote Democrat, and then when you think about the potential--wow.
So if we just cut loose a massive number of illegal immigrants that
are in prison, and then you have a Governor like you have in Virginia
who then says, hey, we are going to let felons have voting rights,
never mind you are not supposed to vote unless you are a U.S. citizen,
we are finding that there is fraud in elections despite what some say.
My friend John Fund had a good book on the fraud involved in
elections and the voting process around the country. Look, if we are
going to stop from disenfranchising real voters and real American
citizens, then we have got to make sure that we have legitimate voters.
That means voter ID. Why not? I mean, you have got to have an ID to do
much of anything in this country. Why not have one and make sure that
the disenfranchising process is not happening because we make sure that
every voter is a legitimate voter?
Those who were worried about it preventing minorities from voting, go
[[Page H2145]]
look at places like Georgia. It has been established that, when photo
ID requirements were added, there were actually more minorities that
voted after that. It didn't just disfranchise the minority. What it
disenfranchised were people that wanted to vote as illegal aliens or
illegally.
But parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but wonder if you were
the head of a political party, hypothetically, if you were the head of
a political party and your party believed their hope for winning the
next election was to get people who were felons to vote, whether they
reformed or not, maybe it is time to take a look at what your party
stands for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________