[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 37 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2295-H2299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      IMPORTANT ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Finkenauer). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the Speaker's new policy 
that says a Member of Congress can only have one Special Order in which 
they are in charge of the time each week once a week. I have been 
trying to get Republicans to take our time, much in the way my 
colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the group they call the ``30 
Somethings'' did in 2005 and 2006.
  I have not had a great deal of success in getting a lot of people to 
take Special Order time. But with this new rule and some of the 
terrific freshmen that we have got who have come in--some of the folks 
who have been here a term or two--they are stepping up and taking our 
time to discuss critically important issues for our country. Today, I 
am it from our party, and I am honored to be here.
  We have heard a lot of talk, and the reason we say have heard a lot 
of talk is because there is truth in seeing a double standard at the 
Department of Justice for a number of years now.
  There was a time when it was the Department of Justice that Jeff 
Sessions remembered back in the 1980s during his time as U.S. attorney. 
That time changed with top people in the FBI and top people in the DOJ; 
it became no longer about justice, but just us and what we want at the 
DOJ and the FBI.
  In talking to former Justice attorneys, prosecutors, one dear friend 
in Texas--not in my district, but a very dear friend--we were talking 
about how the things that were done by people, including Rosenstein, 
the former U.S.

[[Page H2296]]

attorney, McCabe, Strzok, Page, all of these other people, Ohr, were 
incredible, just incredible, and I would include Mueller in that.
  Mueller as FBI Director, I continue to believe did more damage to the 
FBI during his 12 years as the director of the FBI than anyone, even 
the problems that J. Edgar Hoover created, especially in his later 
years, the wiretapping that he did of people who should not have been 
wiretapped. Of course, he didn't just do it on his own. As I recall, 
Attorney General Kennedy had supported wiretapping of Martin Luther 
King, Jr., if I remember correctly.
  But what we have seen in the unmasking of American citizens who have 
been followed by email, by wire--not taps, but just following their 
conversations as the NSA and our intelligence community is able to do 
these days, is absolutely incredible. Hundreds and hundreds of 
Americans were unmasked. We were assured with the PATRIOT Act when it 
was up for being reauthorized, oh, no, we are so careful to make sure 
that we don't capture Americans that should not be captured unless they 
are involved with a terrorist organization or a known foreign 
terrorist. They don't get picked up.
  But now, if they are talking to a terrorist, a known foreign agent, 
then it is possible they could be picked up, but those names are 
masked. They are never unmasked. That is too big of a burden. And then 
we find out under the Obama administration, the American people have 
had their privacy violated, like Democrats and Republicans alike swore 
to us would not happen. Well, it has happened. And it has continued to 
go on.
  I had hoped that Christopher Wray would clean things up at the FBI, 
but he appears to be more concerned about covering up problems rather 
than cleaning up the problems. I saw a good example of that at the end 
of August when, once again, the intelligence community had made clear 
they sent their investigator, Frank Rucker, over to explain to Peter 
Strzok, as head of the FBI's counterintelligence--and also Dean 
Chappell, their liaison--to explain that we now have 100 percent proof, 
there is no question, Hillary Clinton's private email server was 
hacked.
  They embedded a direction into her server that forced every email 
coming in and going out into what has now been disclosed publicly by 
others as a Chinese intelligence agency front.
  They were getting every one of Hillary Clinton's--over 30,000 emails 
to and from. There were four that were glitches, but otherwise, over 
30,000 emails. So that must include the ones that President Obama sent 
using another name so people wouldn't realize it was him using a 
private server.
  But there were also the President's daily intelligence briefings that 
went through her home. She had somebody at the home print them out for 
her without any security clearance. There were all kinds of violations, 
what appeared from the code to be outright crimes, but the double 
standard appears to continue.
  This is from February 25, an article from CNS News, Terence Jeffrey 
reported that the inspector general says, ``Prosecution Was Declined 
for Senior DOJ Official Who Sexually Assaulted a Subordinate.''
  And it goes on to talk about that. The name is not disclosed. He 
sexually harassed subordinates, sexually assaulted yet another 
subordinate, and then lacked candor. That is the DOJ's explanation for 
people they don't want to prosecute when they are actually saying that 
he lied, committed a crime, but lied when the IG investigated this 
matter.
  So the unnamed prosecutor or prosecutors were not disclosed, but 
allowed to retire, no consequences, though guilty of sexual assault in 
the DOJ.
  Now, there were a lot of things I disagreed on with a late, former 
Federal judge in Texas named William Wayne Justice, but one thing I 
agreed with him on, and I heard him tell people: ``You, of all people, 
especially, knew better.''
  And he would come down harder on somebody like this who had been part 
of the DOJ. I would imagine Judge Justice, if he were around, he would 
throw the book at somebody who worked at Justice and still committed 
crime and abused the system. I can just hear him still today coming 
after somebody like that.
  But not in the DOJ. We have got lots of carryover from the Obama 
years, and I know my friend, Jeff Sessions, called them career people 
because they were in career slots. But he was talking about people who 
loved Sally Yates, thought she did the right thing in refusing to 
defend constitutional positions taken by the Trump administration.
  Yet, many of those people are still there undercutting President 
Trump, undercutting Matt Whitaker when he was acting, and will, no 
doubt, be undercutting Attorney General Barr.

                              {time}  1230

  So this is a real problem when the Justice Department, the one we 
counted on for many decades now, if there was something wrong, whether 
it is civil rights or others, and justice could not be found, the 
Department of Justice could be counted on to come in and pursue real 
justice, to their credit.
  FBI agents and prosecutors, some retired now from the Department of 
Justice, have privately conveyed to me their broken hearts over the 
damage done to the Department of Justice and to the FBI because they 
became so calloused, so self-absorbed, and so political that they have 
damaged not only the FBI and not only the Department of Justice, but 
this country.
  But when you have willing allies in the alt-left media--or some call 
them the mainstream media; certainly, alt-left these days--it is 
understandable that same feeling of desperation is felt by the American 
people: Where do we turn when the Justice Department is not honest?
  It used to be you could trust the media. You could find somebody who 
would do such great investigative journalism that they would get to the 
heart of it and bring something to the forefront, to the point that the 
American people would justifiably become outraged, and that would force 
either elected or appointed Federal officials with the Federal 
Government to do something.
  But here we have alt-left, lamestream media saying that there is no 
crisis on our border. Yet if you look at the same things said by Obama 
officials about the same problems, except now exacerbated on our border 
with all the caravans that have come, are coming, and are continuing to 
be established in Central America, it is amazing how some of these 
media outlets can even continue to call themselves journalists.
  An article from Brian Flood, January 10, this year, points out that: 
``News outlets readily described a `crisis' at the border under then-
President Barack Obama when he sought funding to deal with a surge of 
migrants, many of them women and children. But now that President Trump 
is in the White House, the mainstream media seem far more reluctant to 
use the word.
  ``Back in the summer of 2014, the headlines and stories referring to 
the C-word''--apparently the crisis word--``were plentiful as the 
border surge was taken seriously along the Acela corridor.
  ``The Washington Post''--now an alt-left medium--``wrote in 2014, 
`White House requests $3.7 billion in emergency funds for border 
crisis' ''--there is that C-word, crisis--``while CNN published a 
feature, `Daniel's journey: How thousands of children are creating a 
crisis in America.' It described a problem of `epic proportions.' ''
  Now, they point out that: ``Around the same time, the Huffington Post 
declared that `photos of the humanitarian crisis' ''--even Huffington 
called it a crisis--``along the southern border were `shocking,' and 
ABC News reported that Obama requested `$3.7 billion to cope with the 
humanitarian crisis on the border and the spike in illegal crossings by 
unaccompanied minors from Central America.' ''
  The ABC News story even mentioned this word to deal with plans for 
$3.7 billion. This was ABC's headline: ``Immigration crisis funds.'' 
Incredible.
  NBC, June 2014, Andrea Mitchell said the undocumented children 
flooding the border were, in her words, ``creating a crisis'' for 
authorities.
  How these news outlets can turn around and now say that there is no 
crisis when the testimony and the evidence is clear that the overall 
numbers for last year may have been down, but

[[Page H2297]]

as the testimony and evidence makes clear, in October, November, 
December, and January, those numbers spiked to numbers that our Border 
Patrol has not dealt with before for minors and family units.
  Why would they all of a sudden spike during that time? Because it 
appeared the Democrats had a chance of taking the majority here in the 
House, and in so doing, Democrats have made clear they wanted to 
continue to allow illegal immigration. They welcomed the families. 
Naturally, you were going to see a spike.
  These people below our southern border in Mexico, Central America, 
South America, and now coming from the Middle East and other 
continents, have been coming for some time from other countries. They 
are being lured in.
  The head of the Border Patrol testified this week in our committee 
that they were being pulled in. But really, it is being lured. They 
hear: Gee, if we will just come now, we have people who are in charge 
of the House of Representatives who want us there, and they are going 
to try to stop the President from enforcing and securing the border, so 
now is the time to come.
  And they are coming. We heard the testimony that about 80 percent of 
the people who came across our borders in decades past were normally 
male adults. It made sense. Usually, it was people who were coming 
looking for work, and they were going to send money to their families 
back in Mexico. But the word got out the end of last year and this year 
that if you will come and bring a minor child, whether it is your child 
or not, then you have a good chance of staying in the country.
  We know that nobody crosses our border illegally on the south unless 
they have gotten permission by paying the drug cartels. Over and over 
during the nights I have spent on the border, the question has been 
asked: Where did you get the money to pay to come?
  Oh, 1,000 here, 1,000 from people in the U.S.
  Well, what about the rest of the money you have to pay?
  The drug cartels are going to let me work it off when I get where I 
am going.
  They would normally have an address. As I understand it, that is 
often the address the drug cartel told them where they would need to go 
get set up and work off what they owed to the drug cartels.
  But, Madam Speaker, you shouldn't be surprised when you see headlines 
like: Meth lab in major U.S. city busted, run by drug cartels.
  As the Department of Homeland Security folks have pointed out to me 
before, the drug cartels call us their logistics. All they have to do 
is get somebody illegally into the country, and they hand us the 
address of somebody supposedly that they know where they can go live, 
and we handle the shipping for them. We ship them to wherever they want 
to go. Sometimes, they are detained, but we have shipped millions of 
people around, all over the country.

  If what they have told the Border Patrol about working off what they 
owe the drug cartels is true--I haven't seen or heard any reason it 
wouldn't be--then our Homeland Security Department for a decade or so 
has been shipping people to the location where the drug cartels want 
them. The drug cartels are making billions and billions of dollars a 
year.
  When you hear any Mexican or Central American official who says they 
want to keep the American border open, you can just pretty well 
guarantee they are getting money from the drug cartels.
  The best thing, the most caring and loving thing, we could do for our 
neighbors to the south would be to secure our border, put border 
barriers where they need it, whether it is a wall, a 30-foot barrier, 
whatever. Secure the border and then that will cut off the billions of 
dollars of American money going to the drug cartels for them to 
terrorize people in Mexico and people in Central America.
  You care about people south of our border. Of course, we can't bring 
in all those millions who are suffering under drug cartel rule and 
reign, but we could secure our border and cut off the domestic 
terrorists called the drug cartels, cut off their funding so they won't 
be able to pay people to cut off the heads of police chiefs or mayors 
who take a strong stand against the drug cartels and put those heads on 
a pike as an example to anybody who tries to stand up against the 
cartels.
  It used to be that the drug cartels had a deal. It was just kind of a 
policy that they are not going to allow any kind of crime or violence 
to tourists because that is too important for Mexico to have those 
tourists' money coming in. That has long since gone by the way. 
Tourists are killed and terrorized.
  I long for the day when my wife and I can go back to where we 
honeymooned in Mexico, back to where we celebrated anniversaries. It 
was wonderful. We don't believe we can do that now.
  If we secure our border and dry up the money to the drug cartels, 
then the money can begin flowing to Mexico for something besides drugs, 
and we can cut off the fentanyl and the massive amount of drugs that 
pours across our southern border undetected.
  I know some people say the majority of drugs are coming through the 
ports of entry. That is where they catch more of it. But as it was 
explained to me and   Steve Chabot some years back down in Colombia, 
when they were showing us--we had DEA. The British had people who were 
helping. They were doing a great job fighting the FARC's drugs down in 
Colombia under then-President Uribe. They were saying that this guy is 
fearless. It is hard keeping him alive, but he is amazing. He is 
fighting the drug cartels down there.
  I said, well, so you are saying about two-thirds of the cocaine, the 
drugs from Colombia, goes up through the Gulf of Mexico into Mexico, so 
it can cross our southern border. Another one-third apparently goes up 
to California, trying to cross the border, it goes into Mexico across 
our southern border. I mean, if they have boats that will go that far, 
why not just have them pull up to a Texas or California beach that is 
deserted?
  These Colombian, American, and British drug experts explained that it 
is because the drug cartels are businesspeople. They have a business 
model. They have a business plan. They play the odds. They know the 
odds are many times better to get the drugs into America if they don't 
go to a port of entry and they don't go to an abandoned beach 
somewhere. They bring it into Mexico, have it cross the Mexico-U.S. 
border, and they will get most of their drugs in. So that is their 
business plan.

                              {time}  1245

  That is still going on. It was going on during President Bush's 
administration, probably back to Clinton and the former Bush and even 
Reagan, to a lesser extent. But it is sure going on in the 21st 
century.
  With all the discussion about there not being a crisis when clearly 
there has been and is--it is a humanitarian crisis, but it is also a 
crisis of U.S. sovereignty.
  We cannot have a country that is based on laws if we cannot control 
our own borders. We will be overwhelmed, as we have been, by more and 
more people who do not observe the laws, do not think the laws are 
important. They do not understand. They have not been educated how 
important it is to enforce the law fairly across the board. They don't 
know what it is to preserve self-government.
  Franklin knew that, Benjamin Franklin, when he said: ``It is a 
Republic, madam, if you can keep it.'' He knew. He had studied history, 
as had our Founders. They knew that the Constitution that came 
together, as Washington referenced, had to have divine providence at 
work, because no way these guys who started out for 5 weeks doing 
nothing but yelling at each other could have come up with a document 
that was the best governing document, the best constitution, put 
together in the history of mankind.
  Here is more about the media's hypocrisy, an article from the 
Washington Examiner, Eddie Scarry. This has a quote: ``We now have an 
actual humanitarian crisis''--there is that C-word again--``on the 
border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our 
immigration system once and for all.'' That was a quote from then-
President Barack Obama in the Rose Garden in 2014.
  He went on to say--that is, President Obama--``In recent weeks, we've 
seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive

[[Page H2298]]

at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and 
traffickers.''
  That is basically, as the Examiner points out, what President Trump 
said. He said: ``Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally 
brought into the United States, a dramatic increase. These children are 
used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs.''
  This article says: ``The only difference is how the media are 
covering it.''
  The Washington Post said, 2014--this is The Washington Post's words--
``The current crisis on the Southwest border, where authorities have 
apprehended tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American 
children since October''--well, there you are. There is that C-word 
they used then and belittle the word being used now.
  Anyway, this is an article from The New York Times from 2014 by 
Michael Shear and Jeremy Peters. They said, talking about the border 
crossing into Texas, it is ``an urgent humanitarian situation.''
  Their article said, and this is from Senator Marco Rubio: ``Let's 
remember, this administration''--talking about the Obama 
administration--``went around for years saying the border has never 
been more secure than it is now. I think,'' and this is Marco Rubio, 
``that's been exposed as a fallacy over the last 3 weeks.'' That is 
because people were realizing it was a border crisis during the Obama 
years.
  Just the fact that it has gone on for years and years does not 
diminish the crisis. It actually exacerbates the crisis. When you put 
the October, November, December, January numbers, record numbers, of 
people coming in claiming to be family units--why? Because they have 
heard, if they have minor children, then they will be allowed to stay, 
and they will be allowed to keep the minor children. It is encouraging 
a dark market, a criminal market, in children.
  Make sure, if you are coming to America, you have a child in your 
group, because then you claim: Oh, we can't be separated.
  As the Director of Border Patrol pointed out this week in testimony 
under oath, now the huge majority is people coming who are claiming to 
be family units. Most of them are, but we don't know. That is why it is 
important to check.
  So this is a time of crisis, and you would hope that major media, 
whether it is alt-left or whatever, would be reporting what is 
happening in America. It is a humanitarian crisis, as they acknowledged 
during President Obama's term. It is even more of a humanitarian crisis 
now that there are so many more minor children who are being brought 
here.
  Once again, for those who bring up the term ``war on women,'' how 
about the fact that over a third of the young girls, the young women, 
who are brought to our southern border illegally are being sexual 
assaulted, raped, normally multiple times along the way? Do people not 
care what is happening? Wouldn't that be a war on women that some of us 
want to stop?
  The estimate by doctors who have been treating these people say that 
17 percent of the young boys coming up and crossing into the U.S. 
illegally have been sexually molested, assaulted.
  Where is the outrage? It ought to be from both sides of the aisle.
  These are people whose lives are just being terrorized. When we hear 
about, ``Oh, well, people are just caring about their families,'' 
really? You would subject your daughter to being one of the third who 
is sexually raped numerous times while you want to come into America? 
You would do that to your daughter?
  We ought to be helping Mexico. They are not helping much. They are 
helping some. But we ought to be shoring up the border. It is the best 
thing we can do for Mexico, continue to be the most generous country in 
the world, in the history of the world, in allowing people to come into 
our country legally.
  Keep that going. It is good for America. But stop the drug cartels 
from controlling our southern border. It ought to be our authorities 
controlling our border, nobody else.
  If that is not enough, here comes what has been called a Green New 
Deal. Some have accurately called it more of a green socialist 
manifesto, a green raw deal.

  Rick Manning has a great article this month: ``Everyone is talking 
about the Green New Deal and how it would end domestic airline travel, 
the internal combustion engine, fossil fuel usage, most electricity 
generation, and even ban cow flatulence. You have groups guessing what 
the cost of the Green New Deal would be in terms of dollars on an 
annual basis. . . . To everyone seeking to normalize this Green New 
Deal, please just shut up.
  ``The Green New Deal is the baring of teeth by the new American 
communist, a new breed unleashed that we have seen in the streets, 
attacking people attending Trump rallies, screaming at teenagers 
wearing Make America Great Again hats, shouting down and rioting 
against conservative speakers on college campuses.
  ``Here is the truth. Socialism and communism are evil. Putting a 
shroud of legitimacy and normalcy to the destruction of the American 
ideal is being a Menshevik in a Bolshevik revolution. You cannot 
moderate the bloodlust of those who seek to enslave you by trying to 
come up with common ground or discuss alternatives to meet their needs. 
The revolution demands immediate payment.
  ``So let's stop talking about the symptoms which the Green New Deal 
represents and actually begin to dissect the disease that is 
collectivism. First, definitionally, the only difference between 
socialism and communism is if you voluntarily surrender your freedom 
and wealth or have it confiscated. Either alternative ultimately comes 
from the coercive power of the gun and are based upon the premise that 
those who have attained wealth used ill-gotten means to get it. As a 
result, they have no moral authority to keep it from those from whom it 
presumably was stolen.
  ``In socialism and communism, individual rights are not derived from 
God and guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, everything you have 
and can expect comes from the goodwill of the government. It is no 
mistake that John Lennon's socialist anthem `Imagine' starts with the 
following words: `Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No 
hell below us; above us, only sky. Imagine all the people living for 
today.'
  ``In order to achieve a kingdom ruled by man, unfettered by morality 
or rules, you have to nix a sovereign God from the equation. If there 
is no God, then all rights are nothing more than those that the 
government chooses to allow you to have, and the only protections that 
exist are those which they grant. The only question is who gets to be 
the one holding the keys over everyone else's life.''
  This is what, on one hand, surprises me about billionaires in America 
funding a move toward socialism. Obviously, these are not stupid 
people. They can look at the history of socialism, communism. They know 
that, whether it is socialists or communists, you have two classes. You 
eliminate the middle class. There is no middle class. You have this 
small group of ruling class, and then you have everybody else, all the 
miserables.
  I guess they think they get us to socialism and they will be part of 
that elite socialist class that rules over everybody else.
  I have seen it. The summer I lived in the Soviet Union, when it was 
the real Soviet Union, there were some nice things, but it was clear 
they didn't have freedom. The government watched, through spies, 
everything that those people did.
  I asked, on one occasion: Why is that lady running off?
  Well, she is going to go report me, he said.
  Why would she go report you? You are not anything to her.
  No. In your country you can get ahead by making money. In my country, 
he said, we get ahead by stepping on others. So anybody you can turn in 
for anything, anybody that you can step on, it elevates you in our 
system here in the Soviet Union.
  He was right. And that is where we are headed with people thinking 
socialism is a good way to go.
  The bumper sticker is true. The big problem with socialism is you can 
vote your way into it, but you will have to shoot your way out.
  That is what we are seeing play out in Venezuela. They voted 
themselves

[[Page H2299]]

into it, and now they are having to shoot their way out. Unfortunately 
for most of them, they don't have guns, so they are pretty empty-handed 
in fighting a government that has the guns.

                              {time}  1300

  It is a tragic situation. It should be one of the most prosperous 
countries in the world. It was until socialism took over. And again, as 
Rick Manning is trying to point out, that is where we are headed.
  ``It makes one wonder if Ono,'' he said, ``has given up 100 percent 
of her songwriter royalties to the song to the government as a show of 
solidarity for the dream.
  ``And here is what they don't say,'' he says, ``in order for the 
world to `live as one' with no possessions, someone is going to have to 
take all the stuff and hold it collectively for the common good.
  ``In order for there to be stuff to take and most importantly eat in 
the future, someone is going to have to do the hard work to produce it. 
Someone is going to have to figure out how to produce it, and someone 
is going to have to get it from where it is produced to where the 
brotherhood is living. And then someone is going to have to distribute 
it, being certain that everyone gets the same amount of gruel.''
  And I saw that, too, in the stores back in the Soviet Union. If you 
were part of that elite ruling class, they would keep back a really 
nice pair of shoes, maybe the only pair they got, for the highest 
ranking person that they dealt with.
  In the stores, the Soviets would tell me: We never find toilet paper; 
they hold it in the back for the ruling class. We never find good, 
fresh vegetables. They hold that back for the ruling class.
  It is really tragic the way people are treated, ultimately, in a 
socialist or communist society, or now called progressivist.
  So, good article by Brad Polumbo, February 26, How Socialism Destroys 
Private Charity and Hurts the Poor. It is tragic.
  Between what we see destroying the rule of law in America, coming 
across our southern border illegally, overwhelming our schools--how 
fair is it? If you really care about children, how fair is it to this 
big group of children in school?
  And as teachers have pointed out to me: I love my kids. I love the 
kids that come in and don't speak English. But they throw them into a 
class of English speakers because we are required to educate them, and 
we have to stop teaching, basically, the English-speaking citizens and 
residents and go to teaching the new kids that just got thrown in, no 
fault of their own. But those that suffer are the kids.
  They have dreams, but, unfortunately for them, they were either born 
here or came here legally and speak English. But their dreams are going 
to be put on hold. They are not going to be able to be educated as well 
because we have not secured our southern border. And children who don't 
speak the same language are thrown into their classes, and they are 
harming the dreams and the hopes of the children who were here.
  So is the solution to welcome in 30 million or so people from Mexico? 
No. It would overwhelm this country, and there would be no place for 
people to flee to when they are trying to find real asylum from danger.
  The better thing is just enforce the law. Secure the border. Cut off 
the flow of money to the drug cartels, and allow people to live freely 
here, without worrying about extra crime that wouldn't be here if 
people weren't here illegally.
  It is about preserving the Republic that the Founders gave us. It is 
about acknowledging that we have, as a nation, been more blessed than 
any nation in the history of the world. Solomon's Israel didn't have 
the individual opportunities, the individual assets, the freedoms that 
we have.
  When a majority of Americans fail to recognize that we have been 
blessed by God and His protective hand has secured our Nation, then 
those blessings and that protective hand will disappear; and we will be 
the once-great Camelot, where people could live free, and they could 
work and keep what they grew, built, earned, that once-great country 
where people were treated the same, whether poor or rich. They were 
treated the same under the law.
  That once-great country. Wow, what a dream. How did it go wrong?
  Well, we just talked about it, and it is time we did something 
together to stop it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________