[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12874-12881]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      OPPOSE THE SECOND CHANCE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such an honor to be part 
of this body when you know the sacrifices that have been made by so 
many just to allow us to be here at this time in history.
  There is a defense bill that we will be talking about some in the 
next 60 minutes, but in leading up to that, I wanted to address a bill 
that was on the suspension calendar earlier this week and was pulled 
from the suspension calendar, and I have been told it probably will be 
coming up very soon.
  Like so many things that have been done in this body that has 
unintended consequences, the Second Chance Act is very well 
intentioned. As a former judge, I know well that we have got to do a 
better job of rehabilitating, of educating, with drug treatment and 
alcohol treatment for those that are incarcerated in our prisons. There 
is just no question that we should do a better job with those things.

[[Page 12875]]

  Unfortunately, this well-meaning bill, the Second Chance Act, goes so 
far beyond what is helpful. This bill will provide more benefits to 
felons than are available to those risking their lives in the service 
of our United States military.
  For example, this bill apparently will provide over $360 million. I 
say apparently will provide over that amount, because one provision 
says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' There is no way to know how 
much money that may be. But, in any event, this bill, for example, 
seems to leave medical care potentially unending after confinement.
  I realize as a Republican I was in the minority in our Judiciary 
Committee hearing, so I attempted to limit the medical care to 6 months 
after a criminal was released from prison for the extent of the medical 
care. That was voted down by the majority, who believed that we should 
leave it open-ended.
  I was in the United States Army for 4 years, and I can tell you that 
unless you retire with over 20 years of active military service or you 
are disabled as a result of your military service, you have no medical 
care waiting for you at the end of your service. That means if a 
military member who serves less than 20 years wants a chance at free 
medical, he will need to commit a serious enough crime to get him 
locked up.
  When a military member is sent to serve on one of the many 
unaccompanied tours of duty, his family suffers greatly, particularly 
if this is a Reservist or a National Guard member. However, under this 
Second Chance Act, which is really more of an ``Infinite Chance Act,'' 
we will provide taxpayer dollars to help with transportation for an 
inmate's family to get to and from the prison. Grant dollars are there 
for that.

                              {time}  2245

  If you are in the military on an unaccompanied tour and you would 
like to have your children nearby, you are out of luck. However, if you 
are a confined felon, under this bill there will be tax dollars in the 
way of grants to pay for nurseries or preschools at the prison so you 
can have your children close to you.
  If you are a U.S. servicemember away from home and long to provide 
your family or your children the technology to ease the distance 
between you and to ease the loneliness, you either must reach into your 
small amount of pay, or you could commit a felony and get locked up 
because there are millions of dollars in this Second Chance bill for 
grants for technology or tapes or DVD or players, even cell phones, 
things that help bridge the distance.
  A criminal may have broken into your home and stolen or destroyed 
your property, but under the Second Chance Act, we are going to take 
some more of your tax dollars to help provide criminals or their 
families with this type of technology.
  Law enforcement in this country get paid very little compared to the 
protection they afford us, and they do not get the government to buy 
such things for their families, but the criminals they lock up under 
this Democratic majority bill will have this as a bonus.
  If you are in the military and you want plastic surgery to make you 
look better, normally you are out of luck for elective surgery. But 
when I tried to limit this legislation in the Judiciary Committee to 
prevent tax dollars from being spent for things like rhinoplasty, a 
nose job, liposuction, breast augmentation, even that amendment was 
voted down by the majority.
  Now, if you are a law-abiding citizen and you do not like your field 
of employment, you have to scrape together enough money to also go to 
school or be retrained in order to find another job. Not so under this 
bill if you commit a heinous crime. If you go to prison, there is grant 
money in this bill, not merely to train you in prison; but after you 
get out, there is grant money. We can retrain you every time you want 
to change jobs. We can pay grant money to agencies to find you new 
jobs.
  This is a well-intentioned bill, just as the legislation in the 1960s 
that decided to do something to help mothers, single mothers, unwed 
mothers who were having children and having to deal with deadbeat 
fathers. So back in the 1960s, the decision was made, best intentioned, 
we want to help these single moms so we are going to start as a Federal 
Government paying for every child you can have out of wedlock. It was 
well-intentioned, but 40 years later we have gotten exactly what we 
have paid for.
  As a broken-hearted judge, I had to sentence women who said they were 
encouraged to have a baby in order to start getting a government check. 
So they dropped out of school, had a baby, and then tried to live off 
the relatively small income they were paid from the government to have 
babies out of wedlock. And they told me that started their decline into 
desperation that ultimately led them to my courtroom, either for 
welfare fraud when they got so desperate they realized they needed to 
get a job but they couldn't give up their child support from the 
government, so they didn't report it and then they came to me for 
welfare fraud. Or some others would realize in desperation they 
couldn't live on the small amount that the government paid them to have 
children out of wedlock, so they got into the terrible drug trade and 
that brought them to my court.
  I came to Congress deeply desiring to avoid creating benefits for 
doing something that hurts you. Yet here we are again taking this same 
kind of well-meaning perilous road.
  The bill is well-intended, but when Congress creates more benefits 
for creating serious crimes than for risking life and limb in the 
United States military, guess which one you will have more of 40 years 
from now?
  There are a number of groups who support the Second Chance Act. They 
have big hearts. They mean well. They want to help criminals turn their 
lives around; but they don't realize the full parameters of this bill.
  So we are going to talk a bit tonight about the military, but I 
wanted to start off and touch on this since it is a bill that provides 
more benefits for those who commit serious enough crimes to be locked 
up than we are currently providing for our United States servicemembers 
in a number of areas, and so I think it needs a second look. I am 
hopeful that we will be able to do that. I don't know when it comes up 
if we will be able to make amendments. I certainly hope that the 
procedures that have been followed so far this year that make this the 
most partisan Congress in history, there was a rule that was attempted 
to be changed today that has not been changed since 1822. That would 
have made it an even more partisan Congress since 1822.
  So I am glad after a procedural stand taken by the minority that we 
were able to get that worked out at least for the next couple of weeks 
and we will be able to have some limited participation. I hope we will 
be able to have participation in this bill.
  I see that my colleague and dear friend, the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is here, another former judge, a recovering 
judge as he likes to say, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is also 
here. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my good friend and fellow judge from Texas.
  I would like to ask a couple of questions. This Second Chance Act is 
a very new concept in criminal justice from my viewpoint. When you 
point out that we are actually going to create a series of benefits for 
people who have committed felony crimes that are not available to the 
average American citizen, not even available to those people who stand 
in harm's way and stand on the wall to protect our Nation every night 
from harm, and yet they are going to be available to people who commit 
acts, felony acts, punishable by long terms in the penitentiary.
  I want to get clear exactly this Second Chance Act and these 
benefits, almost entitlements that are being created by this bill, does 
that pertain to only people who are incarcerated in Federal 
penitentiaries or does it expand to the States and localities?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the question, and the answer is that this 
is such a big-hearted bill from the majority that it will be able to 
provide

[[Page 12876]]

grants to people in Federal prisons, after they are released from 
Federal prison, people in State prisons, people in county jails.
  We are going to make this program, and this is just a start. This 
$360 million really is just seed money to see how many we can help with 
that and then take off after that. This is just the beginning. But the 
answer is it will be for anyone who commits a serious enough offense or 
alleged offense to get themselves locked up wherever they get locked up 
in the United States.
  Mr. CARTER. I apologize to my colleague, Mr. Gohmert. I didn't hear 
all of the benefits because I came in on the tail-end, but you and I 
have talked about this briefly. But this training and finding jobs 
benefit, would that include being able to get a grant to say attend the 
University of Texas or your beloved Texas A&M University?
  Mr. GOHMERT. It will provide training education grants. It is open-
ended enough, that is a possibility, yes.
  Mr. CARTER. So you could apply for a grant to attend the college or 
university of your choice?
  Mr. GOHMERT. There are organizations that could apply for the grants 
to assist in that education, yes.
  Mr. CARTER. I think you will agree with me at least in the Texas 
prison system, an ambitious prisoner who is trying to turn his life 
around can get a bachelor's degree, can also get a master's degree, and 
I suppose if he stayed in prison long enough, he can get a doctor's 
degree. One school that has correspondence courses is the University of 
Maryland, which is not far from here, and a prisoner in the Texas 
prison system can get the degree of his choice if he is willing to work 
hard enough there.
  I happen to know in the Texas prison system one of the most sought-
after jobs, and I point out jobs where you work for the skill, is in 
the print shop with very high tech print training. And most of the 
people who finish that training, and I have actually had prisoners that 
I have sent to prison who have asked not to be paroled until they have 
completed their term of working in the print shop because after they 
have done their print apprenticeship, they could get jobs coming 
straight out of prison at $60,000 to $75,000 a year as a master 
printer. It is not like we are not offering an opportunity to work your 
way to success in prison today; would you agree with that?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, that is absolutely true. But another dimension that 
is added to this is the fact that it can go on beyond your 
incarceration.
  You and I both agree that when it comes to retraining and education 
and drug and alcohol treatment, we really do need to do a better job of 
that in prisons. But this goes even beyond that, and there is no end in 
sight. Like I said, I tried to end some of these benefits at 6 months 
after release. One of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
asked me what was so magic about 6 months after release from prison. I 
said there was nothing magic about it. I think the training and 
education should end when you are released, but since I am a Republican 
and I am in the minority, I knew that they didn't want to end it the 
day you got out of prison. I was hopeful they would be willing to stop 
spending tax dollars for criminals who had been incarcerated at least 6 
months after they are released. Unfortunately, they voted that down. At 
this point it is open end. As you are aware, we have never continued to 
provide benefits to convicted felons after they get out of prison.
  Mr. CARTER. Right now you are talking about $350 million. If this 
program continues the way most programs that we breathe life into in 
Congress, then it will continue to grow like mushrooms after a rain, 
and at some point in time, this theoretically could go on forever in 
the life of a prisoner. But did you say they are also being guaranteed 
medical benefits?
  Mr. GOHMERT. It is not a guarantee, but it is the provision that 
there are grants available to provide medical care, open-ended medical 
care. I tried to limit it to 6 months after prison. It should be 
limited to the day they walk out.
  I tried to limit it to no plastic surgery in prison. They didn't do 
that. So, yes. You can continue to apply for medical care.
  Mr. CARTER. So if I understand what you are talking about here, we 
have people in the United States today that work 10 or 12-hour days, 
some of them 6 days a week, and they are struggling to pay their own 
medical bills and pay for health care insurance. They are asking us, 
crying out to us for help on paying their medical bills.
  So there is an easy solution to their problem. Under this bill, 
quickly get a handgun and commit a felony. You serve a little time, and 
you are back out with the ability to get grants to pay for your medical 
bills.
  It reminds me of stories that we have heard and experienced of the 
guy who just before Christmas throws a brick through a window so he can 
spend a warm night and have Christmas dinner in the county jail. There 
are people who do that. You know that happens and I know that happens. 
But is that what we want? Are we saying that the good-heartedness of 
the American people, and I think there are good-hearted people that are 
behind thing.

                              {time}  2300

  I don't think they have thought it out, and I am not for punishing 
criminals. I'm for giving them a start, but what do we owe to the 
people who have violated the laws of our society? I think we owe them a 
fair chance, but I don't think we owe them an open-ended chance for the 
rest of perpetuity.
  Mr. GOHMERT. You make a great point about this being just the start, 
the well over $360 million, but I love Ronald Reagan's old quote about, 
beginning a government program is the closest thing to eternal life on 
earth that we. Have and so if Reagan was right about that, just 
beginning a program like this means as long as there's a United States, 
it's probably going to have a life.
  Mr. CARTER. I think they told us that that $25 million was all food 
stamps was ever going to cost us. I don't even know what the number is, 
the billions of dollars that we are into that now. These programs do 
tend to have a life of their own.
  I thank you for raising this issue. I think this issue is important 
for the Members of Congress and for America to know that we are, 
unfortunately, starting down the road of, in my opinion, the 
possibility of awarding illegal behavior. It concerns me greatly, and I 
thank you for raising this issue.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Texas, dear friend, and with 
regard to this bill, it is well-intentioned. They mean well, and I 
believe they believe the things they said.
  And it takes me back to the arguments in this House, on the floor of 
this House, back in 1935, 1936, when something called Social Security 
was being created. And I am informed that debate came up regarding this 
new creation called a Social Security number, and some were upset and 
they said they were very concerned that that might end up becoming a 
national identification number. There were people who promised and 
assured and said there's no way that will ever happen; the Social 
Security number will be only used to just number the account, it will 
never be an identification. We can assure you that will never be, that 
situation, which is kind of like somebody from the government showing 
up at the door and saying I'm here to help you. You just get really 
concerned that that's not the case.
  But I see our friend from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) at the mike. I 
would yield to Mrs. Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding, and I am so pleased to be joined by three gentlemen from 
Texas, if you will, two judges and a physician. And we are all part of 
the Republican Study Committee and are certainly committed to carrying 
forth the conservative values that we appreciate here in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed hearing the conversation and listening to 
the conversation and discussion between my two colleagues as they have 
talked about this law that is a fairness issue, and I think so many 
people do look at it and say, my goodness, $350 million

[[Page 12877]]

for those that are in prison, and as the gentleman said, rewarding 
illegal behavior.
  And that is something that people are very sensitive to right now, 
especially in light of the impact that illegal immigration has made on 
so many of our communities, the cost to those communities and the 
concern with our citizens that there are some here in this body that 
would like to consider amnesty and reward those that have broken the 
rule of law.
  I also enjoyed the conversation about health care and that being 
provided to those that have been imprisoned. I've been visiting with my 
Realtors from Tennessee, yesterday and today. They've been on the Hill. 
The number one issue for them is small business health plans and access 
to affordable health care. And these are people that really do such a 
great job in working to improve the quality of life and work with our 
communities. And they are struggling with providing health care for 
their employees. They are struggling with providing health care for 
their families and insurance.
  And then when you hear about those that are imprisoned, as they leave 
having grants for health care provisions, you know, there's just 
something not right about that. There is something that is a little bit 
inappropriate about them having access to that when hardworking, 
middle-class families are struggling with that issue.
  We have got so many things to talk about. We have had such an 
interesting day here. We have had some procedural moves, as Mr. Gohmert 
mentioned. There is a rule that the majority was trying to change. It 
dealt with germaneness. This is a rule that has been on the books since 
1822, part of our House rules, part of the decorum and conduct of the 
House. And for expedience, for convenience, this is something that they 
were choosing to try to change, very unfortunate, and the kind of 
change the American people certainly did not vote for. They want to see 
the rules of the House and of this great institution respected, and 
it's been unfortunate.
  I have been greatly disappointed, and as my constituents, I've heard 
from three or four of them during the day that have said what's going 
on. And it's been with great disappointment that I've explained to them 
that for power, the sake of power, we saw the majority trying to 
eliminate a rule that has been a part of the order of this House since 
1822. And we hope that they will push that aside and decide that they 
are going to abide by the rules of the House as they have been laid 
forth and have worked well for centuries, if you will.
  I think also we could touch today on the fact that today marks 100 
days since President Bush sent the request over for supplemental 
spending for our troops. It has been 100 days of inaction or putting 
forward bills that they knew were going to be vetoed, of political 
grandstanding, and I find that to be unfortunate. And it is with regret 
that we have to admit that that is a tactic and a mode of operation 
that the majority has decided to take.
  They have had time to pass D.C. having the right to vote. They've had 
time to pass bills that would recognize schools. They've had time to 
name post offices. They've passed bills on global warming. They've 
passed legislation to protect wild horses, but there hasn't been time 
to craft a bill to get money to our troops in the field.
  It is a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and how unfortunate that 
the frivolous nature of some of the legislation that has come before 
us, that has consumed the time of this body, would be placed as a 
priority above the legislation to get funding to our troops in the 
field. And our soldiers are running out of cash. This effort is running 
out of cash, and we are in a global war on terror, and it is imperative 
that we get that money where it needs to be to those troops.
  But that has not been the priority of the majority. They chose to 
bring forward a supplemental bill that they knew was going to be vetoed 
because it had an additional $24 billion worth of pork barrel spending. 
So then they decided to rework it and break it into two supplementals 
so that the California salmon could get their money and you could get 
Ag money and you could get Katrina relief money. You could get all this 
spending and not put it through regular order, but let's get that money 
to that California salmon out there. We've already had Tuna-gate; so 
now let's go throw some more money in here for this.
  And how very unfortunate to that put into a wartime supplemental. 
This is a wartime supplemental. Our primary responsibility is keeping 
our Nation safe, keeping it secure, making certain that when you get in 
that car to get those children to the bus stop, to go to school, when 
they go to that school, you know that they are safe, that you're not 
going to have a group of terrorists like the Ft. Dix six come show up 
at the shopping mall or at the college baseball game and try to destroy 
our citizens. People want that type security, and it is unfortunate 
that that has not been a priority.
  I tell you, I look at what is happening before us and some of the 
things that have been passed by this body, naming the post offices and 
recognizing schools and horse legislation and some of those things, and 
you'd think maybe the Democrats have an insecurity agenda. Maybe that 
is their agenda for this session, this 110th Congress.
  And then as we look at the supplemental, which was supposed to be 
passed and out of the way before we started on DOD appropriations for 
next year, and that is what has been before us today, we also are in 
the midst of looking at the budget which contains a $392.5 billion tax 
increase over 5-years, the single largest tax increase in American 
history, $392.5 billion. You would see your marginal rates increase. 
You would see the cap gains rate increase. Child tax credit would be 
cut in half. Tennessee and Texas are two States that enjoy sales tax 
deductibility because we're wonderful States without a State income 
tax. That would go away. $392.5 billion tax increase over 5 years, 
single largest tax increase in history. It would cost $2,611 per 
taxpayer in my State of Tennessee. That is the amount of increase that 
we are looking at.
  And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents know that government 
is overspent and taxpayers are overtaxed and they are tired of it. They 
also know that government does not have a revenue problem. It is a 
spending problem that government has, and my constituents also believe 
that if 10 percent is good enough for God on Sunday, then it ought to 
be good enough for the government. And they believe that we should 
learn to live within our means.
  They are tired of working hard, getting their paycheck, looking at 
that pay stub and realizing that the Federal Government has first right 
of refusal to their paycheck because before that worker ever gets that 
paycheck deposited in his account, the Federal Government has put his 
hand into that wallet and has extracted every dollar they want out of 
that paycheck. Social Security comes out, your Medicare comes out, all 
your taxes come out. There you go. There you go, Mr. Speaker. The 
Federal Government has first right of refusal on your paycheck, and 
that is something that it is time that we should be changing.
  We have so many things that are budget issues, and I want to circle 
back around to the health care issue that comes back to us every time 
we look at the budget, every time we look at DOD, Department of 
Defense, health care comes to the forefront. And we're so fortunate at 
our Energy and Commerce Committee that we have some physicians who 
serve on that committee with us, who are articulate and well-versed in 
health care and what it is, what we need to do in order to be certain 
that this Nation stays healthy, individuals stay healthy but that our 
health care delivery systems stay healthy.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for 
some comments on the health care issue.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
want to talk about something that really may be a fairly small part 
when we talk about the overall $2.99 trillion Federal budget. But in 
the Republican

[[Page 12878]]

budget, in the minority's budget, that was not passed when we did our 
budgetary work 2 months ago, I included some work on a bill, a medical 
liability reform bill based off of law that was passed in Texas in 
2003. This bill is essentially a bill that limits, that it does cap 
awards on noneconomic damages a little different from the bill that we 
passed several times on the floor of this House in the past 4 years.
  The bill that we have had on the floor of the House the past 4 years 
has been based off the California law, the Medical Injury Compensation 
Reform Act of 1975 which caps noneconomic damages at $250,000.

                              {time}  2315

  Now, in Texas, back in the legislative session that occurred in 2003, 
an effort was made, Texas was in a significant problem as far as 
medical liability was concerned. We had lost most of our medical 
liability insurers from the State. They had simply closed up shop and 
left because they could not see a future in providing medical liability 
insurance in the State of Texas. We went from 17 insurers down to two 
by the end of 2002. Rates were increasing year over year. My personal 
situation, rates were increasing by 30 to 50 percent a year.
  The State of Texas, the State legislature, passed a medical liability 
reform based off the California law, but updated for the 21st century. 
Instead of a single $250,000 cap, there was a $250,000 cap on 
noneconomic damages as it pertained to the physician, a $250,000 cap on 
noneconomic damages as it pertained to the hospital, and an additional 
$250,000 cap as it pertained to a second hospital or nursing home, if 
one was involved, so an aggregate cap of $750,000.
  Well, the States are great laboratories for public policy. How is it 
done back in the State of Texas? Remember we dropped from 17 insurers 
down to two because of the medical liability crisis in the State? We 
are now back up to 14 or 15 carriers; and, most importantly, those 
carriers have returned to the State of Tex tech without an increase in 
premium.
  What about the physicians who were paying the premiums that were 
inexorably going up? Again, a 20 to 50 percent per year increase that I 
saw myself, in my practice. What has happened? Texas Medical Liability 
Trust, my last insurer of record before I came to Congress, has reduced 
rates for physicians now an aggregate of 22 percent in the past 3 
years.
  That is significant, because, remember, the rate of rise was going up 
20, 30, 40 percent a year. Now it's back down 22 percent and aggregate 
since this bill was passed.
  Probably one of the most important unintended beneficiaries of this 
was the small community not-for-profit hospital, who was self-insured 
for medical liability. They have been able to take money out of those 
escrow accounts and put it back to work for those hospitals capitalize 
improvements, paying nurse's salaries, the kinds of things you want 
your small not-for-profit community-based hospitals to be doing, not 
holding money in escrow against that inevitable liability suit that 
might occur.
  Well, under the Texas plan, I took the language of the Texas plan, 
worked it so it would fit within our constructs here in the House of 
Representatives, offered it to the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee. He had scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 
Texas plan, as applied through the House of Representatives to the 
entire 50 States, would yield a savings of $3.8 billion over 5 years. 
Not a mammoth amount of money when you are talking about a $2.999 
trillion budget, but savings nonetheless, monies that we will leave on 
the table in this budgetary cycle that could have gone to some of the 
other spending priorities that we hear so much about.
  It could have gone for anything else so far as increase in providing 
medical services. We will have to reauthorize SCHIP this year. We will 
have to find billions of dollars for that program. Here is $3.8 billion 
that he with left on the table because the majority chose not to look 
at this in the budgets that they passed.
  The other thing that is missing in this debate which we just cannot 
pay enough attention to, people say, well, you are from Texas, Texas 
has done the work. Why do you even care if there is any type of 
national solution? Well, it's not just the $3.8 billion that we would 
save under the budgetary cycle over the next years. It's the cost of 
defensive medicine. It is very, very hard to get a handle on the cost 
of what that defensive medicine is.
  But consider this, 1996, a study done, Stanford University, revealed 
that in the Medicare system alone, in the Medicare system alone, the 
cost of defensive medicine was approximately 28- to $30 billion a year. 
That was 10 years ago. I suspect that number is higher today. That's 
why we can scarcely afford to continue the trajectory we are on with 
the medical liability issue in this country.
  Another consideration, young people, getting out of college, 
considering medical school, put the brakes on their dreams. I don't 
know if I want to do that. I don't know if I want to face all of the 
hassles you have to face in the practice of medicine and those large 
liability insurance payments as well.
  We are keeping young people out of the practice, of considering the 
practice of a health care profession for their livelihood because of 
the burden that we put upon them, not just with how we reimburse 
physicians at a Federal level, that's a discussion for another day, but 
with the burden that we put on them with health professions, loans that 
they have to take out to get through school, they carry a big debt load 
when they get out of medical school. Then on top of that, they will 
have to go out and borrow huge sums of money just to pay their 
liability insurance. Many of them simply turn off that dream and say I 
will do something else. There is another path for me. I don't need to 
choose a career in health.
  This is the thing that we have to consider. We have to focus on how 
we are affecting our physician workforce for the future, how we are 
affecting the health care that you are our children and our children's 
children will receive.
  I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this subject. As you know, I 
will do it at almost any time and work it into any context. But it does 
have a budgetary role. It is a significant one.
  We shouldn't turn our backs on that $3.8 billion that's lying on the 
table right now waiting for us to pass the sensible legislation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate this 
so much. How interesting that something that would yield a $3.8 billion 
savings has been overlooked and left on the table. But I think that 
what we see from this, and what the takeaway for us is, that we have an 
innovative idea, and as the physician from Texas said, our States are 
great labs for finding things that work. They do such a great job 
looking at needed reforms, whether they are educational reforms or 
health care reforms, and finding things that work.
  You take a program like the liability reforms in Texas that have 
reduced insurance rates by over 22 percent, and then you run that out 
on a national basis and you say, okay, over 5 years, we can save $3.8 
billion, not to include it, when you know it's a concept that works, 
not to bring it forward for discussion from the House, so that you can 
elevate the awareness of this.
  Look for a pilot project for this if you need be, if you need further 
evidence and some qualified data to work from. But to be able to say, 
all right, we are just not going to do this because we like the status 
quo, we like the way the status quo is, and we are not interested in 
something that will be new, different, or maybe save some money.
  We would rather be spending money and spending they are, to the tune 
of the single largest tax increase in history that the liberal majority 
and the liberal leadership in this House is bringing forward in their 
budget, $392.5 billion over a period of 5 years.
  It has been a pleasure to stand with my colleagues tonight and to 
talk a little bit about our budget, to talk about some of the 
gamesmanship, if you will, that has taken place as the majority

[[Page 12879]]

has tried to change a rule that has been on the books since 1822, lack 
of respect for the traditions of the institution.
  We also would recognize with sorrow the fact that this is the 100th 
day since President Bush said, our men and women in uniform need 
additional funds. It is an imperative that we get the funds to them, 
and still no bill in sight. We have a Memorial Day break coming up upon 
us. I think it's unfortunate.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I want to expand a little bit on what my good friend from 
Tennessee was talking about.
  I happen to be blessed to have Fort Hood, Texas, in my district, 
which is the only division 2 post in America. It is the largest 
gathering of military forces on Earth, and we have experienced already, 
since I have been in Congress, a delay on getting a supplemental to the 
post.
  Now, I think the American people need to know, and I would hope my 
colleagues in Congress would know, that today, as we speak, there are 
between 4- and 5,000 American soldiers going door-to-door in Baghdad 
and looking for three soldiers. Why is that? Why that concentration of 
effort?
  Because the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps and 
every one of our services, they value every human life that they have. 
They care about their soldiers, and they are showing it by 24/7 putting 
their lives on the line looking for these guys, because they know what 
happens to these prisoners, what has happened in the past, people who 
were castrated and skinned alive, and their throats cut, and left on 
the side of the road dead with bombs strapped to their bodies. So they 
care about those soldiers.
  This issue goes right down to what happens at home, when the 
supplemental money that provides the bullets, ammunition, 
transportation, vehicles for our soldiers in harm's way, when this 
Congress fails to meet its obligation to those brave men and women. By 
passing a supplemental, what does the Army do? Do they let the guys in 
the war suffer the consequences? No.
  What happens is they look into the pocketbooks back home, and they 
have to cut the soldiers that are back in Texas or back in Tennessee or 
back in one of the other fine States in this union, they have to reduce 
what they have available for training, for services on their post.
  You know, last year, when we didn't get the supplemental done until 
August, I can tell you that the people of Killeen, where Fort Hood is 
located, the people on the post, were talking about will we have enough 
money to pay the bills, the kinds of bills that American citizens 
understand, light bills, water bills, service bills, cutting the grass.
  Are we going to be able to provide that at this post because the 
money, first, goes to the war fighters. They don't leave American 
soldiers in harm's way. So they cut their own pocketbooks.
  Are we going to be able to pay the people we have contracted with to 
provide services? These issues are facing our soldiers today, because 
of the 100-day delay in providing this supplemental for our soldiers.
  So it's important to know that our Army will not leave those guys 
without the goods that they need, and they will cut whatever they have 
to at home much.
  But what does that mean to the next round of people that may have to 
go back to that war or any war? Also, you have at risk the possibility 
of cutting the training budgets for these soldiers, and what makes the 
American fighting man so superior to anybody on Earth? He is the best-
trained soldier that ever took to the field. But if you cut the 
training bills in order to provide bullets for the guys in harm's way, 
then the training has to sacrifice. We can't get to that point. It is 
critical that we get a supplement passed from the standpoint of the 
American soldier.
  Finally, today, we heard all rhetoric on this great, by the way, 
great bill that we just passed on defense authorization. We are 
providing funds for the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, in 2008.
  But what are we going to do about it now? I think this is something 
that really has to be addressed because we are harming the best 
military on earth.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my former judge friend. You brought up about our 
soldiers going door-to-door in Iraq looking for the three soldiers that 
are missing, how critical intelligence is.
  Now, I know the gentleman from Texas, my friend, the gentlelady from 
Tennessee, you both recall, though none of us were in Congress, I 
recall, because I was in the Army, and when President Carter started 
making Draconian cuts in our intelligence, and started cutting out 
critical areas of intelligence that would help us in the military, it 
hurt.
  Now, when you are in the military, you cannot say anything derogatory 
about your Commander in Chief, that is a court martialable offense.
  But we took up an intelligence bill, and, of course, as we know, some 
of the information that we have to go up and review in a classified 
setting, in a top secret setting, and things we learned cannot be 
revealed and will not be disclosed and divulged, but something that has 
been discussed on this floor in that intelligence bill is we cut some 
vital programs. We cut some vital eyes and years information that would 
help our military to have what they need to know where the enemy is, 
where they are coming from, what they are doing, those kinds of things.

                              {time}  2330

  And to help look for global warning evidence, to look for global 
warming evidence. I don't know about you all, I was seeing just this 
week some information about the polar ice caps melting, how devastating 
that can be, how that can bring about the end of the world, and we have 
to cut CO2 emissions. But the polar ice caps I am talking 
about were on Mars.
  Now, how are our CO2 emissions on Earth, staying in our 
atmosphere, causing the Mars polar ice caps to melt? Gee, could it have 
something to do with maybe just more sunspots? In any event, that is a 
whole different matter.
  The Constitution says we are to provide for the common defense. And 
when you cut programs that will help with eyes and ears to our 
military, I don't see how you can go home feeling too good about what 
we have done.
  I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It has been so 
interesting to me, and the gentleman mentioned Fort Hood and Killeen, 
Texas and his constituents there. Fort Campbell is in my district in 
Montgomery County, Tennessee, and to see these men and women, and to 
hear their stories and to see their need, as I have worked with that 
post since coming to Congress and working to meet their needs, one of 
the lessons to me has been, and I think this should be one of the 
lessons learned for all of us who are Members in Congress, when you cut 
funding to programs like the military, then there is a price to pay for 
that. And we are constitutionally charged and directed to provide for 
the common defense and the security of this Nation.
  One of the things that happened during the Clinton Presidency, in 
order to generate a surplus, was cutting the military funding and 
cutting the intelligence funding. And we have heard, 4 years. This is 
not anecdotal, it is something that is fact and something that was 
bragged about, actually, a little bit in the late 1990s, was not 
putting that money into R&D, not researching the next generation of 
tanks or choppers or fighters or artillery or armor, because the Cold 
War was over and there wasn't a big threat. So let's cut that funding, 
and then let's put that money into something else.
  And the same thing happened with intelligence, as the gentleman was 
saying. There was money that was cut back from that and put into social 
programs and domestic programs and not put into keeping that 
intelligence network strong and viable. And it takes about 5 years for 
one of our intelligence agents to develop an asset that

[[Page 12880]]

is a reliable asset for information to protect our country. And I hope 
this is a lesson learned.
  When we look at what happened to our country on September 11th, that 
is the date our Nation stopped responding to acts of terrorism as civil 
disobedience and started responding to acts of terrorism as an act of 
war, September 11th. We had been attacked for 2 decades prior to that, 
but that day was the day it changed. And as we looked at that and 
realized that on September 11, 2001, we were not under a George Bush 
budget, we were still under a Bill Clinton budget, and the Bush budget 
was kicking in about the 1st of October.
  We have to realize that what you had were many years where our 
military had been telling us, we are pulling down on all of our 
resources, our reserve resources, we are pulling these down; and we 
need to be replenishing, we need to be careful where we are. I think 
that is a lesson, and I hope it is a lesson that we realize, that when 
you put something in place, you have to maintain it. When you build for 
the common defense, you need to maintain that in order to be able to 
stay strong.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentlelady. You have made some great points.
  During the 1990s, though, we were assured; we heard so many times all 
these lies about weapons of mass destruction. And maybe it is 
unfortunate that it turns out that all the times President Clinton 
assured us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, maybe they were 
right, maybe President Clinton was lying all those times that he said 
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Madeline Albright was lying 
all those times she said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe 
George Bush should not have believed all the information they provided 
to him about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
  But, nonetheless, we are now hearing people even in some of the 
debates and whatnot blaming this President and saying, if we would just 
leave the jihadist extremists alone, they will leave us alone.
  And they want to blame President Bush, the current President Bush for 
our Americans being killed. If you are going to do that, though, you 
have to blame President Clinton for 9/11 because all the time, he was 
President. Of course, they tried the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 
that failed, and then they began planning for the next, and that was 9/
11.
  Now, I feel like President Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but to 
blame him for Muslims plotting during the entire time he was President 
to blow up and kill thousands of Americans doesn't fit, because during 
his Presidency this country, nearly every time President Clinton 
committed troops or military assets it was to protect Muslims around 
the world. And yet all that time the jihadist extremists were plotting 
to kill thousands of Americans. So this stuff about blaming President 
Bush doesn't wash.
  You go back to 1979. I was at Fort Benning. The first jihadist 
attack, taking our American embassy, that is an act of war. You are 
attacking American property, that is an act of war. Taking hostages. We 
did nothing but wring our hands and beg them to let them go. That was a 
breakdown and that was a glitch right after we fled from Vietnam. It 
was not a good chapter.
  But the fact is, there are people that want to destroy our way of 
life. And we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The 
President did. I know, having taken that oath as a member of the United 
States military before, that is all taken very seriously. And there are 
people that want to destroy our way of life. We owe it to them to 
provide them the common defense. And we see things being weakened here, 
and it breaks my heart.
  The American people, any time you see a program cut, whether it is 
under President Carter, President Clinton, or now under the Democratic 
majority cutting some intelligence program, and then you find out that 
it goes to some pork barrel earmark to somebody in the majority, it 
just breaks your heart, I can tell you, having been in the military 
when those things happen. And so it is heartbreaking to see the way it 
looks like we are going to head down that path with this Democratic 
majority.
  I would yield to my friend from Texas for further comment.
  Mr. CARTER. I agree completely with what my friend Judge Gohmert had 
to say. You have given a very good history of what has been the history 
of the Democrat Party when they were in the majority or where they were 
in control of the White House. They have a history of cutting and 
providing less than the necessary supplies for our military.
  In fact, one of the great brags that Al Gore used to say is that he 
reduced the number of employees in the Federal Government by this huge 
amount. But if you looked at where they came from, they were United 
States soldiers. Members of the military made up the vast majority of 
the numbers of reducing the size of government that were taken credit 
for during the Clinton administration. They cut our Army down from 
multidivisions, down to where it is now.
  But you know what? That is all water under the bridge. You had 
mentioned something that is very important to me: We took an oath.
  We took an oath, and our colleague from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) got 
asked a question by one of his folks back home: Why do you feel so that 
you are doing the right thing by providing for these guys that are 
fighting over in Iraq?
  He said, You know, it is easy to criticize. But when you become 
responsible, then you have really got to look at it. And he said, I am 
by my oath responsible to the American public to provide for the common 
defense.
  It as a perfect answer. That is exactly what we all did, Republican 
and Democrat, is we took an oath to be responsible to the American 
people to provide protection for those people. And some of these are 
hard calls and hard votes. These are not for me. These are not for me 
nor for anyone in this room. But it is a hard vote for some. So it is 
just sad. And sometimes we have just got to remember why we are here.
  I would like to mention one more thing because I know our time is 
getting late. But we talked about this $392.5 billion tax increase that 
is coming down the road. Let me point out to folks that are paying gas 
prices. If you don't like $3 a gallon gasoline, which, by the way, 
there was supposed to be an instant solution for that problem when the 
new majority came into power, but we haven't seen it. In fact, it has 
only been made worse, in my opinion.
  But take that, and I looked at that long list of what it means to 
everybody's district for this tax increase, and everybody gets--at 
least $2,000 it is going to cost the average family, At least $2,000. 
So take that money that you are putting aside to pay for that gas and 
subtract $2,000 a year from it. So the price of gas is going up. If 
nothing else, the price of gas is going up for the average American 
family by this tax increase, and it is something that will hurt our 
economy and turn us in the wrong direction.
  I just wanted to mention that before we have to quit.
  Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding back. It is a 
good note to finish on because people are paying too much for gasoline. 
And I go back to something I said in, January a few months ago, after 
the Democratic majority rammed another bill through that was going to 
cut the incentives for drilling, for refineries, some of the things 
that we have done in the last couple of years that we were here.
  And I came to the well and I said then, and I will finish with this: 
If you are going to do things that make gasoline go up, at least have 
pride enough when the price goes up to come to the floor and say, ``You 
bet you we are the Democratic majority, and we drove up the price of 
gas and we are proud of it.''

[[Page 12881]]



                          ____________________