[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5461-5464]
[From the U.S. 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 
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 

[[Page 5462]]

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 
inextricably tied together, and Mexican drug cartels are a serious 
threat to public safety. A serious debate over 

[[Page 5463]]

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 


[[Page 5464]]

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 
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.

                          ____________________