Louie Gohmert RSS Articles

The FY 13 NDAA Keeps Terrorists Off U.S. Soil without Compromising Civil Liberties

Wed, 16 May 2012 04:00:00 GMT

This week, the House will fulfill our most important constitutional duty by debating the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In accordance with the framer’s intent, this act is the primary check that Congress can apply to the Executive Branch on defense and national security policy.

Last year, constitutional conservatives raised the alarm bell about some provisions in the FY 12 NDAA; provisions that many were concerned would grant President Obama far reaching powers to detain American citizens without trial. The bill ultimately passed, but has become the subject of countless town hall meetings, tweets, and Facebook posts in the months since.

The debate has become so heated that many believe that the NDAA is a bill that deals strictly with detaining terrorists. It is much more than that. Aside from dictating how the military can handle any al Qaeda terrorists they capture, the FY13 NDAA deals with the full scope of national security issues. There is much in it, from a rejection of the Obama administration’s effort to raise health care fees on military retirees; to making sure the President doesn’t trade our missile defenses away to the Russians, that Conservatives can be proud of.

The real question before us is how to adjust the language from last year that has made so many so uncomfortable while still ensuring that we can fight and win the War on Terror. The base bill has already made important steps in the right direction. It includes the Rigell / Landry reassertion of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This language firmly states that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the FY 12 NDAA detainee provisions do not allow for the detention of any person in the United States without the right of redress. Under this provision, all Americans have access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The underlying language is being further strengthened by the Gohmert / Landry / Rigell Amendment which further states that no citizens’s constitutional rights will be denied in an Article III court pursuant to the AUMF. The best way to protect our rights is to put simple and clear language in the NDAA that lays those rights out. Between the new language in the base bill and our amendment, we are confident we have done that.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-MA) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) have a competing amendment that simply goes too far. Their bill extends constitutional protections beyond U.S. citizens to any terrorist who is captured in the United States. We share the concerns of legal experts who worry that by granting terrorists greater rights if they are captured in America than if they are captured overseas, we are actually giving terrorists a profound incentive to attack us here at home. The Smith/Amash amendment grants foreign terrorists or foreign soldiers rights our own military do not have in court under the Constitutional Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Our approach is the better alternative. It protects our constitutional rights, but does not extend them to the very men who have been fighting for a decade to tear that great document down.

Quid pro quo? Texas Republican suggests feds went easy on BP

Wed, 09 May 2012 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert suggested Wednesday that the Obama administration overlooked BP’s safety problems before the Gulf oil spill because the company promised to support White-House backed climate change legislation and the 2010 health care law.

The Tyler Republican’s allegation came during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Interior Department’s five-year plan for selling offshore drilling leases on the outer continental shelf from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017.

Gohmert pressed the head of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to explain why BP was still operating in the Gulf of Mexico despite a history of safety problems when its Macondo well blew out in April 2010, triggering a lethal explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig and the nation’s worst oil spill.

“As far as I know, British Petroleum was the only operator in the Gulf Coast that was about to endorse the administration’s cap and trade bill and was negotiating for the big rollout of that endorsement at the time the Deepwater Horizon blew,” Gohmert said. “So you’re saying that under the new policies now, even if companies are willing to endorse cap and trade or Obamacare, you’re still going to scrutinize them closely?”

Bureau director Tommy Beaudreau rejected any possibility of a quid pro quo.

“Politics has nothing to do with our safety regime,” he told Gohmert.

“I don’t think you can honesty say that when the Deepwater Horizon blew,” Gohmert shot back.

Back in 2009 and 2010, when lawmakers saw a chance for passing broad legislation to impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, both BP and ConocoPhillips were part of a coalition of businesses that supported the endeavor. But in February 2010, both energy companies announced they were pulling out of the group, known as the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

At the time, oil industry leaders were upset with a House bill that would have given refiners a small share of free allowances to emit carbon dioxide emissions compared with other sectors.

Rep. Louie Gohmert Calls for EPA Region Six Administrator’s Resignation

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement and called for the resignation of EPA Region Six Administrator, Al Armendariz, after a tape surfaced of his toxic comments:

“Elitists, like Al Armendariz, do not understand that we don’t have subway systems in east Texas. Hard-working, taxpaying Americans have to get in their cars and drive, sometimes long distances, in order to get to and from work. In his zeal to “crucify” the Evil Oil Companies, Armendariz is placing a crushing burden on overwhelmed Americans who have to choose between food for their families or gasoline to get to work.

The specific game plan of this administration’s “War on Big Oil” will not adversely impact major oil companies. Instead, their policies will repeal business deductions for small independent oil and gas companies who drill and maintain 95-percent of the wells in the continental United States. In fact, his “crucifixion” strategy will nail small independent companies to the cross – leaving true Big Oil to make even more profit.”

Congressman Louie Gohmert is the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. He is also a Senior Member on the Natural Resources Committee. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. He also served as Chief Justice of Texas'12th Court of Appeals.

# # #

Rep. Louie Gohmert Applauds Decision to Preserve Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement regarding the agreement made between the U.S. Army and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to work through their differences and preserve Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge:

“For years, saving Caddo Lake and its surrounding habitat has been a critical priority for us in east Texas. The effort to protect this lake is a significant issue for Texas and the nation because it is such a treasure. Internally my feelings are that, ‘It's about time!’ More diplomatically, I would say that we are delighted the Army and the Fish and Wildlife Service were able to reach an agreement. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and I have been diligently working on this matter, and it is a great to see the issues resolved for the sake of such a historic and valuable wildlife refuge. That means the lake that left me in awe as a child, and that my children have enjoyed, should be around for future generations to treasure.”

Congressman Louie Gohmert is the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. He is a Senior Member on the Natural Resources Committee. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. He also served as Chief Justice of Texas'12th Court of Appeals.

# # #

House panel clears way for administration subpoenas on drilling, coal reg probes

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

A House Committee voted Wednesday to clear the way to subpoena the Obama administration over two separate probes -- one concerning allegations dating back to the BP spill that it misrepresented a report on the temporary offshore drilling ban.

The 23-17 vote along party lines allows GOP Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to issue the subpoenas, which will go to such agencies as the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency centers on an administration report on oil production following the April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast.

A panel of experts said it recommended that drilling in the Gulf resume. However, the final report from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to President Obama called for a six-month moratorium and was edited to suggest the panel's support of that recommendation.

Salazar apologized in June 2010, saying he and the president made the decision to impose the moratorium.

House Democrats said Wednesday the change was a result of hectic deadline editing by multiple authors.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said the incident was tantamount to "fraud."

On the second issue, Republicans are charging the Obama administration tried to squelch a report that showed a proposed regulation on coal mining would destroy jobs. Republicans claimed Wednesday that political appointees tried to get the firm that did the study to change its numbers -- and told them not to released their estimate of job losses to anyone.

The Obama administration has contested these claims.

Going forward, GOP members want subpoena power to obtain documents and audio recordings that could make clear what happened, in both cases.

Hastings said before the hearing that the Interior Department “has not met a single deadline for producing all of the requested information and continues to withhold the vast majority of requested materials.”

“When I became chairman, I made clear that one of my priorities would be oversight of the administration,” said Hastings, R-Wash. “Both investigations have been ongoing for over a year.”

He said the requested information includes more than 30 hours of digital audio recordings of meetings and conversations between the agency and contractors regarding the rewriting of the coal production regulation, specifically regarding stream-buffer zones.

“If there’s nothing to hide, then why are these recording being withheld,” Hastings asked at the hearing.

In a statement given to Fox News Wednesday night, the Department of the Interior denies they have not cooperated with the two probes, saying they have numerous times testified and produced documents to comply with the Committee’s legitimate oversight interests.

In the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, they say Sec. Salazar set stronger standards for safety soon after the incident, and they were quickly adopted by the industry.

"This investigation continues to spend taxpayer resources to re-litigate an issue that was resolved two years ago, and that has thoroughly been reviewed by the Department’s Inspector General," the statement said. "The American people would be best served by passage of the legislative changes we’ve recommended to further enhance offshore oil and gas enforcement and safety."

In the case of coal-production regulations, the Interior Department says the legislation being discussed has not yet even been proposed.

"The expense of significant resources on premature oversight threatens to jeopardize the Executive Branch’s ongoing deliberations," the statement said. "Once we do put forward a proposed rule to better protect communities and water supplies from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining, we will provide ample opportunity for the public, industry, stakeholders, Congress, and others to provide input that will help us develop a balanced and responsible rule."

Democrats on the committee objected to the approval of the subpoena request.

"The subpoenas are a blank check for an investigation that has been shooting blanks,” said Rep. Markey, D-Mass. “Just because (the committee) discusses streams and rivers doesn’t mean we should go on a fishing expedition."

Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.

Gohmert: Government Dictating Health Choices Is Not a Slippery Slope but a Cliff

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, one thing is certain: The Obama administration has diametrically changed its position in arguments before the Supreme Court, revealing supreme hypocrisy and vulnerability.

We desperately needed heath care reform, but this cure is worse than the disease.

Claims were made by the bill’s proponents throughout the Obamacare debate that the mandate to buy government prescribed health insurance was so fundamental to the bill that it could not be omitted. If some Americans could decline the mandate without a massive fine, then the whole health care scheme would not work. We were also told repeatedly that these payments were not taxes but were punitive fees. Now Obama administration officials state it is a tax.

In six separate parts of the bill, Congress asserted the critical nature of the mandate to the overall bill. In court documents, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius characterized the individual mandate as the linchpin of Obamacare’s statutory scheme.

Although former Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan still maintains that she shirked her duty by failing to give any advice on Obamacare, the current solicitor general conceded that Congress did not intend for the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions in the statute to take effect without the individual mandate.

The president assured us repeatedly that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. Now we know that if you liked your health care plan, it is gone or materially changed to comply with the Obama-Pelosi-Reid new prescription.

As this administration constantly changes its fundamental positions, the facts remain unchanged. A presumption of severability applies if Congress includes a severability clause. In Obamacare, however, Congress deliberately removed the severability clause from the House version. Numerous statements of Congressional leaders during debate made it clear that if the mandate falls, so should the entire bill.

Some have argued that all states mandate the purchase of car insurance as a parallel to the health insurance mandate. Courts have dealt with the issue, unequivocally adjudicating that driving on a state’s road is a privilege, not a right. Note also, not a single state requires the purchase of insurance to cover the driver. They only require insurance to cover potential damage to others. Obamacare is the first time the U.S. government has mandated the purchase of a product not for a privilege but simply to live.

Fortunately, before the Supreme Court rules, the president has illustrated that when there is a conflict between religious beliefs and Obamacare decrees, the executive branch decrees take priority. For example, administration orders in health care coverage recently trumped the First Amendment religious rights of those who believe it is wrong to pay into an insurance system where fungible money can be used for abortions or contraceptives.

This override of constitutional rights sounds alarms for other potential violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments, as well as creating “equal protection” issues. Obamacare’s threat to our liberties cannot be overstated. If the federal government can mandate health insurance of a specific type alleging the greatest good for the greatest number of people, then previously protected activities must yield to the new Obamacare trump over constitutional rights. Religious and personal beliefs of all, including justices on this case, will have to yield to the tyranny of the majority as its whims ebb and flow under the guise of health care if this law is upheld.

If the Supreme Court decides that the federal government has the right to dictate health insurance requirements and policies, then the federal government will have the duty to dictate how we live so as to avoid unjust expenses on the rest of the insured in America. The thought of a conservative president with that same power should scare liberals into joining conservatives in proclaiming the constitutional overreach of Obamacare.

Besides the mandate, Obamacare tells insurers what provisions must be in all policies. Under Obamacare, activities that are potentially hazardous or could cause increased medical costs must be stopped, fined or taxed whenever a federal bureaucrat says so. So if Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court in whole or in part, then the federal government’s early override of constitutionally expressed religious rights for the purported greatest good of Obamacare’s insureds must stand.

Consider, however, that a different president could easily assert that he or she has the same authority to override unstated privacy rights just as effectively as this administration has overridden expressly stated religious rights, so long as it saves money for the greatest number of people.

The slope created by a federal right to dictate health insurance is not slippery, it is a cliff. The overriding of liberties, once begun, will know no obvious bounds.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is vice chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Prior to being elected to Congress, Gohmert was elected to three terms as a district judge in Smith County, Texas, and also served as chief justice of Texas’ 12th Court of Appeals.

Rep. Louie Gohmert Speaks Out Against Obamacare

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Members of Congress including Reps. Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Steve King (IA-05), Michele Bachmann (MN-06), Tom Price (GA-06), Joe Barton (TX-06), Phil Gingrey (GA-11), Paul Gosar (AZ-01) and Founder of The Tea Party Patriots, Jenny Beth Martin, addressed Obamacare’s broken promises, new taxes, increased costs and expanded bureaucracy in a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Gohmert delivered the following remarks:

“President Obama’s health care bill was not a bill that needed to be passed. Simply stated, it allows any President to tread on the religious freedom expressly promised to us in the Constitution. It is my hope that liberal friends, across the country, who originally bought into the lies about how good this piece of legislation was going to be, will rise up and demand repeal upon realizing the power that this gives a President to trample on their favorite written and unwritten rights.

If the President can overstep and tread on your First Amendment rights, then he can certainly overstep all kinds of other rights—all for the greatest good to the new federal health care system. This is such a devastating blow to our liberties for which so much has been sacrificed. As Dennis Miller said, ‘If our original founders would go to war over a tax on their breakfast drink," they would certainly never stand for this massive usurpation of people's choices in how to live.’ ObamaCare was a situation where a minority of Americans dictated the life decisions to a large majority of Americans without their consent and, in fact, with their frequently stated opposition. Some want to nip around the edges and repeal small parts, but the entire monstrous cancer needs to be destroyed. Then, we can move on and get real health care reform that the people deserve.”

Congressman Louie Gohmert is the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. He also served as Chief Justice of Texas'12th Court of Appeals.

# # #

Congressman: Obama owes Felipe Calderón ‘Fast and Furious’ apology

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told The Daily Caller he thinks President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both owe Mexican President Felipe Calderón a phone call apologizing for Operation Fast and Furious.

“Absolutely, he [Obama] should apologize to Mexico,” Gohmert said in a phone interview Monday. ”But in this case it’s not only the president, but Attorney General Holder should [also] be apologizing.”

“This was on his watch, it was his responsibility,” Gohmert added, “and even though he continues to refuse to take responsibility, Attorney General Holder, obviously he’s not going to do an honorable thing like President Bush’s attorney general — [Alberto] Gonzales — did when he tendered his resignation, and apparently is just going to try to stick it out until the end.”

“So, if he’s going to stick it out until the end and not do the honorable thing, to resign, then the least he can do is apologize to the families of those that his negligence as the Attorney General — the person in charge of Justice — has allowed to happen to their loved ones.”

Neither Obama nor Holder has apologized to the Mexican government, or to the Mexican people, for the deaths of roughly 300 Mexican nationals murdered with weapons the Justice Department sent across the border as part of Operation Fast and Furious. When TheDC asked White House spokesman Eric Schultz why Obama hasn’t made an apology phone call to Calderón, he did not answer.

Similarly, a spokesperson for Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not answer whether she thinks Obama should apologize to Calderón. (RELATED: Full coverage of Operation Fast and Furious)

Last week, Gohmert gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives criticizing the president for certain apologies he has made and others he has failed to make. “I thought maybe it would be helpful to track exactly what deserves apology and what doesn’t,” Gohmert said during the floor speech.

Rep. Gohmert Uses Visual Aid To Chart 'Apologizer-In-Chief's' Hits and Misses

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the numerous frivolous and harmful apologies President Obama has made on behalf of the United States, while disregarding or even refusing to acknowledge some of the most important current events.

Referring to Obama as the nation's "Apologizer-In-Chief,' Rep. Gohmert used a visual aid and checked off “Yes” and “No” boxes to illustrate instances Pres. Obama has – and hasn’t – made apologies.

Apologies Made:

For America’s “arrogance” regarding countries Americans died to help free
To detainee terrorists interrogated by the CIA
For the accidental burning of Korans
To Obamacare activist Sandra Fluke

Rep. Gohmert said one of the apologies Obama should’ve made, but didn’t, is to Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann for verbal attacks by one of his “biggest supporters” – Bill Maher:

Gohmert said Obama should apologize for the “Inflammatory and indecent comments by one of Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Maher, regarding Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) – tens of times worse than anything Rush Limbaugh would ever have dreamed of saying.”

Others Apologies Not Made:

To Catholics forced by the government to violate their faith
To the family of border patrol agent Brian Terry murdered by Operation Fast and Furious guns
To families of American soldiers killed after Obama said he calmed things down in Afghanistan
To Israel, for saying it should return to its 1967 borders that would’ve subjected it to attacks
To American taxpayers forced to violated their religious beliefs and pay for abortion
For attending radical Rev. Wright’s church for years

“So, I think it helps to chronicle exactly what deserves an apology from the White House these days, just so we know where his policies lie, and where this president stands and - with whom he stands,” Rep. Gohmert concluded.

Gohmert Mourns the Loss of Conservative Writer and Friend, Andrew Breitbart

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today after hearing the devastating news of the sudden and unexpected death of conservative writer, Andrew Breitbart:

“This nation and freedom have lost a great proponent and defender. Andrew Breitbart was a converted liberal who became a passionate conservative voice for liberty, opportunity and truth. He unashamedly and unabashedly carried the torch of American patriotism, while the brightness of his flame only intensified with every passing day. Though Andrew did great service to himself, his family and his nation, I pray that his greatest contribution to this, the greatest nation in world history, will be the inspiration he has been and will be to so many who saw his devotion, saw his commitment, saw his goals, vision and will, who then go out and restore and achieve more in the name of liberty than one extraordinary person could ever achieve individually. He was a lover of liberty, a lover of family, lover of God, a lover of this nation, and especially a lover of life. He was also a bright and encouraging friend to me.”

# # #