Ted Poe

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his insightful evaluation of the entire global warming concept, and I appreciate the research that he has done. It is important that we have a debate on this issue because our entire energy policy under this administration is based upon the myth that there is global warming. It has been pointed out that the Earth goes through cycles of different climate changes--it gets cooler, it gets warmer--and whether man is at fault or not, I think not. I would like to enter into the Record the Newsweek article I referred to earlier from April 28, 1975, the article that says we are all going to freeze in the dark. [From Newsweek, Apr. 28, 1975] There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may bring a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and Russia in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas--parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia--where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard- pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree--a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ``A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,'' warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.'' A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras--and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ``little ice age'' conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900--years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ``Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,'' concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ``Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.'' Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases--all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. ``The world's food-producing system,'' warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ``is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.'' Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight and today we have been hearing a lot about the economic crisis throughout the globe. Parallel to the concern about the economic crisis is another concern that we have been told about, and that is the fear of global warming. It preoccupies much of what we do here in this House, and it preoccupies much of what is in the media, not only in the United States but throughout the world. I would like to read a portion of a Newsweek article, Mr. Speaker. It says: There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may bring a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on this earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps in only 10 years. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and Russia in the north, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas, parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indo-China and Indonesia, where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoons. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by 2 weeks since 1950, with the result overall loss in grain production estimated up to 100,000 tons every year. During this same time, the average temperature around the equator has arisen by a fraction of a degree, a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters, killed more than 300 people and caused one-half billion dollars worth of damage in 13 States in the United States. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advanced signs of a fundamental change in the world's weather. The central fact--and you note here, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact. It says: The central fact is that after three-quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate is beginning to cool down. That is right, Mr. Speaker, this article says the world is cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of this cooling trend as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions, but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will produce agricultural productivity for rest of the century. If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climate change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Science. This article goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the new Ice Age affecting the world; how we are going to have a new Ice Age that will come to the United States, all parts of the world, how our whole attitude about the world will change because it will be a cold place. Basically, Mr. Speaker, Newsweek in 1975, April 28, said we are all going to freeze in the dark. Now the people who said this--and I remember all of this taking place back in the seventies, and I believed this nonsense, that we are all going to freeze, that the Earth is getting colder, and that we can't do anything about it and that it will never correct itself. I believed all that, as did a lot of other Americans, because it was based on, as this articles says, scientific fact that the earth is getting colder. And these same people in 1975 that predicted that the earth was going to get colder are the same people today, in the year 2009, saying just the opposite: That the earth is getting hot. We are all going to roast. It is the same global warming crowd. The difference is a few years have passed. And our attention span is so short as Americans, and other people in the world, we forget these predictions that occurred just 33 years ago. And that is unfortunate. The people in the weather business, meteorologists, for example, who predicted the global warming and some that predicted the earth getting colder are the same people who can't predict tomorrow's weather. You know, these folks are the only people that I know of in our culture that can be consistently wrong and keep their jobs, but they do. They can't predict tomorrow's weather, but they are telling us, we are all going to roast because of global warming. I am not so sure that that is true. The article goes ahead and points out that the earth is already one- sixth of the way toward the new Ice Age. And, of course, history proved the experts in 1970 wrong; that we did not all freeze. Now, in fact, they are predicting the opposite. Mr. Speaker, last week we had the global warming crowd here in Washington, D.C., protesting how we provide energy for this building. Now I have nothing against folks who want to peaceably assemble and talk about issues. That is great. That is part of the American way. But it is interesting, they showed up on a day, March 2, where we had 10 inches of snow and one of the coldest days in recorded history in Washington, D.C., 18 degrees, and they were here protesting the way we find energy for this Capitol. And it is how inconsistent the global warming crowd is. They are against everything that produces energy, especially those bad, nasty oil companies. They were wearing, and I thought this was interesting, green hard hats. Which is fine. I asked one of the young ladies that was with the group, do you know what that hard hat is made out of? And she said, plastic. And I said, what do you think plastic is made out of? And she said, well, plastic is made out of plastic. Contrary to what some people believe, plastic is not an element. It is not a mineral. Plastic, like many things that we see every day, is a derivative of crude oil. I told her that, and she didn't understand it or believe it, but whatever. The problem they see is the fact that humans are the problem; that we use energy, and that they wish to, I guess, eliminate humans on this earth because we are the problem, they say, in global warming. Well, first of all, global warming is not a scientific fact even though some say that it is. There are other scientists who say we are not having global warming. Unfortunately, we have been basically told here in the House of Representatives that global warming is a scientific fact, and all of our legislation is going to be based upon the absolute fact of global warming. That is unfortunate. We should still continue the debate on, first, whether or not global warming is occurring; and, second, and most importantly, is it man's fault that there is a climate change? Scientists certainly disagree. I think the bottom line in global warming and those that advocate that we are having global warming is it is real basic: It is all about money. You see, those who advocate that we have global warming want more Federal dollars to study that issue to convince us that there is global warming, and they get those Federal dollars. Those meteorologists and scientists on the other side who say maybe we are not having global warming. Maybe climate change does occur, but man is not the fault; see, there is no money in saying that. There is only Federal dollars in saying, yes, there is global warming. It seems like those people who advocate global warming are just saying that because they are getting paid by the Federal Government. Of course, the second issue is man, the culprit. I am not so sure man is the culprit. The jury is still out on that, and I think we should not be so fast to rush to judgment. The last thing I wanted to point out is that, in the name of global warming, it really means more government control over our personal lives. That is what it is about, it is about money and it is about the fact that there is personal control over our lives by the Federal Government. For example, soon the Federal Government is going to tell us all the type of light bulbs we can have in our homes. We have to go to those Chinese-only-made light bulbs that have mercury in them, because it soon will be the law that you can't buy any light bulbs except these energy-efficient light bulbs. The Federal Government wants to tell us what the kind of cars to use. The Federal Government wants to tell us what kind of energy to use, all in the name of global warming. But it is really control of our personal liberty in the name of global warming. So the jury is still out on that issue, and I think we have an obligation to the American people to debate the issue of climate change, global warming, whether the earth is getting warmer or hotter, whether there is a climate change, and whether man is the culprit. I think that we should do that. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he wishes to consume to my good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, from California.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, AIG took bailout money and then gave millions to executives in bonuses. Now Congress is bent out of shape about it, and rightfully so. But the truth is in the last stimulus bill that Congress quickly passed with little or no debate was an attached amendment to allow AIG to do exactly what they did--give out high- dollar bonuses. Congress is responsible for this irresponsible spending and must deal with the consequences. To make matters worse, AIG gave bailout money to foreign banks, like in France. The French are the same people who vilify the United States, blame the world's problems on us, and have a disdain for everything American. Mr. Speaker, I think the U.S. has bailed out France enough. We helped save France in World War I, saved them again in World War II, and took over in Vietnam after they failed there--but with little or no gratitude from the French. And AIG also gave billions to German and English banks. We can't afford to give away taxpayer money and reward failure while making working Americans pay for all of this nonsense. ``No'' to more bailouts, foreign or domestic. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America's new economic policy is real simple; spend a lot of money, borrow a lot of money, and tax everybody, all in an effort to make the United States a country like socialist France. And the method to pay for these high-dollar programs that the administration is now funding is to tax everything, especially energy. The first part of the ``tax energy plan'' is to tax energy consumption. Now we understand that every homeowner in the United States will be taxed approximately $3,000 a year every year for the consumption of energy in that home. So every time you turn on the lights, you turn up the taxes. You use a little bit of heat to keep warm in the winter, you're going to pay the heat tax, all in an effort to bring revenue in for these high-dollar programs. There are more ideas to tax energy. One is to increase the gasoline tax--not that we aren't paying enough for gasoline already, now we're going to pay 10 cents more a gallon in the gasoline tax. We use gasoline, we're going to give the government more money. And then, thirdly, there is the mileage tax that is being proposed. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is for every mile you drive somewhere in the fruited plain, the government is going to track you with GPS, and at the end of the day you are going to get taxed on mileage tax. Being tracked by GPS by the Federal Government sounds a little bit like Big Brother out of ``1984'' to me. Contrary to some places in the United States, where I come from we don't have mass transit. We don't have choo-choo trains that run and take everybody to work. I have an area made up predominantly of rice farmers, suburban areas, petrochemical areas, and we don't have high- dollar trains like the one that is being built from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or from La La Land to Fantasy Land. People have to drive work trucks, that's what they drive, but now they are going to be taxed for driving. And of course that is taxing the American worker and the consumer. And now there are going to be new energy taxes on energy companies-- you know, those mean old energy companies that produce energy to keep the lights on in this place and other places, and so we can drive our vehicles and that sort of thing. But the energy companies are going to pass that tax on to the rest of us. And what that means, you cut through all the taxes, because of the new energy tax on energy companies, every American is going to add 41 cents to their gasoline; in other words, that's passed on to us. You add on the mileage tax, you add on the 10- cent tax for using gasoline, and now we've got another 41 cents that will be passed on to the American consumer. Now the new cap-and-trade idea--it really should be called cap-and- tax--is sending energy companies packing their bags. Mr. Speaker, what I mean by that is, they're leaving town. The taxes are too high. They're not going to stay here any longer. It's been reported by different media sources that the new country, the new place for energy companies to move is a place called Zug, Switzerland. You've probably never heard of it. You have to look it up on a map to find it. But the tax rate for corporations in that area of Switzerland is 9 percent. The corporate tax in the United States on those energy companies is 35 percent. No wonder they're leaving town. They can't afford to do business in the United States. The U.S. energy companies are going someplace else because of the overwhelming tax structure here. Mr. Speaker, the answer is not to tax more but to allow more energy production, novel thought that that is. Rather than run energy companies out of town, maybe we ought to let them expand in the Outer Continental Shelf. That would actually create thousands of American jobs. We wouldn't be sending money overseas to OPEC. We'd keep that money in the United States. We'd keep the lease revenue that those oil companies have to pay for to get that oil out of the Outer Continental Shelf. We'd keep that lease revenue in the United States. And we'd also keep the tax revenue in the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, the new French economic plan is tax anything that produces in this country, and now we're going to tax energy out of the energy business, including consumers that use energy. I guess next year, Mr. Speaker, we'll all wonder why we're just freezing in the dark because we don't have any energy because it all left town. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week was International Women's Day to proclaim human rights for all women. Obviously, Saudi Arabia didn't get the memo. In the name of religion, the official Muslim religious police arrested a 75-year-old woman for accepting bread from two young men. The crime: She had the arrogance to be with males who were not blood kin. To the religious police in Saudi Arabia, her behavior cannot be tolerated. So the 75-year-old woman was hauled off to court, and a judge ordered her to receive, get this, 40 lashes and 4 months in jail with deportation to follow. And the two boys who were kind to her by giving her bread: lashes and prison for them too. The official Muslim religious police are feared by women in Saudi Arabia because they enter homes to enforce dress codes, prayer times, and segregation of the sexes. Flogging women in the name of religion for accepting bread from young men seems to be anti-social action and contrary to basic human rights. So much for the idea of helping the widows and the orphans. Maybe next year grandmas in Saudi Arabia can celebrate International Women's Day without being flogged by their government. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam keeps giving away taxpayer money to businesses that claim they are too important to fail. Some of these irresponsible corporations helped bring on this economic crisis. Our government seems to be just as irresponsible in the way that it spends America's money. AIG received $85 billion in bailout money from our gracious government, but the Feds put little or no restrictions on that money. So, AIG is giving $165 million of that money in bonuses to its own employees. You know, those are the same people that put AIG in this economic turmoil. To make matters worse, since $85 billion wasn't enough, irresponsible Uncle Sam is promising to fork over $30 billion more of somebody else's money to AIG. Now we learn AIG is sending some of that taxpayer money to Europe, including French banks. Normally the government should not tell private businesses how to operate, but when 80 percent of the business is run by the government, as AIG is, the government has the duty to protect taxpayer money. Thus far, Uncle Sam has had a reckless disregard for the way it throws citizen money around. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the crime committed in the United States by foreign nationals is hard to determine. The statistics are all over the map. But let me give you some tonight. The 9/11 Families For a Secure America say that 32 percent of all people incarcerated in the United States are in the United States illegally. Recently, I had the opportunity to go to south Texas to visit some of our sheriffs on the Texas-Mexico border. There are 16 counties in Texas that border Mexico. Two of those are Culberson County, where Sheriff Oscar Carrillo is the sheriff. The other one is Hudspeth Country, where Arvin West is the sheriff. I was their guest over the weekend a couple of weeks ago. And I was asking them this very question, ``How can we determine if the cross-border travelers are committing crime in the United States? Does it all stay in Mexico, where we know there is corruption and violent crime, or does it come over to the United States?'' Well, Sheriff Arvin West gave me this statistic. There are two jails in Hudspeth County, one has a little over 100, and the other one is a private jail of over 500. He said most of the people in both of those jails are foreign nationals. And I asked him, ``Are these people charged with immigration violations or are they charged with other crimes?'' He said, ``No, they are charged with committing crimes in my county.'' He said, in fact, the jail that has a little over 100, every person in the jail is illegally in the United States except for one person. He said, ``If I didn't have cross-border travelers committing crime in my county, I wouldn't need a jail except for two people, one for a male and one for a female.'' So we do understand that crime is coming into the United States from cross-border travelers because the United States does not enforce the rule of law on the Texas-Mexico border or the southern border of the United States. The Justice Department has said that 80 percent of the crime in the United States now is drug related or gang related. Newsweek recently reported that Phoenix, Arizona, is the No. 1 kidnapping capital in the United States, and most of it's related to the drug cartels and human trafficking. Recently Sheriff Arpaio from Maricopa County in Phoenix has been arresting folks that are illegally in the United States pursuant to a Federal program called the 287g Program. Federal funds go to local communities to train local peace officers to enforce immigration violations. It's been so successful that he's now being investigated by the Federal authorities, not for seeing how successful it is, but to see if he is following the rule of law, because some people who want open borders are complaining about his work. Of course, he says, he welcomes the investigation because maybe the Federal Government could do their job better. But it's important that agencies all work together. We are all in this together. Even my hometown in Houston is changing its attitude. For years the City of Houston has been accused by some of being a sanctuary city, like San Francisco. It claims it's not a sanctuary city, even though the Center For Immigration Studies says there are over 400,000 illegals in the City of Houston. So at least 400,000 doesn't make you a sanctuary city, but be that as it may, violence has occurred against our peace officers, Officer James Harris, Officer Andrew Winzer, Officer Florentino Garcia, Officer Guy Gaddis, Officer Rodney Johnson and Officer Gary Gryder, a personal friend of mine. You may not know those names, Mr. Speaker, but those are all Houston police officers killed by foreign nationals, most of them illegally in the country. As recently as March 5, Officer Richard Salter was trying to arrest an individual with an arrest warrant, and he was shot in the face by that individual. He was an individual from El Salvador who had been through the criminal justice system five times, ordered deported, and apparently he never went back to where he came from or he crossed the border again. It's important that foreign nationals understand that we will not tolerate crime committed by them in the United States. And it makes no difference whether those people are legally in the United States or illegally in the United States. You come to America, and you commit a crime, and you are a foreign national, those people need to be sent home first. We need to tell them to pack their toothbrush, you don't have a right to stay in this country. And our government, working with local authorities, ought to do everything it can to send those people back home. You don't have a right to come here and commit crime and stay here. And we should enforce the rule of law first with those foreign nationals that commit crime in the United States. After all, it is the duty of our government. The first duty of government is not building roads and bridges and naming a bunch of post offices. The first duty of government is to protect the country, protect the citizens that live here. And the government that we have, the United States of America, needs to enforce the rule of law in this country because that is the duty of government. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, they say the truth will set you free. Well, maybe not. Now the truth may get you sued. Here is why. The Staples Company fired an employee for lying on his expense account, and then sent a warning e-mail to all other employees on this action. The former employee sued, saying the company's actions were ``malicious and harmful.'' A Federal court in Massachusetts ruled with the employee, even though the statements were true. Mr. Speaker, it has long been the law in this country that libel and slander only occur when the statement is false and malicious. But not anymore. So what is going to happen when the New York Times has a headline tomorrow morning saying ``Bernie Madoff, Worst Thief in American History, Goes to Jail?'' Even though that statement might be true, while old Bernie is in the big house, he may decide to sue, saying his reputation is ruined. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution protects free speech and a free press. The Federal courts in Massachusetts were wrong to say that truthful speech is unlawful if it offends somebody or hurts their little feelings. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to honor Veolia Environmental Services and their facility in Port Arthur, TX, for their successful destruction of 1.5 million gallons of what was once the deadly nerve agent VX. Working in conjunction with Tri-State Motor Transit (TSMT) and the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA), they were able to complete the project safely and on time. In the 1950s, the United States began to stockpile VX. Signed by the U.S. in 1993, The International Chemical Weapons Convention requires destruction of all chemical agents by participating nations by specified target dates. The U.S. had a stockpile of VX at the Newport Chemical Weapons Depot in Newport, Indiana where they could deactivate the chemical. They needed a facility to destroy hydrolysate, the caustic wastewater created by the agent's destruction. The CMA discussed building a $300 million facility in Indiana to handle the process but the terrorist attack of 2001 forced them to reconsider. In 2007 they awarded Veolia with a $49 million contract to incinerate the corrosive wastewater. The wastewater would be put in specialized containers and hauled more that 1,000 miles through 8 states by TSMT to Veolia's Port Arthur facility where it would be destroyed. This is not the type of project that a community greets with open arms. Two other sites denied the venture due to political and community concerns. Public protests and a federal lawsuit almost derailed the project once more, but Veolia made a promise to handle the job safely, in accordance with all regulations and without impact to the environment, 18 months and 428 shipments later, the process concluded without a single incident of any kind. The project was successful on a number of levels. By utilizing the Port Arthur facility, taxpayers were saved close to $250 million. Veolia was able to assist the U.S. government in accomplishing its treaty obligations in an expeditious and safe manner. They also brought money and national attention to Southeast Texas. I would like to commend Veolia Environmental Services and their employees for their hard work and dedication during this project. Companies like Veolia that care about the community they serve make Southeast Texas such a special place.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Earl Campbell is known throughout the nation as one of the best running backs to ever play the game of football. He was an outstanding athlete and will be remembered as one of Texas's best. Born in Tyler, TX he grew up to become a star at The University of Texas. His presence on the field dwarfed most opponents and he rose to the occasion many times and became a standout. Recently, he was inducted into the voted into the UT Hall of Fame and was also voted the top UT football player of all time. From 1974-77, Earl Campbell compiled 4,443 yards and forty touchdowns. In college, his games usually ended with his rushing total above 100 yards. In fact, he rushed for over 100 yards twenty-one times, and twice he rushed for over 200 yards in a single game. He finished his career with the Longhorns as a two-time All-American and winner of the 1977 Heisman Trophy. Campbell is known as the ``Tyler Rose'' in reference to his hometown of Tyler, Texas which is known as the ``Rose Capital of America'' for its rose-growing industry. His legacy in Texas lived on after college because he was the first player drafted in the 1978 NFL Draft by the Houston Oilers. As an Oiler, he became the Offensive Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player in his rookie season. The induction of Earl Campbell into the UT Hall of Fame is a testament to the hard work that he put in as a student athlete. We will forever remember ``Tyler Rose'' and what he did for the sport of football in the great state of Texas.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the support of Chairman Berman and Mr. Smith from New Jersey. Mr. Smith has a reputation for going and helping out his district. During the Russian incursion into the Republic of Georgia, while that was still going on, Mr. Smith went and rescued two young people and got them back to his district while the Russians were still invading. That tells all of us a lot about your willingness to advocate on behalf of human rights. It is reported that there are nearly 50 cases in which children who are residents of the United States have been wrongfully abducted to Brazil and have not been returned to the United States as required under the Hague Convention. Mr. Goldman and other United States citizens, specifically Marty Pate of Crosby, Texas, in my district, are allowed under international law to obtain quick return of their children from Brazil and other countries that have entered into obligations with the United States under the Hague Convention. It seems to me that Brazil approves of government-sanctioned kidnapping of American children and ignoring agreements with the United States. Mr. Pate's story is very similar to the one already presented here on the House floor, although this is a story about a father and a daughter. Thanks to Fox 26 News in Houston, Texas, they have brought this story to light. And it is the Marty Pate story. It seems that in May, 2006, Marty Pate's ex-wife, Monica, told him that she wanted to temporarily go back to her home country of Brazil and take their 7-year-old daughter, Nicole, with her. Marty Pate objected, but he allowed her to take the daughter for a short visit. Both agreed under a Harris County, Texas, court order as to what travel stipulations there would be, and both signed a notarized document on what those travel restrictions would be. One of those was there would be a maximum of 21 days that the child would be allowed to leave the United States. On August 5, 2006, Monica and her daughter, Nicole, left the United States and never returned. That was the last time that Marty Pate saw his daughter. There is an outstanding arrest warrant for Monica on failure to follow a court order in the State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. It seems as though Brazil is ignoring agreements that they have made under international law with the United States and continues to do so. As a side note, the United States gives foreign assistance to Brazil. Maybe the Foreign Affairs Committee needs to reevaluate whether we should give them assistance when they continue to kidnap or sanction kidnappings of American citizens. The United States should insist that countries like Brazil live up to their legal obligations to return to America, America's children. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, somebody has to pay for this massive wasteful spending by the Federal Government. So to obtain more revenue, the budget proposal is to cut deductions Americans now receive. The charitable giving deduction will be cut. Thus charities, not government entities, by the way, such as churches, the YMCA and groups such as that that feed the hungry and help in disasters, take care of crime victims, and help the homeless, will be struggling for funds. Now the government will get that money. The removal of this deduction will discourage gifts by Americans. Americans are the most cheerful contributors in the world to charities, but that may now end. The home mortgage deduction also is going to be reduced. The effect of reducing this deduction and the charitable-giving deduction will have the effect of a stealth tax increase on all Americans. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make any sense to raise taxes on anyone during a recession, especially homeowners and those that give to the needy. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I bring you news from the second front; that is, the border between the United States and Mexico. This past weekend, I was the guest of two of our border sheriffs in Texas, Sheriff Oscar Carrillo from Culberson County, Texas, and Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County, Texas. These two massive counties are the size of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together. They are the two counties just east of El Paso County. I was there to see the situation on the Texas-Mexico border firsthand by the people who help protect the border, and that is the border sheriffs, along with the Border Patrol. Smugglers that are coming across from Mexico, bringing in drugs, are relentless in their endeavor to bring narcotics into the United States. The cross-border travelers that are captured in these two counties, most of the people in the county jails, are these foreign nationals bringing drugs or committing other crimes. Let me make this clear: Most of the people in these two county jails are foreigners that have committed felonies or misdemeanors in the United States. In fact, Arvin West told me that if he didn't have cross-border travelers in his county jail, he wouldn't need a jail, except one cell for one person. There are over 500 people in the county jails that are foreign nationals. So that's how bad the problem is continuing to be. The drug cartel are smugglers, Mr. Speaker. They smuggle into the United States not only drugs, but people. It is all intertwined. And all because of money, they are bringing those individuals and those drugs into the country. But also, they smuggle back to Mexico two commodities, and the two commodities they smuggle are guns and money. They are in the smuggling business. They are very well organized. Sara Carter, from the Washington Times, reports that the drug cartels have in their employment over 100,000 foot soldiers; that's just a little bit less than the entire Mexican Army. They have better vehicles, they have better weaponry, and they have a whole lot more money than our border protectors do on this side. They have gotten so sophisticated now that they don't let any drugs come into the United States unless they're tracked by GPS devices. The drug runners are committed--it's almost a religion to them--to bring drugs into the United States. Let me give you an example of that. I understand now, after being down on the border, the sheriffs were telling me that the drug runners pray to a narco saint--that's right-- Jesus Malverde. He was an individual that died in 1909. He was supposed to be a Mexican national that helped the poor, et cetera. But now there are shrines in different parts of Mexico where these drug runners in the drug cartels pray to this individual for safety in crossing the border into the United States so they can bring drugs. He's supposed to be the patron saint of travelers--I thought it was St. Christopher. But be that as it may, it shows how relentless these people are. Now, just to clarify, the Catholic Church says Jesus Malverde is not a saint, has never been, and never will be. But it shows you that it is a religion to these people to bring drugs and other people into the country. But there is also good news from the border. The border county sheriffs, the 20 county sheriffs in Texas, have put up cameras along the border, and those cameras are tied to the Internet. And so a person can log on to a Web site called blueservo.net, and they can actually see these cameras and they can track people coming into the United States. They have had over 43,000 people log in just since this thing started a few weeks ago, and they are as far away as Australia. An Australian was watching it, and he sent an e-mail to the head of this association and said, hey mate, we've been watching your border from Australia and trying to help out you guys. So, what is occurring is, if somebody sees traffic--drug smugglers, illegals, whatever--coming into the United States, they have a Web site, an e-mail, and they can e-mail the border sheriff in that county, and either the sheriffs or the Border Patrol goes out and arrests the bad guys coming into the country. Just as this has started, four major drug busts have occurred, and 30 incidents where illegal crossers were coming in were repelled and they went back across the border. Of course the cynics in the open-border crowd are against this; they're against anything that seems to work. I want to commend the Border Sheriffs Coalition, the 20 of them, especially Oscar Carrillo, Arvin West and Sigi Gonzalez, because they are doing a job that is a thankless job, but it is important to protect the integrity of the United States. And what we need to do is to help them by putting more people, more boots on the ground, more Border Patrol, more sheriff's deputies, and even the National Guard, if necessary, to help them. I would like to insert into the Record the 20 border sheriffs in Texas that are protecting the border. And that's just the way it is. Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition Brewster County--Ronny Dodson Cameron County--Omar Lucio Culberson County--Oscar Carrillo Dimmit County--Joel Gonzales El Paso County--Richard Wiles Hidalgo County--Guadalupe Trevino Hudspeth County--Arvin West Jeff Davis County--Thomas Roberts Kinney County--Leland Burgess Maverick County--Thomas Herrera Pecos County--Cliff Harris Presidio County--Danny Dominguez Starr County--Rene Fuentes Terrell County--Clint McDonald Val Verde County--Joe Martinez Webb County--Martin Cuellar Zapata County--Sigifredo Gonzalez Zavala County--Eusevio Salinas Willacy County--Larry Spence Jim Hogg County--Erasmo Alarcon

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, someday we may be using alternative energy, and we must work to that end. But right now we need clean crude oil for energy. We should drill safely off our own shores because that will make us energy independent. It will increase jobs. Some of those offshore jobs pay up to $100,000 a year. The leases that oil companies pay for are expensive, and that lease revenue comes to the U.S. Treasury. Madam Speaker, we are also going to need crude oil in the future for other things, and here is why. Last week on one of the coldest days in D.C. during 8 inches of snow, the global warming folks were in town. They were all wearing green hard hats, and I asked one did she know what that hard hat was made out of, and she told me plastic. Well, I asked her where did the plastic come from, and she said, ``Well, it's plastic. It's made out of plastic.'' Madam Speaker, plastic is not an element or mineral. That plastic helmet and much of what we use daily is a derivative of crude oil. We are always going to need crude oil for the thousands of products that come from it. We need to take care of America and drill safely off our shores and keep jobs and revenue in America instead of sending it to the Middle East. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I bring you news from the second front. I'm talking about the front on the southern border of the United States with Mexico. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to spend some time with two of the sheriffs of the Sheriff's Border Coalition. There are 20 counties in Texas that the sheriffs are members of the Border Coalition. And I spent time with two of those sheriffs, Sheriff Arvin West from Hudspeth County and Sheriff Oscar Carrillo of Culberson County. These two counties are directly east of El Paso County. The size of these two counties put together are the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island put together. They're massive counties and sparsely populated. The sheriff in each of these counties and his deputies know everybody that lives in the county, unlike the Border Patrol, who come and go from the community. They never really know the people or the culture, or what takes place in those counties. But the border sheriffs and their deputies, since most of them grew up there and were born there, they know the people who should be there and those people that are outside, as they call them, ``out-of-towners.'' This past weekend, the Mexican Government sent 5,000 troops to Juarez, Mexico. That's the town across from El Paso. The reason is because of the drug cartels and the violence. Drug cartels are doing war with not only the United States, but they're doing war physically with the Mexican military. And it's so dangerous down there that Fort Bliss, which is across the river from Juarez, those soldiers that have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, are not permitted to go to Juarez. The State Department has warned Americans not to go to Juarez because of the danger of kidnappings and the violence that has occurred there all because of the drug cartels. But going back to the two counties of Culberson County and Hudspeth County, the question keeps being asked, ``Well, all that crime just stays there on the Mexican side, it never comes to the American side.'' Let me give you a statistic, Madam Speaker, how all the border sheriffs have to fight the drug epidemic and the crimes of violence and the property crimes in their county. Sheriff Arvin West, Hudspeth County, has two jails; one has 125 prisoners, the other one has 545 prisoners. And on Saturday night, every person in both of those jails except one was illegally in the United States. There was one citizen. And these people are not charged with immigration violations. They hadn't just been picked up for illegally entering the country. They had been arrested for crimes against the Federal Government, felonies and misdemeanors against the State of Texas. He said if he didn't have to keep arresting folks illegally coming into the country and committing crimes in his county, he could close his jail down because there was only one citizen in the whole county or in the county jails. And he said seldom does he have any local folks put in that jail. So, yes, the border crime has come to the United States and will only get worse. But to show you how innovative these sheriffs are, these are poor counties, these are low-income counties where you've got hardworking people--sparsely populated, however--and so the sheriff have no budget for vehicles. Unlike the drug cartels that have Humvees, they have SUVs, pickup trucks, all of the things that they want. Border sheriffs--this sheriff especially--has no budget in the county for vehicles, so he has to confiscate drug vehicles--when he captures the bad guys with drugs--and then he uses those vehicles after they have been seized for his deputies. He has 20 vehicles that he uses for his 17 deputies, and he has two or three of these 18-wheelers. Yes, he's captured an 18-wheeler that's seized by the good guys against the bad guys, and on all of these vehicles, he puts this little notice down here on the bottom. It's on the bottom of this cab. It says semi-truck, $80,000. The drugs were worth $40,000. The bad guy got 10 years in the penitentiary, and the seizure of this vehicle is priceless. So that's how he runs his sheriff's department: with seized vehicles. I commend him for doing that. It's important that we understand that the drug smugglers have more vehicles, better vehicles, more money, more men, and better equipment. They use GPS tracking devices to keep up with their drug loads. As I mentioned, they use Humvees. We have occurrences of the Mexican military helping move the drugs into these counties. Of course, Homeland Security denied that occurred. They said that didn't happen. But they didn't understand that Arvin West, Sheriff West, had the whole Mexican infiltration into his county on videotape, and once he videotaped it and showed it to Homeland Security, they said, well, maybe they are intruding and helping the drug cartels. And these people don't make any money. The sheriff of Hudspeth County makes $39,000 a year. Sheriff Carrillo of Culberson County makes $32,000 a year, and their deputies make about $27,000 a year. And they are protecting us from the drug cartels moving into the country. A guy just bringing drugs into the United States is going to make up to $1,500 a load, making far more than our own border protectors. There are four commodities being traded on the border. Two are going north and two are going south. The two going north are people and drugs, and they're being worked together. In other words, the coyotes work with the drug cartels to smuggle people. The two commodities going south: guns and money, and that's what's being traded on the border with Mexico. It's important, Madam Speaker, that we provide our border protectors with the Humvees they need. We need to give them better equipment, and we need to put troops on the border because the purpose of government is to protect the people. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if you tax something, you get less of it. In other words, when the almighty Federal Government swoops in and taxes someone or something, it stifles growth, production, and the incentive to work. The number one producer of jobs in America is not the government, not large corporations, but small business. Most are owned by individuals, real people who hire other real people. The new income tax hike is aimed right at these individuals, and the effect will be bad for jobs and the economy. It's the administration's way of punishing success. Small business owners have told me they aren't going to expand because they do not want to get in the higher tax bracket. Some have told me they're going to downsize to pay the new tax increase. That means, in simple terms, lay people off. Why work hard and expand? The more you work, the higher percent of taxes taken from you by the hungry beast of government. No one should have their taxes raised during a recession, but the new economic recovery plan is: If it moves, regulate it; if it keeps moving, tax it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. A little follow-up on the home mortgage industry, it was either in the Washington Times or the Washington Post this morning that the problem with mortgages centered on 36 counties in the whole United States, it spread to a few more. But most Americans pay their mortgages, and most of them pay mortgages on time. We're talking about 95 percent of Americans who are buying their own home pay their mortgages and pay them on time. So we're dealing with 5 percent who have not. And that 5 percent found themselves in a situation where banks would loan them money with very little money down, telling them that if you buy this $200,000 house, no money down, you pay your monthly payments, in 5 years this $200,000 house is going to be worth $300,000, and then you can pay off the rest of the loan to us, the bank. So with little down, people who in that situation probably shouldn't have been buying a house to begin with because they didn't have the income, they make payments, the housing market drops--it doesn't just drop below $200,000, it goes much lower than that--and people walk away from the homes and the banks are left holding this house. Now, that was a contract between the lender and the borrower. Contracts are important in this country. That's like us in Texas, you know--out in west Texas, especially, where you're from--big land deals are made on a hand shake, your word is important. But now we're going to let the government lawyers and judges--and I used to be a judge, just like Mr. Gohmert--they're going to decide to break the word and the contract, and they're going to decide how to do it. They're going to restructure the loan, they're going to tell the bank, you can't get all that money back, we're going to cut it down, the principal. And that destroys confidence in our legal system, when you have the ability to have a judge go in, break the contract, and design it the way the judge wants it designed, to the benefit of the borrower or the lender? I don't know. It's going to be based upon whatever that judge thinks at the time. So this is a bad precedent to set, I think, in this country when we are diminishing the value of a contract. Certainly we should encourage banks to work with the borrowers and all of that, but most Americans that I have talked to, they've got a problem with paying off somebody else's mortgage who got themselves in a situation when they may not have come into that situation with clean hands, and the same with the lender. I just wanted to make that comment. I yield back to Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. POE of Texas. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. POE of Texas. I haven't divided that into $9.7 trillion, but you're the CPA. You should be able to figure that out in your head.

Mr. POE of Texas. How much a second?

Mr. POE of Texas. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. POE of Texas. I certainly will.

Mr. POE of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. You know, when we talk about money up here in Washington, whether it is a million, billion, trillion--you know, what's the statement? ``Billion here, billion there; eventually we'll be talking about some real money.'' And, of course, it's hard for me to conceive what a billion is anyway. A million is difficult. But a trillion, you know--I had to look up how much a trillion was. Unlike my friend Mr. Conaway, who's a CPA, you know, my background's a lawyer. And so I don't deal in numbers too much--except when I was a judge, I had some numbers that I would deal with. But it's hard to conceive how much that is. These two charts right here have the number $9.7 trillion. Now that's the biggest number I have ever seen that supposedly meant something. And I'm glad there's not another digit because I'd have to have a third poster board to get it on there. But $9.7 trillion. Now, what does this mean? This is how much money we're going to spend and have spent this year, plus the indebtedness that Mr. Conaway talked about. That's just this year. Now, I don't know where we can write a check for that. I don't think there is enough Americans, if we took all of their money away from them, that they could pay for that. And it's unfortunate to me that we're borrowing money that we don't have and spending on programs that really don't work to stimulate the economy. Mr. Gohmert, you mentioned about putting our kids in debt. We're putting people in debt that have yet to be born in this country--not just our grandkids but our great grandkids; people that have yet to be born. They're going to have to pay this off eventually. I mean, the chickens come home to roost, eventually, and this has got to be paid, and we don't have the money. It's very unfortunate that we continue to spend money we don't have and borrow from people that don't like us and then make the American public pay for the rest of it. But that's the position that they find themselves in, and they don't have a choice about that. So I just wanted to let you see this number, Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, March 6, is an important day in not only Texas's history but American history because this is the day that the Alamo fell with 187 volunteers from all States in the United States and numerous foreign countries. Even though all of the defenders of the Alamo were killed, ten times that number was killed on the enemy side, the invading Mexican army. March 2, earlier this week, was the day that Texas declared independence from Mexico. And during that final successful battle at San Jacinto, Texas gained independence and was a free and independent nation for over 9 years. There are many Texas heroes, remembering, of course, they came from all over the world, at the Alamo. We've heard about William Barret Travis, the commander; Davy Crockett; Jim Bowie. We later hear about Sam Houston at the battle of San Jacinto. But we often don't remember a person by the name of James Butler Bonham. A 29-year-old, he was from the University of South Carolina, grew up in Red Bank, South Carolina. He was a boyhood friend of William Barret Travis. And it was his job, along with Juan Seguin, to try to seek out reinforcements to the Alamo. He would break through enemy lines numerous times to try to bring people to come in aid at the Alamo. He was successful in bringing 32 men from Gonzales. He breaks through the lines his final time, goes to Washington-on-the-Brazos to try to get more recruits. They refused to go because they were trying to build a government. And when he left that time on March 3, he made the report that ``I will report back to my friend William Barret Travis or die in the attempt that no one is coming.'' He broke through the enemy lines one last time, and 3 days later, he and the other 186 defenders of the Alamo gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Another example in American history of the character and integrity of people who have lived before us that believe some things are worth fighting for and one of those is freedom, liberty, and independence. And that's just the way it is.