Ted Poe

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, in the dusty, arid plains of West Texas, where the tumbleweeds blow across the prairies, there's a small town called Fabens. Fabens, Texas, a population of about 8,000, mostly lower-income individuals, but they're doing what they can to eke out an income out of the land that they work. On February 17, 2005, almost 4 years ago, these events took place. A drug dealer by the name of Aldrete Davila came across from Mexico, which is six miles from Fabens, Texas, right here on the map. He's driving a van. He has about $750,000 worth of narcotics in that van. And of course, he's smuggling drugs into America; something that occurs along the entire Texas/Mexico border. He's confronted by one of our first responders, Border Security Agent Jose Compean. Border Agent Jose Compean does his job, and he gives chase to this drug smuggler in the van. Aldrete, the smuggler, turns his van around, tries to head back to Mexico with his cancer that he's going to try to sell in the United States. He abandons his vehicle. He gets down in the river bed between Mexico and Texas in the Rio Grande Valley, and he has a fight with Jose Compean. Another border agent by the name of Ignacio Ramos shows up and meets the call for help to stop this drug trafficker into the United States. Meanwhile, a fight ensues between the drug dealer and Border Agent Compean, and Compean is left in the river bed, bleeding, while the drug dealer runs back to Mexico. Ignacio Ramos, border agent, sees what's taking place. He sees the drug dealer, in his opinion, with a weapon, keeps turning back like this, and he fires his weapon. And the drug dealer disappears. Unbeknownst to all of us, there was another vehicle on the other side of the border, waiting to pick him up and take him back to wherever he came from. Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, border agents, at the time they pick up the shells that are fired, they don't immediately report the events, and nothing occurs until the following takes place: The drug dealer goes back to Mexico. It turns out that he was wounded. He was shot in the buttocks. Without being too graphic, the bullet went in one cheek and came out the other cheek as if he were pointing his weapon when he got shot. But be that as it may, in some way, the U.S. Government gets involved. It goes to Mexico. It finds the drug dealer and says, ``Looky here. Have we got a deal for you. All you've got to do is come back to America and testify against those two border agents for a civil rights violation,'' or whatever we charged them with, ``and we will treat you for your wounds, and we will give you a pass to go back and forth across the border, and we will not prosecute you for bringing drugs into the United States.'' So, months later, that immunity deal is struck, and the border trespasser--smuggler--gets a deal, a backroom deal, a deal to testify. In my experience as a former judge and prosecutor, unfortunately, when you make a deal with a criminal, you usually get the testimony you want. What happened was they were waiting to bring these two border agents to trial on numerous charges, but remember, all they did was fail to report the fact that they fired their weapons. Normally, under Border Patrol policy, that is an administrative punishment. You get days off-- 5 days from what I understand. They could have been fired for that, but they were not. They were prosecuted in Federal court for numerous violations, mainly for shooting the drug smuggler. Of course, they both never knew they shot the drug smuggler until they were told by our government. In any event, unbeknownst to us, the trial gets postponed. We don't know why the trial is postponed. It's not tried right away, but it gets postponed. The reason it got postponed, which we all learned much, much later, was that, while the drug smuggler was out on his get-out-of- jail-free card, thanks to our government, he was still smuggling drugs into the United States. In October of 2005, lo and behold, Aldrete brings another load of narcotics into the United States. At first, our government denied that they knew anything about that, but I ended up receiving a copy of the DEA report, which showed specifically that Aldrete was bringing in drugs while he was out on this get-out-of-jail-free card. So the trial takes place after it is postponed. In March of 2006, these two border agents are tried. They are convicted. The jury never knows that the star witness--the government's bought-and-paid-for witness--brought in another load of drugs. The U.S. Attorney's Office convinced that judge from keeping that testimony from the jury. Now, the main witness the government had against the two Border Patrol Agents was this witness, the drug smuggler who was given a deal to testify. Now I ask you, Madam Speaker: If you were on a jury and you had to decide if a person was telling the truth, wouldn't you want to know that, while they were waiting to testify after they were given immunity, they were still bringing drugs into the United States? Wouldn't you want to know that to judge whether or not this witness is telling you the truth or not? I think, probably, you would want to know that, and I think that's probably the reason the government kept that testimony from the jury, because they didn't want the jury to know the truth about their witness. In any event, the witness testifies. The border agents are convicted; they are found guilty, and are sent to the Federal penitentiary for 11 and 12 years. Under Federal law, they will serve most of that time. This case sort of disappeared from the radar until people started talking. The news media even brought this case up. A reporter by the name of Sara Carter has been following this case since the trial. Thanks to her and to other people in our national media, this is still being discussed by not only Members of Congress but by the public throughout the country. Since I, really, have almost no life, I read the 3,000-page transcript of the trial, so I know what the jury heard. I read it. In September of 2006, long after the trial and the transcript was prepared, Members of Congress started asking questions about: Well, was this really the right thing to do, to prosecute the border agents? Maybe we were on the wrong side of the border war. Maybe we ought to have been prosecuting the smuggler, the drug dealer. Maybe we ought to have been doing that. So questions were being asked. Several of us met with the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general's office to try to find out exactly what happened down there in Fabens, Texas in February of 2005. The transcript hadn't been produced yet, so we couldn't read it. So we met with these individuals, and they told us the following: Well, these Border Patrol Agents are rogue cops. They're just bad guys, and they knew that the suspect was unarmed when they shot him. They went out that day, intending to shoot illegal aliens coming into the United States, and they didn't believe that this drug dealer was a threat to them when they fired. Now, that's a different kind of story than what I've just told you. So we took them at their word because you know you're not supposed to lie to Members of Congress. It's kind of against the law in the United States. After we got the transcript, after we did more investigation, we learned that Ramos and Compean, the border agents, did believe the drug smuggler was a threat. They did believe that he had a weapon, and they never said they went out that morning with the intent to shoot some illegal coming into the United States. Now, as a side note--a little rabbit trail here--that occurred in September of 2006. I and several others have asked our government to investigate those government officials who came to the Members of Congress and misled us. Of course, nothing has happened to those individuals. They just sort of went away, you know. But back to the case. Now that we had the transcript, now that we'd read the transcript of the trial and we'd found out exactly what had happened, many of us in Congress had felt that what had occurred in this trial wasn't the appropriate thing to do and that the way the two border agents were treated wasn't really the most appropriate way to be treated. So, in October of 2006, Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in the Federal penitentiary. While in prison, Border Agent Ramos was assaulted. Both of these agents have spent much of their 2 years now--2 years--in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement in our Federal penitentiaries is reserved for the meanest criminals we have in our culture, in our society. Yet border agents go into solitary confinement for allegedly their own protection. Yeah, right. Anyway, they're serving their time, but this case does not go away. In July of 2007, because so many of us on both sides of the aisle were concerned about justice, I introduced legislation, saying exactly that no Federal funds will be used to incarcerate Ramos and Compean. In other words, the Federal penitentiary cannot use taxpayer money to incarcerate these border agents. That legislation passed this House unanimously in 2007 by voice vote. There was not one dissenter on either side of the aisle because Congress, the House portion of Congress, said it's just not right. They shouldn't be incarcerated. As all of you know, what we do when we pass legislation is we send it down to the Senate. That bill, like many other bills, never got voted on by the Senate, so both of the individuals stayed in prison. Before they ever got to trial, Ramos and Compean were offered a deal by our government. It's not unusual in criminal cases. They were told, if you plead guilty to these violations, we'll get you 1 year in the Federal penitentiary for what you did out there in Fabens, Texas. Now, if you don't plead guilty, well, we're going to go to trial, and we're going to try to get you more time in the penitentiary. So the Federal Government initially thought that the case was worth 1 year in the Federal penitentiary, but because Ramos and Compean, citizens of the United States, exercised their right under the Constitution to have a jury trial, they were punished for the right to be tried before a jury. The Federal judge then gave them 11 and 12 years after the jury convicted them. I don't think that people charged with crimes should be punished for exercising their right, their constitutional right, to ask for a jury trial. In any event, the case continues to this day. What has the effect of it been on our Border Patrol Agents? Well, let me tell you. I'll give you an example. Luis Aguilar, a Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Tucson office, was in California recently on border patrol, trying to catch the bad guys. Two vehicles, a Humvee and a pickup truck, come across the Mexican border into the United States. He and other Border Patrol Agents give chase to this Humvee and to this pickup truck. The Humvee and pickup truck see the good guys, and like they normally do, they try to run from the good guys. They turn their vehicles around and head to Mexico. Luis Aguilar from Tucson, Arizona, Border Patrol Agent, what he did was get in front of those vehicles at some distance and throw out these spikes--where if a car or a vehicle runs over the spikes, they blow out the tires--to stop the bad guys from going back to where they came from. Rather than go over the spikes, the guy in the Humvee jumps off the road and runs over and kills Luis Aguilar, Border Patrol Agent. Then he flees off, back into Mexico, along with the pickup truck. Where he is today, that individual, we know not. Now, you know, the Border Patrol Agents are nervous about using their weapons. The reason they're nervous about using their weapons to protect the dignity of our country and to capture the bad guys who come into the United States is due to cases like Ramos' and Compean's. When these Border Patrol Agents fired their weapons, they were prosecuted instead of the drug smuggler. So that makes Border Patrol Agents hesitate. I've heard that the Border Patrol policy is they can't fire their weapons unless fired upon. Now, anybody who has ever been in law enforcement, anybody who has ever been in the military knows that's a bad idea. I can't fire to defend myself unless somebody shoots at me? I can't stop someone who is pulling out a gun? Apparently not. Luis Aguilar is just one example. I've talked to Border Patrol Agents all the way from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, and they tell me, ``Hey, when we're in that situation, we really don't want to fire our guns even though we can, even though it is the right thing to do, because our government doesn't back us; they back the other side.'' Sheriffs along this entire area here that I have mentioned--from Brownsville to San Diego--the Border Patrol Sheriff's Association, are of all races, and they're of both political parties, but to a sheriff, they are concerned about border security, and they tell me the same thing: ``We are hesitant to use our weapons in these cases even though, under State law or even Federal law, we're permitted to do it, because our government is not going to stand beside us. They're going to stand beside the drug dealer.'' So that's the chilling effect. But whatever happened to Aldrete, the drug smuggler? Remember, he got that second case, that second case when he brought drugs into the United States while he was waiting to testify. It's the one that the Federal Government denied, really, ever occurred until they finally had to admit it because we saw the evidence of the DEA report. Well, he ended up getting prosecuted for that. The U.S. Attorney's Office finally prosecuted him but not after the taxpayers of the United States treated his wounds in El Paso, Texas, not after he filed a $5 million civil rights suit against the United States Government. He brings drugs in. He finally gets prosecuted. Now he is in a Federal penitentiary, ironically, doing less time than the Border Patrol Agents. Who are these two individuals we're talking about? Well, these individuals are Compean and Ramos. These photographs were taken the day that they were hauled off to the Federal penitentiary. Those are the last photographs that I know of that were taken in public because they're still in the penitentiary at this time. Now, we've heard a lot about this case. A lot of Members of Congress have got involved, the American public has gotten involved. Over 400,000 American have sent petitions to the White House asking for relief; 70,000 of those petitions are from the State of Texas where citizens are getting involved in what they believe is the unjust incarceration. And this has continued. When I go back to Texas, which I do every weekend, I still have people, regular folks, ``What's happened to those two Border Agents Ramos and Compean?'' And I'm surprised to some extent because the American attention span is about ``that'' long. You know, we hear something in the news and we move on, something else happens the next day. But this has been going on now for over 2\1/2\ years. And yet the American public is still very concerned. They still tell us about it. I don't know why these two Border Patrol agents were relentlessly prosecuted, but they were. I don't know why they made a backroom deal with the drug smuggler Aldrete, but it did happen. This is not a pleasant place to be on the southern border with our neighbors in Mexico. It is a violent place. It's violent because of the drug smugglers coming into the United States. We hear about all of the murders on both sides of the border because of the drug cartels, you know, people like Davila who brings in drugs into the United States. He and his comrades are the reason there is so much violence on this entire border. Good people on both sides of the border live in fear every day because of the drug cartels and the problem that occurs there. I was down recently on the Texas-Mexico border, and I was asking a Texas Ranger--I won't mention his name--I was asking a Texas Ranger, I said, ``What's it like down here on the Texas-Mexico border at night?'' And he said, ``Congressman Poe, it gets western. It gets western down here.'' Now, what he was saying was people start shooting. They start shooting at us on this side of the border. We know of incursions from the Mexican military that have come into the United States, supposedly rogue Mexican military helping the drug cartels move drugs into the United States. It's violent on the Texas-Mexico border, along the entire southern border, because of the drug cartels. So what we have done, as a culture--since we have a great appetite for, unfortunately, drugs in this country--we've sent some good people down there to protect us, the Border Patrol agents, and, of course, the local sheriffs. And they're doing what they can to protect us. And yet when they get in a fix, our government sides with the bad guys. So chilling effect on our border agents and our border protectors? You betcha. You betcha. Because those individuals who protect us are concerned about what happens to them if they, in a split-second decision, have to make a choice of what to do to protect us. And if they make the wrong choice--or at least the wrong choice in the eyes of our government--they're going to get prosecuted. That's very unfortunate. Don't get me wrong, Madam Speaker. I have no sympathy for criminals. I've always been in law enforcement. I spent 8 years prosecuting criminals in Houston, Texas, and then I was on the bench for 22 years prosecuting outlaws. And I tried a lot of cases. I heard about 25,000 criminal cases during that time. And I tried people who shot police officers, and I tried police officers that unjustly shot citizens. So I have no stake in this except justice ought to occur in this case. I have no sympathy for criminals: police officers or otherwise. But in this case of Ramos and Compean, we've asked for a pardon. The President of the United States of America has the absolute right under our Constitution to pardon any individual. I carry this little pocket Constitution around with me, as most Members of Congress do, and read it from time to time. But there's a section here that I would like to put in the record: Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution talking about the power of the Presidents of the United States. ``He shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.'' Now, you notice he doesn't have to get permission from some committee; he doesn't have to get approval from the Justice Department. Now, he certainly can get recommendations from anyone he chooses. He can have a committee make recommendations. But the Constitution doesn't give him that obligation. He can pardon anybody, and he doesn't ever have to tell the reason. Our President has not chosen to pardon these two individuals. I've known the President a good number of years. I respect him greatly. On this particular issue, I hope and would wish that he would exercise the power that he has under the Constitution. His reasons for not doing so are his own, and I respect that as well. So now we're asking that the President, before he leaves office in the next 5 days, commute the sentences of these two Border Patrol agents. Assume the facts, as presented by the government, are true because the case has gone through the appellate process and has been ruled on by other judges. Assume everything is true. They've served over 2 years in the Federal penitentiary, both of these individuals. I've talked to their wives, their kids, and it is time for these two Border Patrol agents to go home. So we're asking the President to reprieve the individuals, which, under our terminology, is to commute the sentences. Commute them for the time served and let them out of the Federal penitentiary and maybe we can get a photograph of them leaving instead of going into the penitentiary. And that's what we're asking the President, in all due respect, to do. And I would say this: I have been very outspoken on this issue. Members of Congress on both sides have been very outspoken on this issue. And I would hope that the President, if he's irritated at me or other Members of Congress who have been outspoken on this, that in all due respect he not take it out on them. Because we're the only voice these two individuals have: Members of Congress. So be mad at me, be irritated at me, but don't be taking it out on these two individuals. Commute these two sentences. Apparently I'm going to be the last Member of Congress that will speak on this House floor officially before President Bush leaves office next Tuesday. As I am speaking before this body, another member of the Texas delegation, John Culberson, is walking down Pennsylvania Avenue in this 28-degree weather and he's carrying a letter, one of similar letters that have been sent to the President by Members of Congress asking for a pardon or a commutation. This letter that will be hand delivered to the White House this afternoon by the time I finish speaking is signed by 30 members of the Texas delegation. And in the Texas delegation, as most people know, we cover all the political bases from the far right to the far left. But yet 30 of us, of the 32, have agreed these individuals need to be having their sentence commuted. Also signing this letter are the two U.S. Senators from the State of Texas asking that the President, in his compassion, commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean. You know, as I mentioned, I have the utmost respect for President Bush when he was a governor and his 8 years in office. But I hope he would give this case some extra thought and exercise his constitutional right. And why do I ask him to do that? Because it seems like it's the right thing to do. It seems like justice. And you know, justice is what we do in this country. After we cut through all of the smoke, at the end of the day we want justice to prevail in every situation because justice is the one thing we should always find in this country. Justice was allowed to be in the Constitution under the Pardon Clause giving the power to the President to make that decision, the clause to commute the sentence giving the power to the President because sometimes the President just needs to intervene to make sure justice, at the end of the day, is what we find. I hope the President considers this commutation, considers what Members of Congress and the thousands of Americans who have asked that this case be resolved in a way that these two individuals can be released and go back home to their families in a just way. And that's just the way it is. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 15, 2009. Hon. George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, D.C. Dear President Bush: As Members of the Texas Congressional Delegation, we are writing to ask for your personal intervention to commute the sentences of United States Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. As you are aware, these two agents were prosecuted and convicted for shooting an illegal immigrant drug smuggler in Texas near the border with Mexico and were each sentenced to over 10 years in prison. Ramos and Compean have been incarcerated since January 2007 and in that time, Ramos has been assaulted in prison and both men have been placed in solitary confinement because of the danger they face as a result of their law enforcement backgrounds. Many of us have written to you over the past few years with concerns about this case, and as your administration comes to an end, we respectfully request that you use the exclusive authority given to you under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. We appeal to your good reason and sound judgment as fellow Texans and ask that you correct this injustice by commuting the sentences of U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Sincerely, John Culberson, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Michael McCaul, Kenny Marchant, Kevin Brady, Pete Olson, Pete Sessions, Ralph Hall, John Carter, Bill Archer, and Kay Granger. Ted Poe, Louie Gohmert, Gene Green, Lamar Smith, Sam Johnson, Henry Bonicca, Mac Thornberry, Michael Burgess, Michael Conaway, Randy Neugebauer, and Jeb Hensarling. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chet Edwards, Solomon Ortiz, Sam Johnson, Joe Barton, Henry Cuellar, Ruben Hinojosa, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ciro Rodriguez, and Al Green.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the fighting in the Middle East rages on, many in the media and the elites in Europe have asserted with self-righteous indignation that Israel's response to Hamas' acts of terror is not appropriate, and Israel should unilaterally cease all military operations. They cite inflated numbers of Palestinian civilians killed in this war and blame Israel for the death; never mind the fact that the coward of the desert, Hamas, uses Palestinian men, women and children at mosques, schools and hospitals as shields; never mind the fact that before bombing a military target in Gaza, Israel calls the area and advises the civilians to leave; and never mind the fact that since 2000 more than 8,000 rockets have been fired by Hamas into Israel civilian settlements. Mr. Speaker, Israel must defend its people from these attacks. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the moral differences between Hamas and Israel could not be clearer. Hamas worships death, Israel worships life. Hamas supports terrorism, Israel supports liberty. Hamas oppresses women, Israel honors women. Hamas destroys, Israel builds. Hamas believes in the pursuit of misery and Israel believes in the pursuit of happiness. Hamas supports crucifixion, Israel supports mercy. Hamas honors murder, Israel honors the sanctity of life. Hamas kills people with different religious beliefs, Israel embraces the freedom of religion. Hamas incites hatred, Israel believes in tolerance. Hamas is racist, Israel believes in the equality of all. Hamas believes in chaos, Israel believes in justice. Hamas promotes anarchy, and Israel promotes peace. The moral canyon that separates Israel from Hamas is best described by Hamas' own motto, and I quote, ``We love death more than the Jews love life.'' Hamas not only doesn't care about killing Jews, it doesn't care about killing Palestinians either. They use living Palestinians as human shields. Hamas prevents humanitarian aid from Israel from reaching Palestinians in Gaza. The international community has begun calling for an immediate cease- fire, especially the Europeans, asking and telling Israel they must unilaterally stop this war. Mr. Speaker, some in Europe don't believe that anything is worth fighting for, but some things are worth fighting for. The basic human right of liberty is worth fighting for whether Europeans believe in it or not. The last thing Israel ought to agree to is another phony peace. Israel did that 3 years ago with Lebanon and look what happened; the U.N.-mandated disarmament of Hezbollah failed miserably. Hezbollah has rearmed, and in fact just last week began firing more rockets on Israel. There can be no peace in this war as long as Hamas is allowed to murder in the name of religion. Rather than bending to the pressure of world opinion, Israel ought to continue to protect her right to exist and the rights of her people to live free. The world must demand that Hamas cease all rocket fire and smuggling of arms from Egypt into Gaza. Hamas needs to leave Israel alone. Just today, Osama bin Laden issued a 20-minute recording calling for a jihad against Israel. Jihad is another phrase for a holy war against Israel for its actions in Gaza. All the eyes of the world, especially the moderate Arab states, are looking to this conflict to see whether Iran and its hired guns, Hamas and Hezbollah, are victorious. Hezbollah and Hamas, these twin tribes of terror, must be stopped. Unless they are, Iran will be encouraged to be more aggressive in the region and assert its influence over moderate Arab states. You see, Iran and the little fellow Ahmadinejad are the real threats to peace in the desert sands of the Middle East. This is not the time to be rattled by the terrorist threats. This is the time to stand with the only democracy in the Middle East for the right of her self-defense, Israel. It's the right thing to do. Israel's war of self-defense is morally just. And Mr. Speaker, justice is the one thing we should always find. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the ranking member said it best yesterday when there were hearings on this that there was a time in this country when the people would go to the bank and borrow money from the bank. My grandfather was a banker for a good number of years, even back in the thirties, and when a person went to the bank, the bank would require sometimes that the bank would want to know what the money was going to be spent on, of all things, and then forms would be filled out and money would be loaned. Times have changed. Now the people loan money to the bank, to many banks, to the very special interest banks, and we know not what they are doing with that money, and certainly no background checks or forms were filled out by those banks before we gave them the money. Now we are being asked to do it again. We certainly don't learn our lessons. The cost of bailouts by this Congress last year exceeds the amount of the total cost of all the wars this country has been in; the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraqi War, the Afghanistan War. These bailouts that this Congress is spending the taxpayer money on costs more than all of the wars put together. Maybe we ought to decide to do something else than continue to spend money that doesn't belong to us, but belongs to the American public.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are a bailout Nation, the Nation of handouts, the Nation of gimmees. The entitlement mentality has swept this country, especially last year, and it has done so, more importantly, with the elites, like the banks who think they are entitled to somebody else's money, taxpayer money. The banks have been given $350 billion and they're back for more, yet they refuse to tell us what they did with the first $350 billion, even though we wanted them to. All of us have gone to a bank to get a loan. First we fill out all that paperwork and sign our life away, but they ask us one question, what are you going to spend the money on? And then they may or may not give us a loan. But no such deal when we're dealing with banks and the people are loaning banks money. They just show up with their hand out, want the money, and refuse to tell us what they're going to do with the money or what they did with the money. In this decade alone, Federal Government spending has grown 57 percent, $1.2 trillion, and the American taxpayers, of course, pay the bill. According to the book ``Bailout Nation,'' the bailouts of 2008, last year, cost Americans more than the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, NASA, the race to the moon, the New Deal, and the savings and loan crisis combined; the largest example of government spending in American history and we still have no positive results from these bailouts. The economy is not significantly better, and the stock markets continue to drop. So rather than say ``bailouts aren't working, so maybe we ought to do something else,'' it seems our mentality is, ``well, let's give them more bailout money and maybe that will work.'' I think that's irrational. And of course we don't have the money, we can't afford these bailouts. We're spending somebody else's money, the American taxpayer money, the middle class especially. We have all seen these big motor homes lumbering down the freeways that have a little bumper sticker on the back that says, ``We're spending our children's inheritance.'' Oh, we think that's kind of cute and funny, but we ought to put a sign right out here on the Capitol grounds that says, ``Uncle Sam is spending your children's and grandchildren's inheritance.'' It seems like that is more appropo than what's taking place here; it's the philosophy that government knows better how to spend the taxpayers' money than the taxpayer. I think that's fundamentally wrong. It's time for maybe us to rethink this idea of taking taxpayer money and giving it to certain special interest groups--the banking industry--because government bailouts have not solved our problems, it creates them. The best thing we can do with this bailout money is not spend it--not spend it yet, for sure--maybe even send the money back where it belongs, and that's to the American people; it's our money to manage, but it belongs to the American people.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council, a bastion of hypocritical countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that publicly whip women who have been raped, claiming rape is the woman's fault, has now self-righteously condemned Israel for defending itself from the terror group Hamas. The U.N. Council condemns Israel and ignores that Hamas has been murdering Israelis for years by firing rockets into civilian areas. Israel has been hit by more than 8,000 missiles, mortars and rockets since 2000 by the group Hamas. The resolution also failed to condemn Hamas for using Palestinian people as human shields for its war operations against Israel. Since the Council was established, most of its unfounded resolutions have been related to Israel. However, it disregards major human rights violators, such as the twin tribes of terror--Hamas and Hezbollah. This shows the incompetence of this anti-Israeli council. By the way, Madam Speaker, Hamas has just reinstituted crucifixion in Palestine. Most humans would agree this is somewhat antisocial conduct. The Human Rights Council is neither concerned about humans nor rights. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this time of year, we all hear about New Year's resolutions. Some of us make them, some of us make them and break them, and some of us don't even make them. But maybe Uncle Sam needs to make a few New Year's resolutions as we go into 2009. I have six suggestions for Uncle Sam. The first thing Uncle Sam needs to do is get on a diet and trim down the excess spending and government waste. The government, us, we spend money on everything. There's a philosophy here in Washington, D.C. that the government is the solution to every problem from the time a person's born to the time they die and the government should control all the money and decide how that money should be spent. There's another philosophy that I believe in that government may be the problem and that problems are best solved by individuals. But in any event, we cannot continue to spend and waste the taxpayer money on so many different programs. Uncle Sam needs to go on a diet. The second thing we need to do is practice what we preach and not be so hypocritical. Recently we had the Big Three auto boys down here in Washington D.C., and we raked them over the coals because they make so much money. We criticized the UAW because they make about $74 an hour. But yet we get our automatic pay increase and we can't even get a vote on the House floor to rescind that pay increase. Somewhat hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. Uncle Sam needs to practice what it preaches. The third thing that we need that do is quit spending somebody else's money. You see, the money that we spend, Congress, it's not our money. It belongs to the good folks who sent us up here. We've all seen the big motor homes going down the freeways that have a bumper sticker on the back that says ``We are spending our children's inheritance.'' We kind of think that's funny, but that's what we're doing. And for the inauguration, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we get a big sign and put it out here on the Capitol grounds that says ``Uncle Sam is spending your children and grandchildren's inheritance'' because that's what we're doing. We're spending money that we do not have. And it's the philosophy that government knows better how to spend the taxpayers' money than the taxpayer. And I think that's wrong. We ought to quit spending somebody else's money because we certainly don't have the money and our kids, our grandkids, and our great grandkids now are going to have to pay for the things that we do. Uncle Sam needs to quit spending somebody else's money. We need to quit rewarding the fat cats and those who live on government handouts. And that covers a lot of folks that they are up here trying to get money from the Federal Government. All the different special interest groups, all the Wall Street fat cats, all those people who live off the government and want something from the government but don't give much to society. The people punished, those are most Americans, the middle class. The middle class always has to pay, and they continue to pay. And it's unfortunate because they pay all the bills while those special interest groups are up here, and they'll be up here next week and the week after with their hand out wanting somebody else's money, wanting Uncle Sam to redistribute the wealth that belongs to the middle class to someone else. And that's just basically wrong. We talk about stimulating the economy. We need stimulate the economy, but we cannot stimulate the economy by spending more money. That doesn't make sense. We need to spend less money. And one thing we can do, Congress has the power to do, is let those middle class people who pay taxes, who foot the bill for all of this that we do, give everybody that pays taxes a tax break and let them decide how to stimulate the economy instead of us and Uncle Sam trying to make that decision. We need to reduce our debt. We hear about debt. It's a trillion dollars, give or take a few billion. How much is a trillion dollars? It's a one with twelve zeros behind it. That's how much a trillion is. I can't even write that down. It's a massive amount of money. But, you know, Uncle Sam, we live in a credit card government. We just borrow the money. That's the society that we live in, and the government does the same thing. We just borrow the money, probably from the Chinese, pay interest to the Chinese, let them own our country rather than the American taxpayer. We need to certainly reduce our debt. We cannot continue to spend, borrow, tax our way into prosperity. It just won't work. And lastly, number six, we need to do what most Americans do when they budget. We have to have a budget. Most Americans figure out, well, I'm going to get this amount of money, cutting out the taxes, and then I can spend it on this. We do just the opposite. We decide how to spend money, oh, and then we'll just get the money. We'll tax it or go into debt. Uncle Sam needs to budget like other Americans. These are some considerations and some New Year's resolutions for Uncle Sam. I hope we impose a few of those. I think it's time we stop the credit card government. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I bring you news from the people. Boy Scout Daniel Wolf of Spring, Texas, wrote me the following about our economic crisis. ``I am concerned about my generation paying for the mistakes that the government is making. It's just not fair. It's kind of like you and a friend are doing a project together and he doesn't want to do his part, so you end up doing all the work. The government is bailing out Wall Street, banks, mortgages, the car industry, and also increasing spending and putting our country into more debt and the next generation is going to have to pay for it. ``The government needs to lower taxes and quit spending so much. I think that people should spend the money they earn the way they want to and not have the government do it for them.'' Mr. Speaker, those who say the government needs to take money from some citizens and give it to certain special interest groups to stimulate the economy are wrong. As Boy Scout Daniel says, ``that's not fair,'' and I agree. This massive government money grab and redistribution of somebody else's income is going to cause more problems during this economic crisis. But as it has been said, ``if you think the problems government creates are bad, just wait until you see the government's solutions.'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Speaker, Hamas is a rogue group of outlaws that hibernate in Palestinian civilian areas of Gaza and fire Iranian missiles into Israel. Israel has received hundreds of these missile attacks in the last few days, thousands in the last few years. Israel has been patient, maybe overly patient. Make no mistake about it, Hamas is the aggressor. So Israel not only has the right but moral obligation to defend its people by fighting back. You see, Hamas is one of the two twin tribes of terror that operate in the Middle East. The other being Hezbollah. These bandits operate in the Middle East with the sole purpose to kill Israelis. Hamas murders in the name of religious hatred for Jews and Israel. Israel defends itself while some world leaders criticize Israel for doing so. These world leaders, especially those in the United Nations, are out of touch with the way the world really is. The Middle East is in turmoil because of terror groups like Hamas, and they are the aggressor. The recent aggression by Hamas is no doubt sponsored by the little fellow from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is the real world threat to peace in the Middle East. He has openly stated that Israel must be completely destroyed. And eventually, world leaders must deal with this issue. But people cry ``peace, peace--peace at any price'', but there can be no peace as long as Hamas continues to murder Israelis. Israel is our ally. The United States should stand by its allies. Israel is defending its people. It is obligated to do so, and I commend them for representing and defending their people. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Israel and Hamas are at war. But make no mistake about it, it's the little fellow from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his radical religious cronies of hate that are the ones that are behind this troubling turmoil in the lands of the Middle East. For years Iran has supported the twin tribes of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah, by supplying arms and equipment and training. In 2006 Iran used the hired guns of Hezbollah in Lebanon to war with Israel. Hamas has proudly proclaimed that it's had its soldiers of terror trained in Iran. Now Hamas is firing long-range Iranian missiles from Gaza into civilian areas of Israel. And the bandit group, Hezbollah, is getting blamed for new missile attacks into northern Israel. As the nations of the world, especially Egypt, attempt to broker a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, they would do well to deal with the real culprit in this war, Iran. Until the world recognizes that President Ahmadinejad is determined to destroy Israel by any means necessary, there will never be peace in the Middle East. Iran has made its intentions clear to the world. World leaders need to make it clear to Iran that murder in the name of hate, will not be tolerated on the world stage. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, as we kick off 2009, people across the country are making their new year's resolutions and families are carrying on with their special traditions to start the year out on a good note. Of course by mid February you should be able to get a close parking spot at the gym since that's about the time motivation for the fitness resolution begins to wane. However, there are some traditions that endure year after year, particularly in the South where we seem to value our heritage and culture a little more than our friends to the north. Since I grew up in Texas, black eyed peas and football were the norm for my family, and everyone I knew, on New Year's Day. Everyone had to have at least one bite for good luck, like it or not, it was the rule. It wasn't until I met my first northerner that I realized this was a southern thing unique only unto us. There are stories that date the ``good luck'' tradition all the way back the pharaohs of Egypt, but for us it goes back to the War Between the States. During General Sherman's March to the Sea in late December 1864, he ordered the Union troops to ``burn and destroy'' everything they saw, and ``leave a trail that will be recognized fifty years hence.'' In the aftermath of the devastation of the South, the only fields that were spared were the crops of black eyed peas and corn. The Northern soldiers considered them food for the livestock and didn't waste time burning them, thereby leaving them as the only real source of food left for the starving southerners. As a result, black eyed peas were seen as the saving grace of the South and became a sentimental symbol of better days that lie ahead. Now there are a lot of theories on why we must eat them on New Year's Day, but they all revolve around the principle that they bring good luck and prosperity in the coming year. Every family has a different way of cooking them, if you're from the South you can bet your family has a recipe. In Texas, some just like to serve plain ole' ``East Texas Caviar'' (as black eyed peas are referred to in Texas). My friends over in Louisiana like to ``kick it up a notch'' and add tomatoes and Cajun spices, some folks make Hoppin' John with rice and hammocks, and most everyone serves them with cornbread and some type of greens such as collards, mustard or turnip greens, or just cabbage or cole slaw to symbolize money. But you can't just eat the greens and expect a prosperous year, you have to have the peas too. Just one bite, it's the rule. (Although some say you have to eat 365 peas, one for each day or eat ``every bean and pea on your plate''--I leave that one up to you!) I have even heard of people putting a penny in the pot and whoever gets the penny in their bowl gets the ``best'' luck of the year. Maybe this is like the baby in the King Cake? Whatever the case, it is a tradition that runs deep in the South and I am glad to see that it is still alive and well. Both my grandmothers had their special recipes, and every New Year's Day I still hound my kids and grandkids to make sure they eat their peas. So, I hope you all had your black eyed peas and for all you transplants living in the great State of Texas, I hope you get with the program and try some East Texas Caviar to start your year off right. It's a Southern thing. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government continues to bankrupt Uncle Sam with bailouts to special interest groups using taxpayer money. One more group has appeared on the steps of the Capitol dragging the sack for more ``Free Money.'' None other than the adult entertainment business, specifically, the CEO of ``Girls Gone Wild,'' has asked for $5 billion to save them from calamity. When is this mentality going to stop that citizens should subsidize industries that have fallen on hard times? According to the Congressional Research Service, the total amount of bailouts in 2008 now exceeds ``all the costs for major wars the United States has ever engaged in, including the American Revolution, the War between the States, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan,''--about $8.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has gone wild with all these giveaway programs. And so far the bailouts have had little or no positive impact on the markets or the economy. No more bailouts. We cannot tax, borrow and spend our way into prosperity during these tough economic times. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Israel and Hamas are fighting each other in the Gaza Strip. The question is, what is this fighting all about? For centuries, the Jews and Muslims have fought over a strip of land in what we call the Holy Land called the Gaza Strip. It's a territorial dispute, but it's also a conflict of a religious nature. The Gaza Strip is a tiny sliver of land about two times the size of Washington, D.C., with a population of about 1.5 million people. It is bordered by the State of Israel on three sides and the Mediterranean Sea to the West. The modern war between Israel and the Palestinians began after Israel became a sovereign nation in 1948, after the end of World War II. After the Egyptian invasion of Israel in May of 1948 and the subsequent occupation of the Gaza Strip, large groups of Palestinian refugees began to arrive and live in Gaza. In the last half of the 20th century, territorial control bounced back and forth between Israel and its Muslim neighboring countries. In the 1990s, Israel transferred security and civilian responsibility for the Palestinian-populated areas of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. After that transfer, Palestinians elected Yasser Arafat to be their leader, a person who was by no means pro-Israel, but a leader at the very least who worked for peace between Israel and Palestine. In September 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew all of its settlers and soldiers and dismantled its military facilities in the Gaza Strip on the condition that the Palestinian terrorist groups, like Hamas, would stop terrorizing innocent civilians in Israel near the Gaza border, but that did not happen. Hamas continued its relentless attacks against the Jews, causing an escalation of tension in that region. Then in January of 2006, the people of Palestine elected Hamas to head the Palestine Legislative Council. The international community did not accept the Hamas-led government because it refused to renounce violence, refused to recognize the State of Israel, and refused to honor previous peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. After a series of infighting between Hamas and more moderate Palestinians, Hamas militants succeeded in a violent takeover of all the military and government institutions in the Gaza Strip. So since 2000, Hamas terrorists have targeted over 1 million Israeli civilians in Gaza and Israel literally firing thousands of rockets, missiles and mortar shells into Israel. In just the past 10 days, Hamas has fired more than 500 rockets at innocent Israeli civilians, and there is no end in sight. The anti-Semitic hate speech propagated by Hamas leaders is no figment of anyone's imagination. It is real. It's enticing an entire generation of young people to become terrorists, all in the name of religion. Even our State Department has designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization for as long as that list has existed. But we don't have to take our own government's word for it. In 2005, a Hamas leader in Gaza told the media that, ``Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don't recognize the State of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims.'' Later in 2006, another leader said, ``Israel is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to recognize its right to exist. Israel must be humiliated and degraded.'' These are not the words of a people who desire peace and reconciliation. These are the words of a people who blatantly call for the complete destruction of Israel and will not stop at anything until that happens. What's worse, Hamas doesn't care what it takes to make this happen, even if that means killing its own people. Since the fighting began, Israel has allowed over 200 truckloads of food and medicine to enter Gaza, even under shellfire. Just today, Israel agreed to cease its ground operations for 3 hours every day so that humanitarian supplies can be taken into Gaza. But meanwhile, Hamas is not only preventing its own wounded civilians from crossing into Egypt to receive medical treatment, but they're stealing medicine and supplies meant for civilians and using them for their wounded terrorists. What makes Hamas even more inhumane is their willingness to put their own people in harm's way. Time and time again, Hamas has intentionally launched missiles into school yards and residential areas, putting Palestinians at risk, daring Israel to try and come after them, even hoping for Palestinian civilian lives to be lost in these attacks. It's time for the rest of the world to stand in solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism and demand that Hamas immediately end its rocket fire attacks on Israel and stop smuggling through tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. However, Hamas says it will never end their war against Israel until Israel ceases to exist. In the face of such hate, Madam Speaker, Israel is left with no other choice but to defend its people and its sovereign territory from these murderous terrorists. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the radical hate group Hamas in Gaza has refused to renew a truce with Israel. It has begun once more firing thousands of Iranian-made rockets into Israel. Numerous Israelis have died in the last 11 days. Hamas wants to annihilate Israel because, well, they're Jews. Hamas kills people that aren't radical Muslims like themselves. That's why they're called terrorists. Hamas cowardly hides among civilians for cover, fires rockets, then is indignant if Israel defends itself. But Israel has moved into Gaza to find these bad guys. Some world leaders, rather than mounting pressure on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks, are calling for a ceasefire, even a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. In other words, peace at any price. Peace ought to be a goal, but not at all costs. Actually, some things are worth fighting for. Now is not the time for unrealistic, hopeful idealism. Lives are on the line. Men may cry peace, peace, but there can be no peace as long as Hamas kills in the name of religion. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE of Texas

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it looks like the days of the Old West have returned and are being played out in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. Innocent Israeli civilians have been targeted by Hamas terrorists. These terrorist outlaws have fired over 8,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israel since 2000, and they still won't quit. These extremists call for the total destruction of the nation of Israel. They are shooting at Israeli civilians in southern Israel with the help of Iranian-made long-range rockets. Self-defense is a basic human right, Madam Speaker. It is a principle that goes back to the Wild West: If you are getting shot at, you have the right to shoot back to defend yourself. And Israel is fighting back. Israel has the moral right and duty to protect its people from Hamas militants waging war against them. Hamas is nothing more than a ragtag gang of terrorists intent on kidnapping, killing and terrorizing as many Israelis as possible. These attacks cannot go unanswered. The United States must stand with Israel. Hamas doesn't want peace. They want a war of destruction against Israel. In the face of such hate, Israel is left with no other choice but to defend its people and its sovereign territory from these murderous outlaws. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, for Houston police officer Timothy Abernethy, fighting crime was more than an occupation; it was his personal calling. Officer Abernethy was part of a special effort through the Houston Police Department to place more peace officers in high crime areas, which is why he was in an area of town that others tend to shy away from when he was shot and killed this past Sunday, December 7. Working overtime and in a one-man patrol unit, Abernethy had pulled over a 28-year-old male for a traffic violation. As the man and the officer talked, the individual made a run for it and Officer Abernethy pursued him on foot through a nearby northwest Houston apartment complex. Tragically, the coward of a man, who happened to be out on parole, hid and ambushed Abernethy shooting him four times and killing him. The criminal has been apprehended and is charged with capital murder of a peace officer. Officer Abernethy graduated May 27, 1997, from the Houston Police Academy, Class 170. During his 11-year HPD career, he was assigned to patrol at the North Command station and served with the HPD Search and Recovery Dive Team. Recently, Abernethy was part of an HPD bomb squad and was due to be transferred full-time to this squad. Officer Abernethy is remembered as a giving person. His Captain, Ceaser Moore, recalls a time during Hurricane Ike this past fall when his power was out for weeks, and even though Abernethy already had his in-laws staying with him, he invited Captain Moore to stay with him until electricity was restored. Officer Abernethy was the type of person who worked hard not only to improve his community but also himself. He worked successfully to obtain a degree while he was a member of the Houston Police Department. Prior to joining the Houston Police Department, Officer Abernethy served in the United States Navy in the Submarine Corps. Officer Abernethy is survived by his wife Stephanie, his son Timothy Scott Abernethy, Junior, and his daughter Olivia Ann Abernethy. His only son, Tim, Jr., followed in his father's footsteps and joined the United States Navy so that he, too, could serve his country. Abernethy's daughter Olivia is a 2008 graduate of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Officer Abernethy was a man of honor who was dedicated to making our world a safer place for the rest of us. He will be greatly missed by citizens and peace officers alike. He was one of Houston's finest. Mr. Speaker, he was a cut above the rest of us. His funeral will be this Friday in Houston, Texas, and his fellow officers will wear their black cloth of sacrifice across their badges. Peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between the law and those that violate the law. Officer Timothy Abernethy lived and died serving the people of Texas and the City of Houston. And that's the just way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, well, here we go again, rushing into another bailout without appropriate congressional hearings. And what have the Big Three auto boys done to restructure their businesses after they first flew up here on their big private jets? Absolutely nothing. They just showed up here again demanding American money. They say they are too big to fail. Madam Speaker, they have already failed, but they want the American citizen to pay for their mess. So with the option before us today, we are going to let the Federal Government take over the auto industry and even decide what kind of car we should build. Not only that, we are going to appoint a ``Car Czar'' to manage how it is done. The underlying bill gives the ``Car Czar'' complete control over the auto industry. Can you imagine what a Federal Government-made car will look like? Most likely it will have a sail, solar panels, or even a windmill on top. It will be the typical Federal project. It will be too expensive, won't work, and we will never get rid of it. With this bill, we are subsidizing failing companies. It is not the American way to subsidize failure. This is just like what we continue to do with Amtrak. Taxpayers pay millions of dollars every year to subsidize the failing passenger rail industry. So if we like Amtrak, we are going to love the new Federal car industry. As President-elect Obama said on ``Meet the Press'' Sunday: ``We don't want government to run companies. Generally, government historically hasn't done that very well.'' I agree completely. What the Big Three need to do is reorganize under the bankruptcy laws to prevent failure and job loss, just like the airlines did. The Big Three saying bankruptcy will cause 100 percent job loss is nonsense. It is just the politics of fear. People say this isn't a bailout, but that is exactly what it is. It is not a bridge loan. And if it is a bridge loan, then it is a bridge loan to nowhere. Folks, this is nothing more than a down payment on a future bigger taxpayer-funded corporate welfare bailout. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, it's Christmas time in the city, so the Federal Government is about to give away more taxpayer dollars to those with their corporate hands out. Now the Big Three Automakers say they need Uncle ``Santa'' Sam to save them from themselves even though they have been bad all year. And they expect ``Joe Sixpack'' from Dime Box, Texas, to pay for their naughty deeds. We can't call it a bailout because that might be too honest a statement to our citizens; so we call it a ``bridge loan.'' Actually it's a bridge loan to nowhere. And Congress wants to create a Car Czar to oversee the control of how the Big Three make new cars. They tell us it's not the nationalization of the car business, but it sounds close enough for government work to me. Anyway, does anybody really think the Federal Government knows anything about the car business? If you like the way the Federal Government fouled up the mortgage industry by over-regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that has cost the taxpayers billions, or you like the way the Federal Government controls passenger rail service with Amtrak that loses billions of dollars every year, you'll love the way the Federal bureaucrats make new cars. The new federalized auto industry will have the competence of FEMA, the pleasantries of the Post Office, and the compassion of the IRS. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, it seems that some in Congress are trying to call back the speech police and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine again. Although the Fairness Doctrine was abolished over 20 years ago, some of our colleagues just can't let it go. This time they want to police and control the radio airwaves. I'm not talking about the former Soviet Union that controlled what Russians listened to on the radio, I'm talking about the American speech police. The so-called ``Broadcast Fairness Doctrine'' is an attempt by the Feds to force private radio stations to be fair and balanced by forcing broadcasters to air opposing views of public importance. Sounds good, but who's going to determine what fair is, the Federal fair police? Are we going to let a bunch of Potomac River bureaucrats determine if a radio station in Tomball, Texas is being fair when it discusses politics? Sounds like government control of speech to me. It is actually totalitarian state control of speech. And what does ``fair'' mean? Fair means different things to different folks. In some places in the country like Texas, fair is where you take your chickens to. That's why the word ``fair'' is not in the Constitution. The Constitution protects free speech, not fair speech. It says ``Congress (that's us, folks) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' And the Constitution applies to the thieves of free speech and the government's speech police whether they like it or not. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the politics of fear has won the day. The Secretary of Treasury has in essence told the country, ``Give me money and give it to me by the close of the business day or the country is going into the financial abyss.'' His fear tactics have caused the stock markets to tumble, and by putting a financial shotgun to the head of America, he has collected a $700 billion ransom to pay for the financial mistakes of Wall Street. There are two problems: we still don't know what he's going to do with America's money; and second, those who caused this mess are the ones who will profit from their bad gambling debts. These Wall Street elites are free market capitalists until they start making mistakes, and rather than pay, they arrogantly expect Americans who did nothing wrong to pay the cost. Well, I didn't come to Congress to sell out to Wall Street and let Americans be ripped off by intimidation tactics. Americans should not be expected to pay for the sins of the Wall Street money barons. But the bill that passed today benefits a few in New York City; it raises taxes; there is no assurance it will even solve the problem; and the good old American patriot is left holding the bag because of the politics of fear. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the bill to bail out the elite financial industry in New York that caused this mess failed this House, but our Senate colleagues are sending us a new bill, four times longer than the 100-page bill rejected by us. The bill to stabilize the financial industry is now packed with squeaky pork. One would ask, what does pork have to do with the financial industry? Well, nothing of course. But the Senate bill with the piglets will help these entities: new tax earmarks for film and TV production; litigants in the Exxon Valdez incident; wooden arrows used by school children. There are more tax earmarks: auto racing tracks; Indian tribes; wool research; and get this one, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rican rum. I am not making this up. There are more breaks for the railroads and the mining industry. None of these solve our banking and financial crisis. Why are they in this bill? The House needs to deal with this financial situation to make sure that those responsible are held accountable and that the American taxpayers aren't forced to go broke paying for this financial rescue. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, because Wall Street money grabbers have made bad judgment calls, the American taxpayer is being forced to bail them out at $700 billion. Why is it, Madam Speaker, that the bigger the business, the more the Federal Government thinks it should swoop in and save incompetent businesses? Small businesses, mom and pop grocery stores, don't get this break. When they make bad financial decisions, they go out of business. But the rich and famous Wall Street New York City fat cats expect Joe Six-Pack to buck it up and pay for all this nonsense. Reward people for being irresponsible and expect responsible people to pay for the sins of the financial industry? I think not. Putting a financial gun to the head of each American is not the answer. Madam Speaker, I have this bill; it's over 100 pages long. That means it's seven billion dollars a page. The New York City fat cats expect us to pay for it. I think not. This year alone, Madam Speaker, it's a sad time to be an American taxpayer. Here's Uncle Sam, all beat up because he's broke, and the reason is we have paid out Bear Stearns, a bailout, $28 billion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $200 billion, AIG bailout, $85 billion. Last week, the automobile industry got $26 billion. And today, lo and behold, $700 billion. The American taxpayer is tired of paying for the sins of other people. It's time for them to pay and be responsible for their own misconduct. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, they say it's going to be Y2K all over again. Remember all the media hype about the date January 1, 2000--that the worldwide computer systems would fail, that financial records and transactions would be lost and go haywire and that the world would be gloom and doom and despair? This is the same politics of fear we are hearing from the fat cat financial bullies from Wall Street. They say Congress must save them from their financial sins before the stock markets open tomorrow or the country will fall into the abyss. So Congress is working on a plan in the back rooms of this Capitol. There are no public congressional hearings, no witnesses before committees. This Sunday, the plan for financial salvation to save us all is being discussed by only a few in the shadows of this great hall. Doesn't sound like a good way to run the business of Congress. Backroom deals have always troubled me because they usually turn out to be bad deals for Americans. The irresponsible elites in New York City who caused this financial mess should bear the blame and the cost or there should be no deal. However I suspect that Americans will be held financially hostage until they pay the ransom for Wall Street's salvation. By the way, the Y2K scare was just a mythical hoax. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. So our courts are hearing this matter and it is all about the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. That is a human right. That is a universal right in this world, whether the courts in Great Britain recognize it or not. And it is important that people be free to write the truth and not suffer the consequences from it and certainly not have to prove what they say is true just because somebody objects. This legislation is good to protect the publishers and writers in the United States that if they are sued in foreign courts, that those judgments will not be upheld unless that law, that judgment would be upheld in courts in the United States. This is important legislation. I would like to put into the Record an article from the San Francisco Chronicle talking about this entire concept of libel tourism. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 29, 2008] Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet (By Cinnamon Stillwell) It has become popular for those with competing political agendas to allege threats to free speech, whether real or imagined. Yet, there is a very real threat to free speech that has received little attention in the public sphere. It's called libel tourism and it has become a major component in the ideological arm of the war on terrorism. At question is the publication of books and other writings that seek to shed light on the financing of Islamic terrorism. Increasingly, American authors who dare enter this territory are finding themselves at risk of being sued for libel in the much more plaintiff-friendly British court system in what amounts to an attempt to censor their work on an international level. The latest case of libel tourism to rear its ugly head involves the book ``Alms for Jihad,'', which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006. Co-written by former State Department analyst and USAID relief coordinator for Sudan J. Millard Burr and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus of history Robert O. Collins, ``Alms for Jihad'' delves into the tangled web of international terrorist financing and, chiefly, the misuse of Muslim charities for such purposes. Among those the book fingers for involvement is Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, the former chairman of Saudi Arabia's largest bank, National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz has come under similar scrutiny on previous occasions, including being named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by family members of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He even has a section of his Web site devoted to trying to refute such charges. With this in mind, Cambridge University Press lawyers looked over the manuscript for ``Alms for Jihad'' carefully before giving it the go-ahead. According to Collins, the passages involving bin Mahfouz are, in fact, quite ``trivial'' compared to the wealth of information contained in the book on how such funds are used to finance conflicts around the globe. Yet, it is bin Mahfouz's inclusion in ``Alms for Jihad'' that has proven to be the most problematic, for he soon threatened Cambridge University Press with a libel lawsuit. Before the suit could commence, Cambridge University Press capitulated and announced in July that not only was it taking the unprecedented step of pulping all unsold copies of ``Alms for Jihad,'' but it was asking libraries all over the world to remove the book from their shelves. Cambridge University Press issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz and posted a public apology at its Web site. It also agreed to pay his legal costs and unspecified damages, which, according to bin Mahfouz, are to be donated to UNICEF. Authors Burr and Collins, however, did not take part in the apology, nor were they a party to the settlement, and they continue to stand by their scholarship. As Collins put it, ``I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat of a billionaire Saudi sheik . . . I think I'm a damn good historian.'' The authors were aware that Cambridge University Press's decision was based not so much on a lack of confidence in the book as on a fear of incurring costly legal expenses and getting involved in a lengthy trial. The British court system is known as a welcoming environment for ``libel tourists'' such as bin Mahfouz. The Weekly Standard elaborates: ``Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record. In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports the defendant.'' Bin Mahfouz has indeed availed himself of the British court system on many occasions, having either sued or threatened suit against Americans and others at least 36 times since 2002, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, author and director of the American Center for Democracy. Ehrenfeld should know, as her own book, ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--And How to Stop It,'' was also targeted by bin Mahfouz through the British court system. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in 2004, soon after her book's publication in the United States, even though only 23 copies ever made it to the United Kingdom. Ehrenfeld would not, as she put it in the New York Post, ``acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book published here'' and a trial was never held, but the court ruled in favor of bin Mahfouz by default. It also awarded bin Mahfouz $225,913 in damages and ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize publicly and to destroy all unsold copies of the book. Instead, Ehrenfeld chose to fight back. No doubt aware of the larger implications at work, she took her case to the United States and, giving bin Mahfouz a taste of his own medicine, sued him in a New York federal court on the basis that ``his English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States and repugnant to the First Amendment.'' Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has described her case as ``one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years'' and sure enough, in June of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it deserved a hearing. The court will begin hearing arguments this fall in what could turn out to be a pivotal case involving the clash between First Amendment rights and foreign libel rulings. Ehrenfeld may indeed have a strong case. She maintains that bin Mahfouz has a long history of involvement in terrorist financing. The bulk of it, she wrote in 2005, revolves around the now-defunct Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, which was founded by bin Mahfouz and ``identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial support to al Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf organizations.'' Ehrenfeld recapped her concerns more recently: ``The data in both Alms for Jihad and Funding Evil is all well-documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official statements. Further corroboration comes from French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily, Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.'' For this reason, and also to create a precedent, Ehrenfeld has been the only defendant so far not to settle with bin Mahfouz. And she refuses to ``acknowledge the British Court and its ruling'' to this day. Ehrenfeld's success thus far countering bin Mahfouz mirrors other indications that libel tourism may be backfiring. The largely Internet-based furor over the attempt to squelch ``Alms for Jihad'' and what is widely seen as Cambridge University Press' cave-in has caused the book's price to skyrocket. A copy of the book sold on eBay this month for $538. As noted at the blog Hot Air, ``By suing publisher Cambridge University Press into submission, Khalid bin Mahfouz has turned an obscure scholarly book on the financial workings of terrorism into a prized, rare book.'' In addition, the American Library Association is rising to the occasion. Rather than going along with the Cambridge University Press settlement stipulation that American libraries remove ``Alms for Jihad'' from their shelves, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom issued the following statement earlier this month: ``Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users.'' Reportedly, Collins and Burr got the publishing rights to the book back from Cambridge University Press and, according to the Library Journal, have had ``several offers from U.S. publishers.'' It appears the ``Alms for Jihad'' saga is far from over and free speech may yet win the day. In another victory for free speech, as well as an instructive example of what such libel suits look like when attempted in the United States, a recent case involving Yale University Press proves useful. It involved a book written by Matthew Levitt, the director of the Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, titled ``Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.'' In his book, Levitt disputes the notion, popular among Hamas apologists, that the group's terrorist and social service pursuits can be seen as separate. In the process, he implicates the Dallas charity KinderUSA, which allegedly raises funds for Palestinian children, in terrorist financing. The group has personnel connections to the now- closed Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been under investigation by federal authorities for funding Hamas. KinderUSA has also come under investigation and as a result, in 2005 suspended operations temporarily. All of this information is available to the public and the book was thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication. Levitt, who is a witness in the ongoing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, explained further that he ``conducted three years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the subject of academic peer review.'' But this didn't stop KinderUSA and the chair of its board, Dr. Laila AI-Marayati, from filing a libel suit in California in April against Levitt, Yale University Press, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They disputed a particular passage from the book, as well as alleging that Yale University Press did not subject it to fact-checking. But, in filing the suit in California, they were faced with a formidable challenge: the state's anti-SLAPP statute. According to Inside Higher Education: ``KinderUSA asked the court for an injunction on its request that distribution of the book be halted, and also sought $500,000 in damages. But in July, Yale raised the stakes by filing what is known as an ``anti-SLAPP suit'' motion, seeking to quash the libel suit and to receive legal fees. SLAPP is an acronym for ``strategic lawsuit against public participation,'' a category of lawsuit viewed as an attempt not to win in court, but to harass a nonprofit group or publication that is raising issues of public concern. The fear of those sued is that groups with more money can tie them up in court in ways that would discourage them from exercising their rights to free speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the one in California with which Yale responded, are tools created in some states to counter such suits.'' Not only did Yale University Press stand by its author, but, in the end, its aggressive response to KinderUSA paid off. It was announced this month that the libel suit has been dropped and no changes to the book or payments to the plaintiffs will be forthcoming. KinderUSA claims that it dropped the suit because of the costs involved, but it's more likely it felt that it could not win. If the case had been brought in the United Kingdom, the outcome could have been far different. This is why Americans must be vigilant about protecting their free speech rights, even when the threats at hand do not fit into the politically correct playbook. Certainly not all Muslim charities and Saudi businessmen are involved in financing terrorism, but the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to existing links deserves attention, as do the fervent attempts by interested parties to silence those trying to bring the truth to light. It is crucial that they not succeed.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers for pushing this legislation and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for sponsoring this legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is a legal presumption in most countries, even Third World countries, that if you accuse somebody of something, you have to prove it, whether civil or criminal. The burden of proof is on the accuser. But that is not so in all countries when it comes to libel and slander. Take Great Britain, for example. It goes back to when the King ruled the day. If you criticized the King, even if you were right, off with your head. One of the reasons that we formed our own country was the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of press and that is why we put those two fundamental principles first in our Constitution. I have a pocket Constitution that most Members of Congress carry with them, and the first amendment protects the right of a free press and freedom of speech. What has occurred, though, throughout the courts in Great Britain in a libel case, in other words somebody writes something about somebody else, if the person that is the subject matter doesn't like it, they file a lawsuit in Great Britain, and the burden is on the person who wrote the document to prove it is true. The burden is not on the accuser like it would be in the United States. That applies not only in libel cases but slander cases. And it has taken place especially in books about Islamic terrorism throughout the world. Writers critical of Islamic terrorists are being sued by wealthy sheiks and Saudi billionaires, specifically Khalid bin Manfouz, who was accused in ``Alms for Jihad'' of financing Islamic terrorists through Muslim charities. What he did, he got mad about the Cambridge University Press, and he threatened to sue Cambridge University Press. What happened in England, which I hope never happens with our press, they got so nervous about it that they started taking all of the books off the shelves, and they started destroying the books. In fact, they sent word throughout the world, if you have this book, ``Alms For Jihad,'' destroy the book. Kind of like the burning of books during World War II under the Nazis. So the Cambridge University Press gave in because the libel laws are different than they are in the United States. It has also occurred here in the United States with a similar book called, ``Funding Evil,'' written by Rachel Ehrenfeld. What she did was write a book in the United States, published in the United States. But some books, 23, worked their way to England. Here we go again. This author was sued in the courts of England and had the burden of proof to prove that her statements were true. Well, she filed suit against the people who sued her, once again bin Manfouz, and that lawsuit is now pending in our courts.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, the ranking member, and I also want to thank the chairman of this committee for bringing this legislation before the House, and, of course, my friend from California, the former Attorney General, Mr. Lungren, for his passion about this issue. As a former judge and prosecutor down in Texas, I don't like drug dealers, and we see the effect of them throughout the United States. This submersible vessel, this submarine we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, here is a photograph of it right here. It is 100 feet long. It is made out of fiberglass. It has stealth technology, so it is hard to be detected. It is built so it goes barely below the surface. It travels at a very low rate of speed so it cannot be detected by its wake. And they are made in the jungles of Colombia. What they do, they float these down the rivers in flood season to the Pacific Ocean, and then this vessel is on its way. Mr. Speaker, it can go all the way to the United States without refueling. It takes several tons of cocaine with it, coming to the United States, bringing that cancer for the profit of the Colombian drug dealers. What happens is our Navy and other navies, even the Mexican Navy, the Colombian Navy, they have seen these things on the high seas. They carry no flag. They claim no nation. What happens when they are encountered by the Navy or the Coast Guard, the five or six crew members, they jump out the hatch over here and scuttle the submarine so all the dope goes to the bottom of the ocean. There have been two circumstances when the drug dealers that were on these submarines weren't quick enough. The Navy, the Coast Guard, got there quick enough to take some of the cocaine off, and they are being prosecuted in Florida as we speak. But most of the time they scuttle it, we capture, but really end up rescuing the crew, and then rather than put them in jail, we have got to take them home where they came from and let them go, because it is no crime to possess one of these subs on the high seas. This legislation makes it a Federal offense to have one of these subs with no flag and sailing on the high seas. When the crew is captured, they could be prosecuted in our Federal courts and go to the penitentiary where they belong. The U.S. Coast Guard tells us that at any given time, there are 100 of these things on the high seas, all coming to the United States bringing drugs. As my good friend Mr. Lungren from California has pointed out, that is not just the problem, because they are so shallow, because they are hard to detect, these things can bring in weapons of mass destruction, explosives, and work their way up the riverways of our Nation, going to our ports, like the Port of Houston and some of these other ports, and cause tremendous damage. We want to capture these people on the high seas before they get that opportunity. Some have said, why don't we just shoot them out of the water as soon as we see them? I guess we are too civilized for that. We want to prosecute them instead. This is important legislation. It will help our law enforcement guys, the Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, who are doing a tremendous job already in tracking these people, with cooperation from other navies throughout the world. It is time that we make this legislation law.