Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on H. Res. 1311--National Gear Up Day, H. Res. 1202--National Guard Youth Challenge Day, H.R. 6493--Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008, I was not able to return to the House because myself and 6 other Members of Congress from Texas had to make an emergency plane landing due to mechanical problems on CO flight 458. Thus this emergency prevented a timely return to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three of these measures.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in our country, Americans debate, argue and discuss all types of issues. And because of the type of people we are, we seldom agree on everything. Almost any issue you bring before the American public, it is evenly split on most issues, about 50/50, sometimes a little more than others. But today, 73 percent of all Americans believe we ought to drill offshore. That is a phenomenal number. 73 percent of Americans don't really agree on hardly anything, but they agree on drilling offshore because the American public gets it. They understand we need more crude oil, Mr. Speaker. And the only way we can get gasoline is from crude oil. And the offshore drilling ban by the President has been lifted. The only thing standing between us and energy independence offshore is Congress. Congress has handcuffed the American public's will to drill offshore. This map shows where we drill currently, Mr. Speaker. The section down here in the Southeast, where the blue markers are, now, I represent part of the State of Texas, and proud to do so. But we only drill in this country off the shore of Texas, Louisiana, parts of Mississippi, and parts of Alabama. But yet, you see all of this red section, off of our shores, and in all of those areas there are places where there is crude oil on the bottom of the ocean. But yet, Congress won't let us drill there. There are a lot of reasons for that. They are all political, and they are all nonsense because there is oil out there. Seventy-three percent of the American public say we ought to drill. We need help. Gasoline prices are too high. We can't afford to go to work. And even in California, 53 percent of the people who live on the West Coast in California say, for the first time in recent memory, that we ought to drill off that coast as well because there is crude oil out there in the Pacific. But because of political reasons and reasons that really don't make much sense we are not taking care of ourselves. One argument is that we can't drill safely, that those oil rigs out there in the Gulf of Mexico and off the east and west coast will cause environmental damage because there will be pollution from that crude oil that would seep from those oil rigs. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. Give you the best example. In 2005, two hurricanes came blasting through my congressional district in Southeast Texas. Their names were Katrina and Rita. They came from Louisiana and Texas. Hundreds of offshore rigs in this area where we do drill were damaged or completely destroyed. But yet, we didn't hear 1 word about those rigs causing pollution from crude oil seepage from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, and the reason was it didn't happen. Those massive valves that sit on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico called Christmas trees, that are made in Houston, Texas, by the way, they shut down. That crude oil was not allowed to escape and there was no environmental damage. But still we hear this hue and cry. We can't drill safely. There is pollution. Crude oil will pollute our shores. Let's look at some facts instead of hysteria. Pollution from crude oil. Here is where it comes from off our shores. Mother Nature is the biggest culprit. 63 percent of the pollution of crude oil that comes a shore is from Mother Nature. The second is boating, 32 percent. Tankers cause 3 percent. And if you look at that little bitty line over there on the end, Mr. Speaker, 2 percent comes from offshore drilling. Mother Nature is the culprit, not offshore drilling. We can drill offshore safely. We need to take care of ourselves. If we allow the opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, two good things will happen. Those oil companies will have to pay a lot of money for the right to drill offshore. That brings revenue into the Federal Treasury, to the taxpayers. And we ought to let States that do allow offshore drilling, no matter which State it is, get a portion of that offshore lease revenue, and let them use it in their states for whatever they wish, like education, transportation, health care, whatever they wish. Secondly, thousands, literally thousands of high-paying jobs will be created if we allow offshore drilling, plus we will have the crude oil, then the gasoline and be able to reduce the price. That is not the only answer, offshore drilling, but it is one of the answers. And we are not doing anything. Like my grandfather used to say, when all is said and done, more is said than done. And we haven't done anything this week. We could be 1 week up on offshore drilling if we just took the handcuffs off of America and allowed offshore drilling. $425 million dollars a day goes to Saudi Arabia from the American taxpayers to buy crude oil. $425 million. That money needs to stay home. We need to take care of ourselves. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank first of all the chairman of the committee for his work on this bill and his vast knowledge of transportation issues, not just with bridges but every other issue regarding transportation and how he is able to give us that history lesson every time the committee meets, either in English or Spanish. He can do both of those. Today there is a reasonably good system in place for removing old bridges when they need to be replaced with new bridges, but it is in the circumventing of that system that causes problems. Old bridges that have been replaced, if not removed, could cause nationwide problems for shipbuilders, ship operators, port authorities, terminal operators and even barge operators. Under current law, bridges have to come down or be repaired when they pose an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. This is carried out through bridge permit requirements, providing that an old bridge must be torn down when the new bridge is built and the old bridge no longer serves a transportation function. One example of where this process is not followed is the Brightman Street Bridge case. This bridge is 101 years old. New construction started 10 years ago, but yet the new bridge has still not been built, and now there are plans to keep the old bridge in place even after the new bridge is constructed. There has been a constant increase in the size of ships on our waterways throughout history. This makes bridges built in the past an obstruction and danger to navigation. For instance, the width between the bridge and the pier on the new Brightman Street bridge are much longer than on the current bridge. And unless old bridges like this are removed, they will still be navigation problems upriver. We need to understand that some of the worst, most severely deteriorated bridges in the country are not only hazardous to vehicular traffic and people traveling on top of the bridge, but also to maritime and perhaps rail traffic that are below them. There are bridges deemed by the Coast Guard to be navigational hazards, and when States build a replacement bridge, the hazards ought to be removed. There are roughly 60 bridges with a sufficiency rating of 5 or less, or what I call 95 percent deficient that are over navigable waters according to 2007 numbers. The purpose of this motion to recommit is to be proactive, Mr. Speaker, and strengthen current policy that when a permit is issued to build a new bridge it also includes a provision or requirement for removal of the old bridge. If an exception to this rule is allowed to continue, it could lead to similar bridges being kept nationwide for limited transportation purposes. But the sole purpose of using these old bridges is to really block upstream development, specifically blocking energy development upstream that has already been approved. Keeping an old bridge when a replacement has been constructed has less to do with the condition of the bridge and more to do with the existence of an unnecessary barrier to navigation. This makes the dangers of an old bridge worse for the maritime industry. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. (Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POE. In its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, as our ``Drill Nothing'' Congress continues to ignore viable energy options such as drilling in ANWR, I thought a chart would best illustrate where these drilling locations are. Madam Speaker, this is Alaska, this is ANWR, and this little bitty red speck is where the proposed drilling in ANWR is to be. It takes glasses to see it because it's only 3 square miles. To put it in perspective, the Houston Intercontinental Airport is five times the size of this speck. Disney World is 15 times the size of this speck, and the King Ranch in Texas is 500 times this proposed drilling location. Madam Speaker, it's time for Congress to stop using the distortions of the elites in the environmental fear lobby as an excuse not to take care of ourselves. America needs to take care of Americans and not be held hostage by OPEC and handcuffed by the Drill Nothing Congress. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I bring you an update from the City by the Bay. San Francisco recently spent $50 million proudly advertising that it was a sanctuary city. I now give you the results of this very successful PR campaign, because it has worked. This week's example is illegal Edwin Ramos. He loves San Francisco because even though he has been arrested twice for felonies, the compassionate folks of San Francisco never wanted him deported back to El Salvador. So he stuck around, got arrested for a gun charge this spring, and still wasn't sent home. So last week he got a bit of road rage and gunned down Anthony Bologna and his two sons, Matthew and Michael, while they were returning from a family picnic. Mrs. Bologna blames the city for the murders because it ``caters to illegals''. I hope the mayor of San Francisco is proud of his sanctuary policy for illegals because it's cost three lives. Mrs. Bologna should have a wrongful death cause of action against the City of San Francisco, especially the mayor, for its sanctuary policy. And Congress should prohibit all Federal funds from going to cities like San Francisco that proudly ignore American immigration laws and welcome foreign outlaws like Ramos. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Texas, the State of Texas, has ignored the order of the World Court in Geneva. Let me give you the facts of this case. Fifteen years ago in 1993 there were two young teenage girls by the name of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, headed home as the sun set in Houston, Texas. They took a shortcut so they could get home in a timely fashion, as ordered by their parents. That was their fatal mistake. They came in contact with a group of gangsters headed by Jose Medellin. It was a gang initiation. The girls stumbled upon the gang of gangsters, and these gangsters kidnapped, held hostage, and brutally sexually assaulted these two girls for as long as they wished. After they were through, they tortured them, and Jose Medellin strangled each of them with their shoelaces. Medellin was proud of his conduct. He was later arrested by the Houston Police Department along with others from his group of bandits, specifically Derrick O'Brien, Peter Cantu and two others. These individuals were tried by Texas juries. A Texas jury found that Derrick O'Brien committed the worst crime in our society, ordered the death penalty, and he's been executed. The ringleader of the case, Jose Medellin, well, his case has been on appeal for 15 years. Here's what has happened in his case. He was convicted. His case worked its way all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction. Then years later he says, I should have been allowed to talk to my Mexican consulate at some time during the proceeding, even though he never requested it upon his arrest. Of course, then, the Federal Government gets involved in the case. The case works its way back through the Supreme Court. Before it gets to the Supreme Court, the administration, the White House, intervened and told Texas courts to give Medellin a new trial because he was not allowed to ask or see his Mexican consulate, even though he didn't request it. Remember, Medellin was illegally in the United States, even though he had been here since he was 6 months of age. The State of Texas, the Texas courts, in all due respect to the President of the United States, ignored his request. The case went back to the Supreme Court, right down the street. A few months ago the Supreme Court of the United States said, World Court has no jurisdiction. The President of the United States has no jurisdiction to tell the courts in Texas what to do and upheld his conviction and ordered him executed. But, once again, the World Court intervened yesterday, and said the State of Texas cannot execute Medellin. Well, let me tell you something, the State of Texas on August 5 is going to execute this defendant for what he did. The State of Texas has decided that the World Court has no jurisdiction to tell the State of Texas or any other State what to do. I think it was put appropriately by the fathers of these two girls. No parent wants to see their child die before their time, especially the way that these two girls died. I have four kids, three of them are girls; and seven grandkids, four of them are girls. Here's what one of the fathers had to say about the death of his daughter. He said, ``The World Court doesn't mean diddly. This business belongs in the State of Texas. The people of the State of Texas support the execution. We thank them.'' More appropriately, the other father, Adolfo Pena, the father of Elizabeth Pena, said, ``I believe we have been through all the red tape we can go through. It's time to rock and roll.'' Justice must be served for victims of crime. 15 years justice has been waiting, in this specific case, 15 years, longer than one of the girls even lived. This defendant arrogantly has been sitting on death row. I was a judge when this case was tried back in Texas in the 1990s, and it was one of the worst crimes we had ever heard in our city, where two teenage girls minding their own business were kidnapped by a bunch of gangsters, sexually assaulted, tortured, murdered and the criminals bragged about this conduct. Today is judgment day for Jose Medellin. He deserves the death penalty, he earned it, and justice demands it, whether the World Court likes it or not. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Border Agent Luis Aguilar, Jr. was on patrol in January on the Arizona border chasing two vehicles of suspected drug dealers. As the vehicles, a Hummer and a pickup, realized they had been discovered and fled back to the Mexican border, Agent Aguilar put road spikes in front of the vehicles. The Hummer, however, went off the road and ran over and killed Agent Aguilar. The driver, Jesus Navarro Montes, was quickly arrested by the Mexican government and held on unrelated drug charges. However, he was released 6 months later because the U.S. Government never requested extradition proceedings. Members of Congress have asked the Justice Department what happened. We received a standard bureaucratic, nonsensical letter saying, ``we're not telling you.'' In other words, our Justice Department blundered by not requesting extradition, and now won't admit it. This is incompetence. Montes, meanwhile, is still probably running drugs into the United States. We owe it to all border agents and the family of Agent Aguilar to capture this killer. Maybe we should offer an old fashioned reward for his capture, and let our friends in Mexico do the job our government won't do. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based upon the cold written record of proceedings at the trial court. Eight of our nine Justices have never tried a case before a jury. Only one has in some very limited way. For the most part, they have been isolated from the real world all of their lives. They have dwelt in legal theory and constitutional construction, reconstruction and constitutional destruction during their entire judicial careers. They've not heard a witness testify or a defendant plead his case or have had to empanel a jury or have had to listen to little girls testify about graphic, brutal sexual assault. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not that complicated to most Americans, though we keep seeing the Star Chamber court of five Justices on the Supreme Court rule the opposite of the obvious meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, especially recently, makes the Constitution, which is simple, complicated. They do so to twist and turn the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. At least five Justices follow the doctrine of former Chief Justice Charles Evans when he said arrogantly in 1935, ``We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what [we] the judges say it is.'' This is especially true in the case of Patrick Kennedy versus Louisiana. Here are the facts of that case: Patrick Kennedy sexually assaulted his 8-year-old daughter. So brutal was the attack that she nearly bled to death. She has had to have reconstructive surgery, and her life was only saved by the medical personnel who rescued her. Louisiana and a handful of other States have said that the death penalty is warranted when a person like Patrick Kennedy rapes little kids, especially little girls. The Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion, says that that just isn't fair to the criminal in this case. He overruled the will of the people of Louisiana, the legislature of Louisiana and the unanimous jury, who all found that Patrick Kennedy should be executed for his crime. Justice Kennedy reasoned that, since the victim lived, the defendant should not get the death penalty. However, there is no logic in that argument. The victim, certainly, could have died. If medical people hadn't saved her life, she would have bled to death. She required reconstructive surgery that she will live with for the rest of her life. So the defendant gets a break: the right to live because the hand of God and the hand of the medical personnel saved the life of the victim. What Justice Kennedy misses is that Louisiana punishes the act of the assault--raping little girls. That's why Louisiana has executed or has written the death penalty into its law. Whether the victim lives or dies should not be a requirement to face the death penalty in Louisiana. The act of child rape alone is dastardly enough to deserve the ultimate punishment. But, in Justice Kennedy's mind, death must result or it is cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment in our Bill of Rights. Kennedy says the trend is away from the death penalty for anything but murder cases. He is wrong. For these six States that have the death penalty for child rape, these statutes are relatively new, and even our Code of Military Justice now allows the death penalty for child rape if anyone in our military rapes someone on a post or on a base. Justice Kennedy also says it's not civilized to execute Patrick Kennedy. It's a violation of the eighth amendment. It's just not moral. But what is civilized or moral about now sending Patrick Kennedy to prison? How is that justice to Kennedy or to the victim to let him live? Now he will be in prison at taxpayer expense at $40,000 a year. He will receive free medical, free Internet. He will have no responsibility. He will receive free legal services. He will receive three hot meals a day and a place to stay as long as he shall live. Is that justice? I think not. We don't promise that to anyone. We certainly don't promise that to crime victims, because they're basically on their own after a crime is committed. Only the worst people among us get that benefit of our society, and those are child rapists. Justice Kennedy's opinion is his own moral judgment. His opinion is not any more valuable than my opinion or my next-door neighbor's opinion for that matter. The difference is his opinion is the only one that counts under our Constitution. His opinion, as Justice Evans says, is the Constitution whether we like it or not. Justice Kennedy is wrong. As my friend Alton Richards, a ranch foreman, has said, ``Patrick Kennedy is wasting good air breathing.'' Victims are denied equal protection under the Constitution because Justices like Kennedy prefer to pander to child rapists rather than to give equal protection to little girls. The same Constitution that protects people like Kennedy should protect the rights of child victims.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the elite Cambridge University Press of the United Kingdom is destroying controversial books, reminiscent of the Berlin book burnings of 1933. In an effort not to offend wealthy Saudi banker Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, the timid publisher cowered in fear and is pulping and destroying all known copies of its book ``Alms for Jihad'' that alleges the Saudi banker's ties to charities that fund terrorist organizations. The writers of the book stand by their work, however. Mr. Speaker, here is the real problem. In the United Kingdom more and more frivolous libel suits are brought against writers and publishers by people with connections to terrorist groups because the United Kingdom court system is weighed in favor of suppression of controversial free speech in the marketplace of ideas. So many publishers like Cambridge are intimidated and are afraid to publish controversial topics. After all, the British court system is just too sophisticated to allow books to be printed that might offend someone. The writers of ``Alms for Jihad'' should publish their book in the United States because we thrive on controversial speech, whether alleged terrorist sympathizers like it or not. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Capitol Hill hall monitors have issued warning citations to Members of Congress. That's right; Republicans and Democrats all over the hill are getting busted. The dastardly offense was paying tribute to American warriors by placing a poster outside the office with photos of our troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's right. We're getting written up for honoring the memory of fallen soldiers from our home States and districts. Here is my citation. I got busted for having a sign-in table and easel with a poster in the hallway. And this is the poster that I got written up for, Mr. Speaker. This letter says I have 30 days to comply with the new hallway policy or I will be in violation of this new edict. You see, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and I choose to honor the men and women who have fought so bravely and given their lives in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we display a poster like this one. This poster represents the 26 men and women of the Second Congressional District area of Texas that have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We post these displays outside our offices so that we, our staff, and visitors will be constantly reminded of the sacrifice of our troops. Our type of government exists because real Americans go to war and some of them don't come back. And these photos are of some, 26, of those Americans. Now the hall monitors want us to take them down. They say they are an ``obstacle.'' I will now read from the edict from the sign police that stealthily roam our hallways looking for violators of this hall monitoring proclamation. It says: ``In an emergency evacuation, the many items placed in the hallways of House office buildings interfere with the safe exit of Members, staff, and visitors . . . This policy was developed in response to a complaint regarding the proliferation of items placed in the hallways and responsive recommendation by the Office of Compliance. Its adoption was further recommended by the Committee on House Administration and supported by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations; the House Sergeant at Arms; the Inspector General; the Chief Administrative Officer; and the Office of Compliance.'' And, Mr. Speaker, I will introduce this edict and this warning letter into the Record. Notice July 3, 2008. Room No. 1605. The attached letter, dated May 2, 2008, announced the issuance of a Hallway Policy intended to reduce hallway obstacles. The Hallway Policy can be viewed at http:// housenet.house.gov (search on ``hallway policy'') or http:// house.aoc.gov. We are now entering the final 30 days of the transition period established by the Committee on House Administration. In accordance with our responsibility to administer and enforce this Policy we note the following violations of the Policy: (1) sign in table; (2) easel. While we are still in the transition period we are bringing this issue to your attention in order to provide you with the opportunity to bring your office into compliance. The policy will be in full force and effect on August 2, 2008, and after that date all items that violate the Hallway Policy will be removed. If you require assistance or have any questions, please contact First Call+ at 202-225-8000 or the House Superintendent's Service Center at 202-225-4141. We sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, noted historian Henry Brooks Adams once said that, ``A teacher affects eternity--he can never tell where his influence stops.'' Today I come to honor one of the most influential teachers at Lamar University. Each year the Lamar University Research Council chooses to honor a faculty member for their outstanding contributions to scholarship, research, grant writing, and creative activity. Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Dr. Jerry Lin received the 2008 University Scholar Award, the university's highest honor recognizing research and creative activity. Since he joined Lamar University in 1999, Dr. Lin has been considered one of the leading investigators in his field. He has received over $3 million in research grants where his interests include both air quality and water quality in environmental science and engineering. He is particularly well known for his contributions in mercury research. This has led to collaborations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Texas Air Research Center, among others. Dr. Lin has a sincere love for helping and teaching. His work as an associate professor and academic advisor has affected many lives. He has taught 5 undergraduate and 12 graduate courses at Lamar. Dr. Lin serves as the faculty advisor of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which has won over 40 regional competitions under his direction since 2000. Dr. Lin is a distinguished author who has been quoted by many other researchers all over the world, from Canada to France and China. He has authored over 100 publications, from book chapters to peer-reviewed journal articles. Publications such as Environmental Science and Technology and the Journal of Environmental Engineering have featured his work. Dr. Lin has been invited to speak in Thailand, Croatia, and across the United States. Awards and recognition are nothing new to Dr. Lin. He has received the University Research Forum Award, Who's Who in Engineering and Science, the Gill Master Award for Young Investigator, and in 2002 received a University Merit Award, which recognizes faculty members who show an outstanding commitment to education. Dr. Lin's passion for students, his research projects and publications, and contributions to his field earned him this top honor. I am proud to recognize his contributions in the Second Congressional District.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, today I come to pay tribute to a long time cultural icon in Southeast Texas. A.J. Judice was a proud ambassador of his Cajun heritage and used his life to promote and spread their culture across the area. His family started Judice's French Market 80 years ago and introduced Cajun food to the region for the first time. Known for his black beret, white moustache, red scooter, and colorful personality, Judice was truly a Southeast Texas original. Albin Joseph ``A.J'' Judice, Jr. was born in Port Arthur in 1927. He graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School in 1945, the same year that his beloved Yellow Jackets played for the State championship, he so frequently bragged. He spent 2 years as a Merchant Mariner, allowing him to see the world. His heart and his future, however, belonged in Texas. He married Lois the former senior prom queen in 1948. They had two children in one year, eventually having five in all. Judice is most recognized as the mascot for the restaurants and grocery stores that have been in his family since the 1920's. His family opened Judice's French Market in 1927 in their single car garage while the family lived above. They moved in the 1930s and settled where they still operate today. A.J. and his mother, ``Maw Maw'' Judice, are credited as being the first store in Texas to sell live crawfish and hot boudain, two staples of any Cajun diet. He was always happy to announce that their seafood ``slept in the Gulf last night.'' They also own Larry's French Market in Groves. Though he passed the stores on to his sons, the caricature of Judice in his apron and beret is still used to advertise the store. Thanks to him, ``crawfish season'' is just as popular as ``football season'' in Southeast Texas. Judice was known as the ``Crazy Frenchman'' and he definitely lived up to the branding. He helped popularize the sport of Crawfish racing in Southeast Texas, a sport created to celebrate the Cajun lifestyle. In the early 1960's, Texas Governor Preston Smith appointed him as a Texas Crawfish Racing Commissioner. It was then that he coined his famous cheer, ``Hot boudain, and cold cush cush! Come on crawfish, push push push!'' A.J. and his crawfish eventually won the world championship in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana. He was so well known that a 1980's USA Today article spotlighted Judice and his racing mudbugs. CBS news featured him on a cover story after he trained two crawfish to jump out of airplanes. From the smallest local festival to the largest Mardi Gras festivities around, Judice was always visible, playing his triangle ``ding-a-ling'' or dancing to zydeco music. He was full of life and lived every second like it was his last. Madam Speaker, Mr. A.J. Judice, Jr. was a pioneer in promoting a respect of rural Louisiana history and culture. He enhanced his community of Southeast Texas for 80 years, and I am proud to celebrate his accomplishments and the legacy that he leaves behind.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, there are those who now proclaim that our children be required to learn Spanish. Mr. Speaker, I thought English was the national language. Up until recently, almost all immigrants that came to America learned the language, English. That included the Germans, Dutch, French, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, South Asians and on and on. So why the push to require Americans to learn Spanish? Why not Chinese? More people in the world speak Chinese than any other language, or German. According to the Census Bureau, more Americans, including my family, claim German ancestry over any other heritage. But when our Forefathers debated this language issue years ago, English won out over German. It seems to me that it's logical that in the U.S. we ought to speak at least the same language, English. And if people want to speak an additional language, let them choose, not the government, which language to speak. It doesn't seem too much to require people that come to America that they work, follow the law, and learn the common language. Otherwise, we will become a community of nations, rather than a Nation of communities. Und das ist nur die Art, wie es ist.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, almost every morning I talk to my parents who are both in their 80s and are very inquisitive about what goes on in Congress. Today, like most Mondays, I tell them we are working on postal legislation. I don't really go further and tell them the legislation actually is just naming post office buildings throughout the vast plains and prairies of America. After all, we have named 72 Federal buildings in Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, almost 30 percent of our legislation passed this Congress has been naming Federal buildings. Today I see we will be naming two more post offices. Today Mom said she can't even afford gas to get to the post office. Mr. Speaker, maybe this ``Drill Nothing Congress'' should find more energy for Americans. Open up the Outer Continental Shelf to crude oil. Congress needs to get to work and solve the gasoline issue. We can name post office buildings at some other time. There has been enough talk about energy. Now action is demanded. However, it seems when all is said and done, more is said than done about the energy problem. Maybe we should rename our Congress the Post Office Congress. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, it's official. Iran now is capable of firing long-range missiles into southern Europe, Israel, and at U.S. troops in the Middle East. This story broke yesterday morning when news agencies all over the world reported that Iran successfully test-fired nine medium- to long- range missiles with ranges of 1,200 miles or more that could carry nuclear weapons. Madam Speaker, here's a map of the area. Here's Iran in the green. Next door is Iraq. Here's Syria. And, of course, this small area here is Israel. Weapons that they have fired are now capable of reaching Israel if Iran so desires. Iranian leaders say these supposed to send a message to the United States and to Israel. The message: Iran has no problem attacking if they so desire. The world is threatened by North Korea, Syria, and Iran, all developing nuclear capabilities while denying they have mischief in mind. The most dangerous, of course, is Iran. The administration claims that the U.S. is determined to prevent Iran from threatening U.S. interests. But what does that mean? We have heard that line before. We've heard it the last time the U.N. imposed sanctions and told Iran to straighten up or else. And Iran just ignored the U.N. and the United States. It's pretty clear that Iran's aggressive weapons development is part of a calculated plan to destroy their enemies. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the U.S. and Israel are at the top of Iran's hate list. The LA Times recently reported that the little fellow from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said, ``The Zionist regime of Israel is about to die and will soon be erased from the scene.'' And, ``The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to annihilation has started.'' The devil of the desert, Ahmadinejad, is preaching hate and murder, which puts the rest of the world in danger as well. For those folks who might be willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, let's take a walk down memory lane and consider some of the recent facts. In August of 2002, allegations were made that Iran was building a uranium enrichment facility, a component necessary for nuclear weapon technology. In December of 2002, satellite images confirmed the site. Then, after being caught in 2003, Iran agreed to allow U.N. inspectors in the country to inspect their facilities. But shortly after the inspections, Iran removed the inspectors' cameras and began nuclear development again. In September of 2003, more enriched uranium was found. Caught again. In October, Iran pledged that if they could develop peaceful, civilian nuclear technology, they would suspend uranium enrichment activities. However, less than a month later, we learned that Iran didn't hold up to their end of the bargain. Big surprise, Madam Speaker. They lied and were caught again. In 2004, we learned from the United Nations inspectors that Iran violated obligations under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and had been doing so for 18 years. Then Iran refused to allow U.N. inspectors back into their country. In 2005, Iran finally permitted U.N. inspectors to conducted limited inspections and, only after Iran had enough time to sanitize the facilities, were the inspectors allowed in the country. Then, at the end of 2005, an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment was broken when Ahmadinejad became President. Iran started its nuclear program once again. In 2006, the U.N. ordered Iran to suspend enrichment. Iran did not comply. Later that year, the U.N. issued another order demanding that Iran stop enrichment, and Iran refused, and rejected even an incentive package. The U.N. passed more resolutions demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment, and all have basically been ignored. Not only has Iran's dictator been stubbornly defiant in complying with these international demands, he has openly mocked U.S. attempts to keep Iran from developing nuclear technology through diplomacy. In fact, just recently one of Iran's military commanders was quoted as saying that Iran's, ``hands are always on the trigger and missiles are always ready to be launched.'' Do those gunslingers sound like the kind of people we can with reason with? How many more United Nations resolutions have to be issued, how many more sanctions imposed? How many more chances are we willing to give this trigger-happy regime? It's pretty clear what we are doing now is not working. So the question, Madam Speaker, is: Does the United States have a plan to deal with this crisis, or are we going to have to wait for Iran to deploy a nuclear missile before we wake up and realize that we need a plan. The U.S. intelligence community says that Iran can have nuclear weapons as early as 2010. That is just 2 years away. We already know Iran has long-range missile capability. Put those two together and our world is in a rude awakening very soon. Iran is not a joke. It's a threat to the whole world. The government of Iran and, more importantly, the American people need to know what the United States' position and plan is. We know what Ahmadinejad's plan is. It's full of malice toward the United States and Israel and his intentions are fatally bent on mischief. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on Sunday morning Chaudhry Rashad brutally murdered his daughter for bringing, as he said, ``disgrace to the family.'' Rashad's 25-year-old daughter, Sandeela, wanted a divorce from her arranged marriage, but Rashad believed that it was more honorable for him to take a course of action to strangle her to death. When Atlanta police arrived on the scene, Rashad was in his driveway, calmly smoking a cigarette behind a car as if it was a normal Sunday. After being arrested, then he arrogantly demanded to be served Islamic food while he was in custody. Rashad said he has ``done nothing wrong'' by murdering his daughter. Yet another example of murder in the name of religion. Yet that's the problem, that people still use the word ``honor'' and ``killing'' in the same breath. The United Nations estimates that there are approximately 5,000 supposed religious honor killings each year of women and girls. Murder is not honorable. When the police found young Sandeela's body, they said it was cold to the touch. However, the cold, dead body of his daughter was nothing compared to the coldness of a father's heart who willingly steals the life of his child in the name of religion. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, On June 30th Texans from the greater lake Houston area joined together to participate in The American Heart Association's Greater Lake Houston Heart Walk. The number one and number three killers of Americans Heart disease and stroke do not discriminate against age, race, or gender. By raising awareness, encouraging physical activity, and involving the community, participants are empowered with life altering information. Through initiatives like the greater lake Houston walk, the American Heart Association's goal is to not only encourage physical exercise but to also educate the community about circulatory diseases. According to the census bureau, in 2005 over 36,000,000 people reported being diagnosed with either Heart Disease or Stroke. Participants in the American Heart Association Walks can learn about why it is important to stay healthy, and at the same time contribute to research, advocacy, and public education. Donations raised through sponsorships and citizens alike have allowed the American Heart Association to continue its mission since 1924. In the years 2005-2006 they invested more than $543 million in the fight against heart disease and stroke. Perhaps one of the most important means of Heart Disease and Stroke prevention is the regular maintenance of a healthy lifestyle. This measure is especially connected to regular physical exercise as many risk factors are all interrelated to a lack thereof. These include inactivity, excess weight, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. Through educating Americans of risk factors, symptoms, and prevention the hope is to reduce instances of heart disease and stroke 25 percent by 2010. Community involvement in the Greater Lake Houston Heart Walk and others like it encourages others to also become aware of the number one and number 3 killers of Americans. From heart healthy eating to physical activity, learning the means of prevention and passing them along, is the key to these walks' successes.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to other Congressional business, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 471, 472, and 473.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, I proudly salute a true public servant and model citizen of Dayton, Texas, Milo Westel Ford Jr. I would like to recognize and honor M.W. Ford for his outstanding leadership and commitment to the people of Dayton. A native born Texan and a life-long resident of Dayton, Texas, Mr. Ford graduated from Dayton High School and later Rice University. In 1945 he retired from the United States Air Force as a captain. He retired from Dayton State Bank after 50 years of service. During the 90 years of his life, Mr. Ford has had a long career in public service. For three years, he served as the mayor of Dayton. For over 50 years Mr. Ford has been a Rotarian in Dayton. He has been recognized by numerous organizations. Some of these include: Citizen of the Year from the Liberty Dayton Chamber of Commerce and International Paul Harris Fellowship Award from Dayton Rotary. He served on the Dayton Community Development Corporation, Legend Bank Board, Dayton Masonic Lodge, Lon Morris College Board of Development, and the Dayton Historical Society. Mr. Ford's contribution to the fundraising efforts to help build the Jones Library in Dayton will not be forgotten. Both his hard work and love for Dayton, Texas has earned him enduring respect throughout the community. On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate M.W. Ford on his 90th birthday. I commend this remarkable Texan for his service, dedication, and contributions to the City of Dayton.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, congratulations to the Lone Star College System on its successful name change last year, and on surpassing the 50,000 student mark. Today, the Lone Star College System is the largest community college system in the Houston area and the second largest in the state of Texas. One in five high school graduates from area-wide school districts attend one of their branch campuses. Several of the system's campuses are in my district. The system also offers dual credit courses to over 5,000 high school students, giving students the opportunity to graduate high school with college credit. Lone Star College System was established in 1972 when the voters of the Humble, Aldine, and Spring Independent School Districts voted to meet the need for a junior college to serve their communities. In the fall of 1973 the college was formed. Aldine High School hosted the first classes. In its first year the school enrolled 613 students led by 16 staff members. Between 1981 and 2003, the college underwent a series of expansions and adopted the name of North Harris Montgomery Community College District. In November 2007, students and community members voted to rename the college Lone Star College System. With graduates contributing in vital areas of our society upon graduation, this college has become a very valuable institution of education for my district and for Texas.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, in January, Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was tracking drug smugglers on the Mexican-U.S. border. A Hummer apparently carrying drugs crossed into the United States and tried to flee back to Mexico when Aguilar and other Border Patrol agents gave pursuit. Aguilar got in front of the Hummer at some distance and he put spikes in the road of retreat, but the Hummer, rather than go over the spikes, drove off the road, ran over and killed Aguilar, and fled back to Mexico. The driver was Jesus Navarro Montes. And he fled to Mexico, ditched the Hummer with some friends, but was arrested by Mexican authorities 3 days later and charged with certain offenses. Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts get a little messy. Montes is the only suspect in the murder of Aguilar, but he has recently been released from jail in Mexico. Some Mexican authorities say he was not in jail for the murder but unrelated smuggling charges. Even so, he was not tried for those charges even though he waited in jail for 6 months. Mexico also says that the United States has failed to file extradition papers from the United States to Mexico requesting the extradition of this individual Montes. Extradition papers are a legal requirement between countries to bring criminals from one country to another. It's been 6 months, Mr. Speaker, and certainly those papers should have been filed some time ago. Our Justice Department, however, refuses to comment on whether extradition was requested or the papers were filed. This is a bit odd and curious why our government won't say whether or not they even filed the appropriate paperwork and what the problem is. Did our government fail to file this simple paperwork? And if so, people in our government ought to be fired. This is inexcusable. And if Mexican authorities released prematurely, Mexico has some explaining to do as well. There is obviously incompetence in somebody's government regarding the release of this individual. Meanwhile Navarro Montes is running lose somewhere in Mexico, laughing at both governments and probably still smuggling drugs into the United States. The Aguilar family still weeps, and they are waiting for justice for the death and murder of their loved one. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. Our government should be as concerned about prosecuting drug smugglers that murder American Border Patrol protectors as they are about relentless prosecuting border agents like Ramos and Compean that were doing their job when charged with violating the civil rights of a drug smuggler on the border. We need some answers, Mr. Speaker, and not blissful silence and excuses from our government. Navarro Montes needs a trial so that justice can prevail because justice is what we do in this country. And that's just the way it is.