Ted Poe

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, for the last 5 years, civilians Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves have been held hostage and bound by chains in the jungles of Colombia. Their captors were the Communist thugs: FARC. The three American captors lived in constant fear and squalor along with hundreds of other hostages, mostly Colombians. These three men were held longer than any other American citizens currently being held captive in the world. They also had 5 years of their lives stolen from them. During the last 5 years, they were unaware of most world events, including the birth of Stansell's twins, the invasion of Iraq, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Red Sox breaking the curse and winning the World Series, gasoline prices tripling, and the University of Texas defeating Southern Cal in the Rose Bowl for the National Championship. FARC is an insurgent terrorist group that funds its activities by working with the drug cartels and kidnapping people and holding them for ransom. But thanks to the people and the Government of Colombia, the three Americans and 20 others were rescued from the outlaws in a stealth, covert operation. We are glad the Americans are home, and our gratitude goes to the people of Colombia. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the speech police are at it again. 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. Radio shows that air conservative ideas in the free enterprise market seem to be listened to by more Americans than those that listen to liberal ideas. I don't know why that is, but it happens. So some don't like that. They say it's just not fair. So they want to force the private radio stations, with the use of the government speech police, to air ideas that are liberal as well as conservative. They call this nonsense the ``fairness doctrine.'' 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. Madam Speaker, who do we fight against? We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. We heard that we are fighting a war on terror. But what does that mean? Who are the people at war with America? Now, after all this time, our government has decided we must have a politically correct name for our enemy. No longer can we use the term ``Jihadist,'' the primary meaning being a holy war to subject the world to Islam. After all, using that term might hurt our enemies' feelings. And certainly the most accurate term, ``Islamo-Fascists,'' is strictly taboo because it might further anger our enemies by insinuating they are a bit radical when they murder in the name of religion. So the government insists that we call the bad guys ``extremists'' or ``terrorists.'' The term terrorist is so general it could cover a multitude of individuals. My neighbor sometimes calls my Dalmatians ``terrorists''. Does that mean our country is at war with my dogs? I really hope not. The term ``extremists'' could be applied to Global Warming Advocates, Health enthusiasts, NASCAR fanatics or anyone with strong opinions. Are we fighting all these people? Those terms: extremists and terrorists are so vague they don't indicate the war against us is waged in the name of a radical Muslim religious doctrine. But isn't that the reason for this war? The term ``Jihadist'' is not a reflection on all Muslims. After all, many Muslims are literally fighting these radical ideas. In a war, we must specifically define our enemy. Otherwise, we don't know who they are or why they fight. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, she was 8 years old. She was asleep in her own room, in her bed dreaming about whatever little girls dream about. She thought she was safe in her home. Suddenly she was awakened by the demon from the night. Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana was on top of her, having his way with her, this petite little angel. Kennedy was someone the little girl supposedly could trust; after all, he was her stepfather. This little girl was raped. So violent was the rape she fainted and the next thing she remembered she woke up in an ambulance speeding to Children's Hospital. Official court records state, ``When police arrived, they found the victim on her bed wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. The victim was transported to Children's Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that the victim's injuries were the most severe he had ever seen from a sexual assault in his years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. The injuries required her to have emergency surgery.'' The little girl survived this attack by the barbarian and lives, even though she has been sentenced to a life of mental torture, physical pain and emotional trauma that she may not ever recover from. Her physical scars will never disappear. The child rapist was tried under Louisiana's law that specifically allows for the death penalty for criminals that choose to rape the most innocent among us, children. The law was passed by the legislature, signed by the Governor and is the wish of the people of Louisiana. A jury of 12 citizens heard the facts and they all agreed that Kennedy should die for his decision to rape his daughter. Several other states, including Texas, have the death penalty as a possible punishment for child rapists. This case has been reviewed by numerous courts, and has taken 5 years to reach our Supreme Court. In a decision this week by Justice Anthony Kennedy--no relation--the Supreme Court said the Louisiana law is just too severe and overruled the will of the people of Louisiana and a unanimous jury when he imposed his own moral code saying no one can be executed under these circumstances unless the villain also kills the child, otherwise it is a violation of the cruel and unusual provision of the United States Constitution. Although the jury was unanimous in ordering the death penalty, the Supreme Court split in its decision 5-4 with the majority siding with the evil-doer. Justice Kennedy focused on the fact that the victim survived the assault as the reason not to execute the rapist. In other words, the defendant got a break because the little girl had the will to survive. When I was on the trial bench in Texas, I had a rape victim once tell me that rape was a fate worse than death. In the eyes of this little girl, she probably agrees. When the ``cruel and unusual'' phrase was put in the Constitution, it was put there and based on constitutional history to outlaw torture and maiming of criminals. As history reflects, States decided what was appropriate punishment based upon these guidelines. The five justices who sided with the rapist don't seem to have lived in the real world or have real life experiences. They don't seem to provide justice for victims, only leniency for criminal defendants. I spent 22 years on the felony trial bench in Texas and heard over 20,000 cases. The Constitution was the basis for every decision I made. I saw those charged with the worst acts people can commit, and I saw the brutalized victims of crime. I only mention this experience because trial judges see the world as it really is, not how we wish and hope it to be. Trial judges see real people every day. Unfortunately, eight of our nine Supreme Court justices do not have the benefit of this experience and have never been a trial judge and seen the effects of crime on people. They have spent much of their time in elite ivory palaces as law school professors and appellate judges removed from the world, second-guessing legislatures, trial judges and juries. I doubt if Justice Kennedy has ever been to Louisiana or talked to a rape victim or a rapist, or a jury, for that matter. Now Justice Kennedy says the verdict of death is just too cruel and unusual for us that live in a sophisticated society to allow. His ruling is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Justice Alito said in his dissent that the death penalty laws should be allowed for child rape ``if they reflect society's evolving standards of decency.'' The State of Louisiana set the evolving standard for child rapists in Louisiana, and said leave our children alone or face the death penalty. Society's standard was trumped by five black-robed justices who want it their way. They are wrong. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, forget about the days of judicial restraint. Those are the days when the Supreme Court thought their job was to interpret the law and follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court now has ushered in a new era power grab called judicial imperialism. Recently, the deeply divided Supreme Court, or the war powers court, as we shall call it, issued a ruling by Justice Kennedy that gave terrorists the right to argue their cases in Federal courts. In this 5- 4 decision, the court held that terrorism detainees captured on the battlefield engaged in war against America now held at Guantanamo Bay prison and other prison facilities under U.S. control have the same rights as American citizens. When I was at Gitmo prison, which I doubt Justice Kennedy has ever seen, I saw several detainees that had been captured, released, and captured again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans. I'm sure these enemy combatants are partying in Guantanamo prison tonight. Under the current law, individuals captured as enemy combatants have their cases reviewed by military commissions. It has always been the law under our Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and the President and Congress control war, not the nine justices on the Supreme Court. But the imperialistic war powers court ruled that these military commissions aren't fair enough for enemy combatants trying to kill American troops. It's interesting. These terrorists hate America, hate freedom, hate our way of life but quickly run to American courts to seek redress against Americans. The five war power judges on the Supreme Court say these poor little misfits should have access to American courts, even though it is the first time in history we have given constitutional rights to combatants against the United States. Even in the War between the States, captured Confederate soldiers who were actually born in the United States were not allowed access to U.S. courts. They were tried by military tribunals. The same occurred in World War II when Nazis were tried by military tribunals. During the Revolutionary War, British spy John Andre was caught on U.S. soil spying with traitor Benedict Arnold. Andre was hung by the Commander in Chief, George Washington, and a military court without any judicial intervention. So what is next? Are we going to make our boys read terrorists their Miranda rights in the battlefield before they capture them? Justice Scalia was right, Mr. Speaker. In his dissent he argued that this ruling will make the war on terror harder on us and will ``almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.'' The Supreme Court is running roughshod over the Constitution of the United States and changing 200 years of judicial precedent. In fact, at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court explicitly determined in a series of cases that the writ of habeas corpus--that's an action that allows a person to seek relief from detention--does not apply to foreign combatants held outside the United States. It gets down to this question, Mr. Speaker: Who should be running our wars? Should Congress and the executive branch be in charge of war, or should the Supreme Court, in all of its supreme knowledge, be running the war? Well, according to the war powers court, they are the commanders in chief of the war. Now what does the imperialist war court want us to do with captured terrorists? Not capture them at all, or let them go so they can kill again? While terrorists continue to use innocent women and children as shields, continue to bomb our troops, shoot our sons and daughters in the battlefield and behead American civilians and our troops without granting them any rights, the Supreme Court tells us these terrorists ought to be treated like American citizens. The five imperialist judges on the Supreme Court have asserted the power of the Constitution that is reserved specifically to the executive branch and to the legislative branch. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be, but that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, who do we fight against? We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. We heard that we are fighting a war on terror. But what does that mean? Who are the people at war with America? Now, after all this time, our government has decided we must have a politically correct name for our enemy. No longer can we use the term ``Jihadist,'' the primary meaning being a holy war to subject the world to Islam. After all, using that term might hurt our enemies' feelings. And certainly the most accurate term, ``Islamo-Fascists,'' is strictly taboo because it might further anger our enemies by insinuating they are a bit radical when they murder in the name of religion. So the government insists that we call the bad guys ``extremists'' or ``terrorists.'' That vague term won't indicate the war against us is waged in the name of radical Muslim religious doctrine. But isn't that the reason for this war? The term ``Jihadist'' is not a reflection on all Muslims. After all, many Muslims are literally fighting these radical ideas. In a war, we must specifically define our enemy. Otherwise, we don't know who they are or why we fight. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the number one polluter of oil off our coast is Mother Nature. Crude oil seeps to the surface, and Mother Nature causes 62 percent of the crude oil pollution off our coast. So the way we resolve this problem and get even with Mother Nature is we ought to drill where Mother Nature has that oil, take it out from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, and use it to take care of America. But there is a problem with that. We don't drill anywhere except off my native Texas coast, off Louisiana, Mississippi, and part of Alabama. The rest of this, where it is red on this chart, is prohibited. It is time for Congress to take the handcuffs off of this inaction and allow leasing off these shores. Now they say that the oil companies have enough leases; why don't they drill there. The problem is when they drill there, they get a dry hole. And common sense says when they get a dry hole, they quit drilling even though they must continue to pay for those leases. So it is time to let America take care of America. It is time to let our oil go and take care of ourselves, otherwise this red area that we see here will remain off-limits, and it should be drilled for the crude oil to take care of our country. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, they say it's not safe to drill offshore because, they say, oil rigs are polluters of crude oil. So the lesson for today is: Where does the oil pollution from off our coasts come from? Let's keep it simple. This is a chart. This is a chart that shows oil pollution from off our coasts. It comes from the National Academy of Sciences. It gives four sources. As shown by the blue line, the number 1 polluter of crude oil off our coasts comes from Mother Nature. Sixty-three percent of the crude that has polluted our coasts and our gulfs comes from Mother Nature. It seeps from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico to the surface, 63 percent. The number 2 polluter, as shown by the green line, is recreational boating. Thirty-two percent of the pollution of crude oil comes from boating. The number 3 source, shown by the yellow line, appropriately so, is from tankers from overseas, 3 percent. It's those tankers, for example, that come from Saudi Arabia that are polluting our oceans by leaking crude oil, but it's only 3 percent. As shown by the red line, the little bitty red line, 2 percent of offshore drilling rigs cause 2 percent of that oil pollution. Let's do it again, Madam Speaker, to make sure it takes. As shown by the blue line, the number 1 polluter of our oceans and off our coasts is Mother Nature. Sixty-three percent of that pollution seeps from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico to our shores. Mother Nature is the number 1 villain. The number 2 culprit, as shown by the green line, is recreational boating. It causes 32 percent of that oil pollution off our shores. The number 3 culprit, as shown by the appropriate yellow line, are rigs or, rather, tankers from other nations such as Saudi Arabia, causing 3 percent of the pollution. Lastly, the number 4 culprit of 2 percent, as shown by the little bitty red line, are those nasty offshore drilling rigs. So, Madam Speaker, maybe it's time we look at the facts and realize that the lesson for today is we should not be punishing America by refusing to drill offshore. Maybe we should drill offshore because we can do so safely and because it has been proven in the past that we can drill safely. There is only a small portion off the U.S. coasts where leasing is allowed, but we know there is crude oil off the east coast, off the sacred west coast and even in other areas of the Gulf of Mexico, so maybe we should drill there as one solution to the problem of high gasoline prices. We need more supply, and this is one way to do it. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times called it the ``nightmare'' killings of Haditha, Iraq, and the ``defining atrocity'' of the Iraq War. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times referred to the incident as the ``My Lai Acid Flashback.'' Another New York Times reporter filed 36 stories on what he called the ``cold blooded killing,'' saying, ``This is the nightmare everyone worried about when the Iraq invasion took place.'' Self-proclaimed expert and ``worst person ever,'' Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, called it ``willful targeted brutality.'' Nation Magazine said of the event in Iraq that ``members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre.'' And even a Member of this House of Representatives said, ``Our troops overreacted . . . and killed innocent civilians in cold blood.'' It has become the largest investigation in the history of Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which has 65 government agents assigned to this one case. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and prosecutor, I have never heard of 65 criminal investigators assigned to one case except the 9/11 attack. What is the terrible atrocity these news sources are talking about? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Haditha, Iraq, incident took place in November of 2005 when our Marines were attacked by the use of a roadside bomb that exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. The Marines were then engaged in a firefight. Twenty-four Iraqis were killed, including some civilians. After the gun battle was over and the smoke cleared, our government charged four Marines with murder and four others with not properly investigating the case. In a rabid rainstorm of criticism by U.S. journalists who were looking for the scalps of these eight Marines, the eight Marines were tried by a hysterical jury of journalists in the press and apparently found guilty on all charges. But normally, Mr. Speaker, in America we try folks in our justice system and give them a trial before we send them off to the hangman and the gallows. Be that as it may, now, 2\1/2\ years after expensive, intense, and thorough investigation, the facts as portrayed by the sensational National Enquirer-type journalists are not as they were portrayed to be. According to columnist Michelle Malkin, who covered these cases in depth, seven of the eight Marines have had their cases dropped or dismissed. The eighth is awaiting trial in a real court, rather than the court of yellow journalism. These journalists, ironically, are the same ones wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay prison and are worried about the treatment of those alleged terrorists there who may get cold blueberry muffins for their breakfast. But these writers could care less about the presumption of innocence for these eight U.S. Marines, seven of which have had their cases dismissed already. Only in America does the press get teary eyed about the Gitmo detainees but is blissfully ignorant about the justice in the prosecution of our Marines. Meanwhile, the U.S. Marines are still in the midst of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and standing vigilant in other places of the world protecting American interests and values. Those values include the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to say anything it wants, even when the press is totally inaccurate and unfair in the expression of those fundamental rights. And for the U.S. Marines, we say Semper Fi. Semper Fi. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council was formed to have open, lively debate on the basic human rights of all peoples. However, some Muslim nations have put a strong arm on the council and prevented free discussions of practices that are advocated in the name of religion by a few Muslims. Those practices include female genital mutilation and so-called ``honor killings,'' or murder, of women. One would think that the mutilation and killing of women would be a front-burner topic with the Human Rights Council. But some Muslims have said this subject is taboo and the discussion of this religious practice and the religious practices of other faiths is off-limits. So much for the basic human right of free speech. Those that advocate the mutilation and honor killings of women in the name of religion should be proud of this doctrine of faith and be able to justify it before the U.N. Human Rights Council. But I guess not. By the way, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the history of humanity, more murders, tortures, and wars have been justified and done in the name of the world's numerous religions than any other reason or cause. Reason enough in 2008 to discuss this practice of abusing women. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 6041.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the Drill Nothing Congress has let another week go into the history books, but no progress has been made on solving rising gasoline prices. Most Americans are for offshore drilling, but the don't-drill-in-America gang says no. Why does the anti-American drilling crowd think it is wrong for us to drill at home, but it is right for OPEC and the Saudis to drill and sell us crude that costs Americans $425 million a day? The Drill Nothing Congress says those American oil companies, which they seem to despise more than OPEC and dictator Chavez, have enough leases on Federal land. The problem with that lack of logic is there is no oil on those leases. The land is full of dry holes. It is like trying to lease Death Valley to the farmers to grow corn. It won't work. The don't-drill group thinks American oil companies make too much money. Little do they know oil companies are owned by millions of middle-class Americans who are called stockholders. Open up the Outer Continental Shelf. American oil companies will pay millions in lease revenues to taxpayers. Thousands of jobs will be created. America needs to take care of America. Drill offshore. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, people ask me all the time, ``Do you miss being a judge?'' Usually my answer is, ``No, I enjoy representing the good folks of southeast Texas in Congress,'' but sometimes a case comes along that makes me wish I was back on the bench. Sunday, June 8th was one of those days. As I turned on the news and learned that some outlaw set fire to the Texas Governor's Mansion, my first thought was I hope they send him to my court. My close friend Alton said ``Get a Rope''. Of course we all know that everything is bigger and better in Texas, but as the news made headlines across the country so did a little Texas history. Our governor's mansion is registered as a National Historic Landmark and is the oldest governor's mansion west of the Mississippi and the fourth oldest in the country. Because Texas has the unique distinction of being an independent country and a state, the history of our governor's residence really started with the first home of the President of the Republic, however that home was short lived. Nine years after annexation in 1845, the Texas Legislature appropriated $14,500 to build a governor's mansion. The mansion was completed June 14, 1856 and Texas's fifth Governor, Elisha Marshall Pease and his family were the first residents. The historic Austin home beneath the oaks at the corner of 11th and Colorado has housed 43 Texas Governors, and two future Presidents, in its 151 years. One of the unique aspects of the Texas Governor's Mansion is that its structure has remained virtually unchanged. Under Governor Oscar Colquitt, an addition to the rear of the home was completed in 1914 and renovations over the years have left that floor plan intact for nearly a century. The Greek Revival architecture of the home, with its vast porches and floor-to-ceiling windows are all original to the home's initial construction, making it the oldest executive residence in the United States to function in its original configuration. I told you everything is better in Texas. After getting over the fact that I wasn't going to get to try this case and charge this villain with everything from arson to treason, I started thinking about my first visit to the mansion when I was 10 years old. One of my heroes, as you all know, was General, President, and Governor Sam Houston--and I couldn't wait to walk through the halls that he walked and imagine that I was him. I remember standing at the foot of his bed thinking it was huge, thinking that General Sam really was larger than life. I was relieved to learn that Sam Houston's custom mahogany bed and most of the historical furnishings were previously removed for the renovations and spared from the fire. I support the efforts of Governor Perry, the Friends of the Governor's Mansion and all Texans that want to see the Governor's Mansion rebuilt and restored to its former glory. And, I envy the judge that tries the outlaw that recklessly destroyed part of our great state's history. The last scoundrel to desecrate a Texas landmark got nine years in the penitentiary. Back in 1989, a man by the name of Paul Cullen poisoned the great ``Treaty Oak.'' Of course, I promptly volunteered to try that case as well. The Treaty Oak is the famed site in Austin where Stephen F. Austin signed a treaty with the Lipan Apaches and is thought to be more than 500 years old. In a deliberate effort to destroy the tree in some kooky scheme, Cullen poisoned it with enough pesticides to kill a hundred trees. And as most criminals do, he bragged about his crime which resulted in his swift arrest and incarceration. The nation was stunned that we sent him to prison for trying to kill a tree, but the Tree was a symbol of Texas. Fortunately the Treaty Oak survived the attack and while she may not stand as mighty as before, she continues to hang in there as a symbol of strength and perseverance. We rebuilt the Capitol after it was destroyed by fire in 1991 and the Mansion will live to see another day as well. As for the traitorous arsonists, well that is yet to be seen. There's a reason for the saying--``Don't mess with Texas!'' And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the energy policy this Congress has passed recently. This Congress has decided to spend a lot of taxpayer money and subsidize this concept of corn-based ethanol in the United States. We are sending a lot of money to farmers to grow corn so that it can be burned in our vehicles. Now, I don't blame the farmers for what they do. After all, we have encouraged them to produce corn-based ethanol. But the problem with corn-based ethanol is it is a pollutant. Now we are finding out from Science Magazine that it's a pollutant more so than was first thought from the beginning. Because of the subsidies, we are encouraging corn-based ethanol. It also has raised corn prices throughout the world because no longer are we eating corn, we are burning it in our vehicles. It has increased the amount of land that we are tilling up, grasslands, for example, forest, for example, and turning it into agricultural land where we produce corn-based ethanol to burn in our vehicles. It's also expensive. Everything that has to do with corn products has raised in prices over the last 2 years because we are not using corn in our foodstuffs, we are burning it in our vehicles. But probably the greatest problem with corn-based ethanol is how it's produced. Corn is one of those commodities that takes a lot of fertilizer. In fact, it takes more fertilizer to produce corn than any other product that we eat, such as rice or wheat or even the grasslands. Because that fertilizer is being dumped in the Midwest, it drains off in the rivers down the Mississippi River and comes into the Gulf of Mexico. One would argue, so what? Well, the problem with that is, fertilizer has nitrogen in it and phosphorus. That nitrogen and phosphorus, when it goes into the Gulf of Mexico, has created what is called now a dead zone. It's called a dead zone because nothing lives there except algae. The fish, the ones that are there, have died unless they have moved way offshore, you know, out there off the continental coast where we don't drill for crude oil any more. This map here shows, this is a NASA map, satellite photo, shows that it's about 470 miles along our gulf coast, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. It even goes all the way to Florida, but it also extends out in the gulf about 178 miles. It's a dead zone. Nothing grows there. Nothing lives there but algae, and it's all because Congress with unintended consequences is encouraging the production of corn-based ethanol, and the fertilizer goes down the Mississippi River and kills everything in this area. Madam Speaker, it stays for years. It gets bigger every year, this dead zone. It kills off the fish, and all of the fishermen along the gulf coast are having to go way out in the Gulf of Mexico out there where we don't drill for crude oil anymore, and they have to fish to get fish for Americans to eat. Congress needs to reevaluate its policy of depending on some product that now not only is a pollutant but is an expensive pollutant, and it also creates havoc in the Gulf of Mexico by causing a dead zone. We need to be aware of such unintended consequences when Congress passes legislation. Madam Speaker, we need an energy policy. We need an energy policy now--Americans demand it--but we also need some common sense in what we do, and maybe we should rethink the whole concept of corn-based ethanol because, after all, Madam Speaker, it's not going to save us all. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on Monday, five black-robed judges down the street decided that we weren't doing enough for illegal trespassers. The Supreme Court just made it easier for illegals to extend their stay in the United States, even after they have been ordered to leave. People like Nigerian Samson Dada, who has been in our country illegally since 1998, can now manipulate and game the system in order to get more time. He has refused to go home, and the Supreme Court basically has said, ``It's okay. You can stay in spite of being lawfully deported.'' The Supreme Court's ruling overturned other court decisions upholding his deportation. In other words, the High Court ruled in favor of people who have laughingly ignored and disregarded our laws. Once again, the Supreme Court has made law rather than interpret law. The five liberal judges on the Supreme Court who wish to write our laws should take off their black robes and run for Congress. After all, the Constitution I read says Congress should make law, not the Supreme Court. Contrary to what the Supreme Court seems to believe, our justice system has an obligation to protect the rights of people who follow the law, not expand the privileges of those who are illegally on our land. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to other Congressional business, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Wednesday, June 18th. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 419, 420, 421, and 422.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, last November a fleet of Japanese whalers set sail to kill more than a thousand whales, including endangered humpback whales for the first time in the last 40 years. After international outcry, Japan agreed not to hunt the humpback whales this year, but that has not stopped them from continuing to hunt and kill more than a thousand minke and fin whales. You see, although an international moratorium against commercial whaling has been in effect since 1986, Japan and a handful of other countries have used a loophole in the international treaty, and in the name of pseudoscientific research, they have gone ahead and killed more than 11,000 whales. After killing them for ``scientific research,'' as they say, they sold the whale meat and blubber on the commercial market. Anyway, scientists in the field say that these hunts, conducted in the name of science, are really unnecessary because nonlethal research alternatives do exist. Mr. Speaker, Moby Dick is in trouble, and it is time to close the loophole and make sure that endangered whales in our oceans are protected once and for all. In Herman Melville's book ``Moby Dick,'' Captain Ahab, who I think was from Massachusetts, died trying to kill off the whale population. Hopefully Japan's desire to eliminate the whale population, like in Moby Dick, will fail as well, and Japan and a handful of other countries will cease the whale hunts that are taking place.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Drill Nothing Congress is still determined to drive the price of gasoline up by not allowing offshore drilling for crude oil and natural gas. Americans think we are held hostage by OPEC and dictator Chavez for our crude oil, but the real culprit is Congress. Congress holds the keys to freedom from OPEC and the little dictator, but will not unlock the big door to independence. Congress should lift the offshore drilling ban in the Gulf coast, the east coast and even the sacred west coast. Then let each State and its people decide whether or not to drill off their shores. Congress should let States receive a portion of the oil lease revenues oil companies pay Uncle Sam for the privilege to drill and States to use this additional revenue to fund education or whatever they wish. The Drill Nothing Congress seems to want gasoline prices to continue to rise to punish Americans for driving gasoline-powered vehicles. Congress is the problem. In the court of American public opinion, Congress is wrong for its hardheaded, absurd policy of don't drill in America. Meanwhile, gasoline continues to rise in price. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, better known as NASA, has been an ubiquitous aspect of American life since its inception in 1958. This organization brought the United States supremacy outside of the atmosphere and took us to the moon. They reinvigorated the imaginations of children who applied greater concentration to their studies of math and science. Recent accomplishments, such as the International Space Station and many unmanned probes, have been less in the public purview, but have extended scientific knowledge into the realm of what was previously thought to be science fiction. NASA, contrary to popular belief, was not the inventor of Velcro or Tang, yet it has managed to stay in the lives of Americans despite its lower profile by creating critical elements of some of the most important technology in use today. NASA helps to lower food prices by increasing food production five-fold based on research done on growth in outer space. Their design technology helps manufacturers to create cars, the electric guitar of favorite bands, planes, and skyscrapers. NASA created the temper material that is used in Tempur-Pedic beds, prosthetics, and many wheelchair seats. They are responsible for imaging technology that allows CAT scans, advanced MRIs, and new infrared mammograms that increase detection rates by 98 percent. They even made the needles with small silicon chips that reduce the need for invasive surgery when performing biopsies. NASA created the necessary technology for pacemakers, portable dialysis machines, and programmable insulin pumps which use digital telemetry. Laser eye surgeries are performed with the technology that enables the shuttle to dock with the space station. They are responsible for blood pressure monitors, heart monitors, and laser angioplasties. Bringing it closer to home, NASA created scratch- resistant lenses, polarized sunglasses lenses, and the satellite communication technology which brought about cell phones. The roads America drives on have grooves cut into them because NASA realized that it would help reduce hydroplaning, which has contributed to an 85 percent reduction in wet weather traffic accidents. Robotics, world- wide search and rescue systems, space blankets, light emitting diodes or LEDs, cancer treatments, and the list goes on and on. Describing, or even mentioning, all of them would be a feat that would result in a book hundreds of pages long. In fact, NASA is forced to pare down all of its technological inventions to its top 40-50 each year in its annual publication Spinoff. A world without the technologies developed by NASA would be one without your digital camera or your iPod. NASA may not have sent a man to mars, yet, but they may be taking us all along with them when they go.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in 1814, Francis Scott Key wrote of a star- spangled banner which America ``so proudly hailed . . .'' through a night of bomb blasts and rocket-fire. The flag consisted of fifteen stripes, alternating red and white, and fifteen white stars on a field of blue; it united a brand new Nation under the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the 194 years since our national anthem was written, we've come a long way--Old Glory has acquired 35 more stars, and has become the most recognized flag in the world. But its power to unify a nation hasn't changed. Our flag has become synonymous with Freedom, Justice, Prosperity, and all the principles upon which our great Nation was founded. On this, the 58th National Flag Day that our nation has celebrated, let's fly our flags with reverence in honor of our men and women who have given their lives, and for those who continue to fight to defend our great Nation. For a country whose trust is in God, our flag is a precious reminder of how we've gotten here as well as a beacon for which we strive. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it seems like Indiana Jones is at it again. This time the search is on for the secret underground tunnels of Egypt. The United States Army in Texas is training Egyptian soldiers to locate and destroy underground tunnels used by criminals to smuggle arms from Egypt into the Gaza Strip. Our troops are out there teaching digging techniques to the Egyptians looking for the lost treasure tunnels of guns and rockets. We are doing this to help protect the borders of Israel and Egypt. Meanwhile, the U.S.-Mexican border is still porous for underground smuggling. Since 9/11, more than 40 smuggling tunnels from Mexico to the United States have been discovered. Last year, the DEA located a high-tech, sophisticated concrete tunnel 85 feet underground filled with two tons of drugs. Law enforcement expects there to be more tunnels found. Rather than just protecting the borders of other nations by training Egyptian tunnel raiders, maybe we ought to send the military to protect our own southern border from the underground secret tunnel invasion of guns, drugs and people coming into the United States without permission. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the anti-crude oil crowd has an ethical dilemma. You see, they don't want to drill for crude in Alaska, they don't want to drill offshore, especially off that sacred west coast. They don't want any refineries to produce that crude into products. They are just against all this nonsense. After all, they say, crude is the demon of the Earth. However, they don't have a problem with using everything that comes from crude, like gasoline that comes from crude off the Texas east coast, refined in American refineries. And it seems to me that the irrational non-drillers should lead by example, rather than being hypocritical by preaching damnation to crude oil, but using its by- products every day. So no more plastic water bottles, no using insecticides, no more fertilizer, medicine, candles, nylon, paint, makeup, perfume, computers or detergents. No more car rides or plane rides, and no more home heating oil come winter. After all, all of these things come from crude oil. The radical don't-drill folks should literally walk the walk, instead of talking the big talk about how they are going to save us all from that demon crude oil, but sanctimoniously use its products every day. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, this year the Poe folks welcomed two new Texans to our brood, making me a proud grandfather of seven. With each new addition, I think back to my grandfathers and the influences they had on me growing up. While they came from very different backgrounds, their impressions on me as a child set an example of what a father, grandfather and man should be. My mom's father was a lanky, fiery red-headed German who was as hard- headed as he was strong. Theodore Otto Herman Hill, or ``Thunderhead'' as he was more appropriately known, was born in 1899. His Prussian grandparents immigrated to the United States through Galveston in the early 1800's and settled in the growing German community in Texas to begin a new life. I remember him as being very set in his ways, very militaristic in his daily routines. He was meticulous in everything he did and as a result, he did most everything well. Like the Army, he did more before 6 a.m. than most anyone I knew. He arose early, worked hard with his hands all day and reared three girls, he called ``the boys'' to work the cotton fields with him. Papa was a hunter, a taxidermist and a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. He found hundreds of Apache and Comanche arrowheads on his land that he organized and that were later donated to the Texas Ranger Museum. He was the frontiersman type. He could tell the type of tree by looking at the bark or observing the leaves and predicted the weather by just looking at the sky and watching the habits of the animals. And as most men of his generation, he was tough. The only thing I think he was ever scared of was my grandmother--an equally fiery German. Theodore is a long time family name that has been passed on to my son and grandson. My dad's father was of Scots-Irish descent and a man of many hats. He was adopted by a neighboring family at the age of six after his single father decided to move on without him. As a young teenager, he ran away from the only real family he knew and set out to start a life for himself. I loved hearing his stories, some sounded like tall tales. Grandpa, a snake-oil salesman of sorts, rode the rails all over the country, selling anything and everything to earn a buck. After meeting my grandmother in his late teens, the two married and he settled down to raise a family. He became the local Assistant Postmaster, worked on the railroad and was a barber. He opened his own barber shop next door to the local bank and became so involved in the banking business that he ended up running the place. During the Depression he loaned farmers money on a hand shake. That job took him to Pearland, TX, where he started another local bank and sold real estate on the side. Interesting enough, although he was a banker he always paid cash and thought credit cards were a bad idea for average Americans. The concept of rest and relaxation was not one he could appreciate. He was tinkering with something every day of his life. He was an electrician, plumber, made furniture and had a huge garden. He was a leader in the local Church of Christ and never missed a service until his death. He never let the fact of his abandonment as a child be an excuse for anything. Grandpa lived to be 88 years old and he and my grandmothers were a large part of my life and my kids' lives. Papa was tragically killed by a drunk driver in the 1950s while laying asphalt for the Texas Highway Department. Because people married so young back then and their kids married young, I got to spend far more time with my grandparents than most kids do today. Neither of my grandfathers made it past 7th grade, but were far wiser than most men I know. While both very different, they both embodied the very traits that define men of their generation. They were the fathers of the Greatest Generation. They believed in hard work and providing for their families even in the depression--no excuses. They taught their children and their children's children the value of an earned dollar, pride in hard work, respect for their elders and a love of God and country. I am so thankful to have known these two men and wish there were more like them today. They were good men, good examples, good fathers and inspiring grandfathers. Happy Father's Day. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6003 and commend the bipartisan leadership of our House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for taking the first steps towards developing true high speed rail service in America. This bill takes a historic step in the right direction towards developing additional transportation options for Americans faced with congested roads and airspace. It will also bring us up to par with European and Asian high speed rail networks. High speed rail will have ways of connecting people to their place of business, homes, and commercial centers in ways never thought imaginable. I especially support Section 503 of this bill which calls for a study that may consider expanding the existing South Central Corridor that goes through Texas to include the greater Houston region. One day, it could be a reality that 70 percent of Texans, those who live in the greater Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio regions could commute reasonably, perhaps as quick as an hour and a half each way, between those cities to work, visit family, attend entertainment venues, sporting events, fairs, universities, museums, hospitals, and connect to international airports in ways often more timely and efficient than airline travel. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. POE

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the United States has gone to war numerous times to protect the sovereignty of nations. Sixty-four years ago on June 6, thousands of GIs went ashore in France because its borders were invaded by the Nazis. In fact, most of the European countries and north Africa had their sovereign borders overrun by the Nazis. In the Pacific, the United States fought the Japanese because they had invaded the borders of our territories and the borders of China and Indochina. Americans died. Over 400,000 died protecting all of those borders during World War II. After World War II, the United States defended the borders of Western Europe nations against that ``evil empire'' of the Soviet Union and Soviet Communism. In fact, we still have troops in Western Europe. Sixty years later, we still defend those borders. And that is a long time. Then there was the Korean War. In its aftermath with 50,000 Americans killed, we fulfilled our commitment to defend South Korea, and we still have 30,000 troops on that border with North Korea, 50 years plus defending someone else's border. We defend the borders of Iraq and part of the Balkans even to this day. But Madam Speaker, I wonder why we don't have the same commitment to America's borders? Doesn't that bother anyone? Having been to the southern border of the United States numerous times and seeing the ``Maginot Line of Indifference,'' I am puzzled why we seem to ignore the thousands of trespassers, or invaders, if I can use that term, that come from all nations and cross our border without permission. When Mexico invaded the United States at Brownsville, Texas, in 1846, we went to war to defend the southern border. When the outlaw, now folk hero, General Pancho Villa and his bandits came into the United States from Mexico to commit crimes in New Mexico, the United States sent General Blackjack Pershing to go after him, even if it meant going to Mexico. That was during a time when our sovereignty was important to the Nation and to the Federal Government. But the invasion now is much worse. Some estimates put the number of illegals in the United States between 15 and 35 million people. Why don't we have the same moral resolve we had in World War II and Korea to defend our borders from this stealth invasion? It is the duty of government to protect the citizens of this Nation and the States. I will read from the Constitution, something we probably ought to do more of in this Congress. Article IV section 4 of the United States Constitution says, ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against invasion.'' Invasion means intrusion or encroachment. Why doesn't the Government just simply follow the Constitution and prevent invasion into the United States? Now some Chamberlain appeasers want to just tell the illegals they can stay. After all, we can use the cheap plantation labor, the appeasers say. Never mind the crimes some of them commit, never mind how they take some social services without paying for them, never mind how some live off Americans and lawful immigrants. Never mind it is illegal to be in the United States without permission. So why, Madam Speaker, do we defend the borders of other nations but not our own? The Feds say they are trying. But the proof, or the lack of it, is in the results. The border with Mexico is violent. The border is porous, and the border is being invaded. The most powerful nation in the history of the world can stop the secret invasion if it first had the moral resolve to do so, and second, the courage to do whatever is necessary to stop the onslaught of invaders. Maybe we should even use the National Guard or returning troops from Iraq on our southern border. But doing so would take leadership that is committed in word and deed to protecting the sovereignty of this Nation. The United States is worth it, Madam Speaker, even if the amnesty crowd and Mexican President Calderon doesn't like it. And that's just the way it is.